Cavaradossi, Roman Interloper, ftbond, NitaMacdonald1930, SOL, etomaria, Kostyantyn, Benny, Ivanov325, DocH, andria, Joe Smith, CanuckK8, AJG80, gzt
4464 Registered Users |
|
4464 Members
26 Forums
30146 Topics
373640 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#207401 - 08/17/06 12:10 PM
"REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 115
Loc: Annunciation Byzantine Catholi...
|
Glory to Jesus Christ!
The "inclusive language" issue aside, there appears to me to be basically two camps surrounding the discussions of the new translation of the Liturgy: The Fr. Petras perspective ("Revisonism") and those who call for a more faithful adherence to the Ruthenaian Recension ("Recensionism.") For me this points all the more to the crucial need for a comprehensive renewal in our Church, a true return to our sense of Mission, Vision and a Strategic plan. Unless there is a "soil" into which to drop any translation of the liturgy or any adherence to a recension, I do not not think that the desired effect will be achieved. In fact it could backfire. Proper prayer and worship as so many have correctly been saying, is indeed vital to renewal. We must be praying in a way that is honest to our particular liturgical tradition.
However, "proper" prayer and worship is going to have to mean more than just the words, the translation whether it be the Recension in all its pristine form or the organic development of it that Fr. David speaks about.
Take for example a debate over whether to take the Anaphora aloud. To me this debate will be determined by "how" it is taken out loud. We can argue scholastically on one hand that the Anaphora should not be taken aloud. But if it is taken aloud and it inspires the worshippers then you have a determination that goes beyond who has the correct rubric, or exact translation of the Greek. But this brings into the picture the personal conviction of the celebrant of the words that are being prayed as well as the openness of the congregation to the depth of what they are hearing. This openness in turn is dependent upon what the congregation has been taught on other levels about their liturgical, spiritual heritage. In turn our congregations cannot be adequately taught unless their experience is enriched and made more tangible by correctly designed worship edifices, a more "Charismatic," Christ-centered sense of community and worship, stewardship and evangelization. This is a call for an integrated Church, not just a translation here or a rubric there with nothing else changing. Included in this would be the whole world of the "Domestic Church." As one priest said to me, "Do they mean to tell me that suddenly my parish is going to grow because we are now being mandated to say,'whom God loves,' instead of 'God loving bishop!?'
Of course, such things are not going to suddenly and dramatically change the health and evangelical power of a parish that has been laboring under spritual constipation for years. HOWEVER, the effectiveness of the "correct" words or rubrics may be increased if they are set in the context of a comprehensive liturgical renewal of our Church.
By "liturigical" renewal I am refering to the rediscovery and committment through vision and plan of an entire liturgical "ethos." The Schmemanns, Tafts, and Petras's of the Church have long been teaching us that "Liturgy is Life." Well then why don't we embrace it that way? This goes far, far beyond rubric and translation yet at the same time incorporates rubric and translation but within a context that will make rubric and translation effective,(something like a fish is to water. Our Church is mandating the fish but into waters that are polluted and shallow. This will not do justice to the fish.)
Surprising as it may seem, it has been my experience that congregations actually do not care how long the "Mass" is when the "Mass" they are worshipping is part of their TOTAL EXPERIENCE of a Liturgical ethos. Let's develop the Liturgical ethos.
Why not take the same type of effort, investment and commitment that we expended for the new translation and dedicate investments toward a comprehensive renewal? A new translation may not make sense to the rank and file because nothing else of their experience of Church is changing.
There has been no call to our Church to step up to the "New Evangelization." As a pastor I am concerned that the "new music" and the "new liturgy" will be received with a "why are they changing things?" reaction from the rank and file. It could run the risk of seeming topical, artificial and unnecessary simply because nothing else is changing in their same-old,same-old, complacent,predictable and dying experience of Church.
As explosive as the new translation issue has been, we are nonetheless still hovering within the safer zones of rubrics and translation. Is this because we are afraid to enter into the real renewal that is needed? We all know that resources need to be completely reassessed and new and creative ways to invest are called for. "Chapels of convenience" and stretching clergy thin must give way to authentic, dynamic, evangelical parishes and missions. They may become fewer in number (temporarily) but they will be mightier and more capable of evangelizing.
Doors are starting to open big time in TV and radio for the Eatern Churches. But will we invest resources and step through these doors?
Or will we adopt the "safe" and lethal excuse,
"We don't have money for this." The fact is we WILL have money for more fruitful efforts like meida if we have a vision of what would truly yield for us and if we in turn commit to a plan to realize that vision.
Our religious "orders" are dying out. Could this actually be seen not as a negative but as a call for us to move beyond the "hyphenated" models (Byzantine-Benedictine, etc.)and come into our own as more authentic Eastern monastics? The hyphenated models may have been good for a time. But a "hypenated" model was saying that we weren't really capable of doing it on our own, that we have to "piggyback" on to the Romans who are the "real" Church anyway. Is this what we really believe about ourselves and our rich spiritual heritage? Are not the Romans themselves calling us beyond this for the good of the whole Church?
I believe unless we begin asking AND pursuing the answers to questions such as these, any type of
"new translation" or rubrics may not produce the desired effect. I want to be clear in this post: My point here is not for or against the new translation. It is a call to make rubrics and translations part of what I assume these efforts actually seek to be---living the Liturgy.
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207402 - 08/17/06 12:35 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Fatherthomasloya:
As explosive as the new translation issue has been, we are nonetheless still hovering within the safer zones of rubrics and translation. God bless you, Fr. Thomas, I have mentioned this phenomenon a long time ago as the Mommy-May-I syndrome; "Mommy" meaning Rome. At least this is what many of us believe. But is this reality or just an inside-the-box convention of whom we have become? Rubrics and translations are the only things that we believe or maybe Rome will allow. Our canon law defines a "rite" as having at least four unique characteristics: theology, liturgy, spirituality, and discipline. We have become experts in liturgical tradition, but still draw false dicotomies between "more Eastern" and "less Eastern" Catholics. Are we really just an 'adjective' church tradition or one that lives and breathes Eastern-ness internally without first having to draw distinctions between us and them or between the more Eastern and less Eastern. We are our worse enemies; we set up false distinctions and then debate to the death. Lets get back to basics and see with Byzantine eyes. The Gospel will live with or without us. Joe Thur
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207403 - 08/17/06 02:36 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/06/03
Posts: 73
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Fr. Thomas, your words delve into the very heart of what I feel is the basis for many discussions on this forum. I hear them in much the same way the message was delivered at the recent Catechist Workshop. The concept of “Living the Liturgy” or “Enlivening the Liturgy” is a major issue. The people and their participation is the Liturgy.
In both Fr. Petras’ and Prof. Thompson’s presentations, a key topic brought up was that the Liturgy is not just the responses of the congregation. It is necessary that the people partake in all relationships of the Liturgy. These include the exchanges between priest/deacon, priest/cantor, deacon/congregation, and priest/congregation. Therefore it is not only the act of praising in song that brings the Liturgy to life within us. One must be in tune with their ability and attitude towards the times of silent participation, with an awareness of their posture and openness of their heart to all exchanges during the Liturgy. Paraphrasing, we should not turn off our ears because nothing is coming out of our mouths. Can one truly be partaking of the Liturgy if one is not absorbing the priest’s prayers, the Epistle, the Gospel, or the Homily? Let us concentrate more on the message of the “Word” rather than a particular word such as man, us or mankind.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207404 - 08/17/06 03:43 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Junior Member
Registered: 07/29/06
Posts: 7
Loc: Erie, Pa
|
Let us concentrate more on the message of the “Word” rather than a particular word such as man, us or mankind. If this statement were true, why is the Russian Orthodox Church succeeding in its mission efforts, and the Roman Catholic Church faltering? The church does not need another translation, it needs to enforce the one it has.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207405 - 08/17/06 04:03 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/06/03
Posts: 73
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Originally posted by Boyarina:
If this statement were true, why is the Russian Orthodox Church succeeding in its mission efforts, and the Roman Catholic Church faltering? The church does not need another translation, it needs to enforce the one it has. [/QB][/QUOTE] I doubt that either is a result of the English language.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#207406 - 08/17/06 04:26 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Junior Member
Registered: 07/29/06
Posts: 7
Loc: Erie, Pa
|
Certainly not the language, but perhpas all the other "stuff," like knowing who they truly are and sticking with tradition, instead of making it up along the way. Liturgy is something that transcends time and location. It is awe inspiring to pray a Liturgy, word for word, that has been prayed the same way centuries before. The Russian church is expanding because it is doing the "old" things better. They have not trivilized their inheritance, squandering their energies on the wrong things.
Because Liturgy gives expression to a community, the handing on of tradition needs to include a dignified translation. What will people think when they hear "humankind" versus "mankind"? They will bear witness to the fact that the church has begun to engage popular culture, and these contrived intrepretations may, perhaps, bring about an outcry for more fundamental liturgical stylings.
From the date of promuglation, your Liturgy, that was once ageless, now becomes dated.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207407 - 08/17/06 04:34 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 12/15/05
Posts: 733
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
Originally posted by Boyarina:
Certainly not the language, but perhpas all the other "stuff," like knowing who they truly are and sticking with tradition, instead of making it up along the way. Liturgy is something that transcends time and location. It is awe inspiring to pray a Liturgy, word for word, that has been prayed the same way centuries before. The Russian church is expanding because it is doing the "old" things better. They have not trivilized their inheritance, squandering their energies on the wrong things.
Because Liturgy gives expression to a community, the handing on of tradition needs to include a dignified translation. What will people think when they hear "humankind" versus "mankind"? They will bear witness to the fact that the church has begun to engage popular culture, and these contrived intrepretations may, perhaps, bring about an outcry for more fundamental liturgical stylings.
From the date of promuglation, your Liturgy, that was once ageless, now becomes dated. AMEN!!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207408 - 08/17/06 07:29 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 05/09/06
Posts: 492
Loc: just south of nowhere
|
Originally posted by Zeeker:
Can one truly be partaking of the Liturgy if one is not absorbing the priest’s prayers, the Epistle, the Gospel, or the Homily?
I'm not partaking of a complete liturgy when petitions like '...an angel of peace and faithful guide and guardian ....' has been stripped out of the Liturgy. I'm not partaking of a complete liturgy when only one antiphon verse is allowed and causes the people to not hear more for example on feast days and miss some of the explanation of the feast day. I'm not partaking of a complete liturgy when the little litanies are stripped out of the liturgy. I'm not partaking of complete Eastern sprituality when Matins and Vespers are not offered at 80%-90% of our parishes. (Quasi Vespers with Liturgy doesn't count). I am not partaking of complete Eastern sprituality when pews are in the way and preclude people from doing proper prostrations during the Great Fast. Furthermore, since it is a lost practice, why aren't clergy instructing and educating people on this practice?
Let us concentrate more on the message of the “Word” rather than a particular word such as man, us or mankind.
I agree that our focus should be on evangelizing and growing our churches. Good time and energy is being wasted on this New Liturgy.
But shouldn't we be bringing new people into churches that embrace our Eastern Christianity and Traditions and not some new modern hybrid that is the flavor of the month.
The Litrugy is our foundation. Let's make it strong and Traditional and then build on it.
Long live RECENSIONianism!
Monomakh
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#207409 - 08/17/06 09:09 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
I thank Father Thomas for his dedication to the Church and for his work in evangelizing. I agree with him on many of his points and have a different take on some of them. Father Thomas wrote:
For me this points all the more to the crucial need for a comprehensive renewal in our Church, a true return to our sense of Mission, Vision and a Strategic plan. … [skip] … Proper prayer and worship as so many have correctly been saying, is indeed vital to renewal. We must be praying in a way that is honest to our particular liturgical tradition. On this point Father Thomas and I agree totally. The further point here I would insist on (yes, I sound like a broken record) is that liturgical prayer is the foundation upon which everything else is built upon. We cannot have a correct sense of Mission, Vision and all the rest without good Liturgy. The entire life of a parish flows from the celebration of the Liturgy. A parish that has a poor liturgical life can have all the nice programs and classes for evangelism and have everyone one of them fail if the liturgical worship is not good. Father Thomas wrote:
However, "proper" prayer and worship is going to have to mean more than just the words… Exactly! When the apostles asked the Lord how they should pray he taught them: “Our Father, who art in heaven.” The apostles commanded the faithful in the Didache to pray this prayer at least 3 times a day. They were wise in doing this because not only is the Lord’s Prayer good prayer, it is also a method or model of prayer. Likewise our Ruthenian recension is a masterpiece of prayer, one which we do not know as a Church because we have neglected it for so long. The texts and rubrics of our recension are prayer as well as a method and model of prayer that lead us to “’proper’ prayer and worship.” They don’t need to be overhauled to the taste of some in the early 21st century. They need to be prayed in full to form us as a praying Church. Father Thomas wrote:
…the translation whether it be the Recension in all its pristine form or the organic development of it that Fr. David speaks about. Something that is forced cannot be considered organic. Numerous posters have pointed out that the Byzantine Church has talked about praying the Anaphora out loud for almost a thousand years. The Church has soundly rejected this idea. We even have Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commenting on the multiple texts for the Anaphora (now appearing in the Roman Church tailored for many occasions) reflecting on the possibility that “silence… especially, might constitute communion before God.” It might be that someday this will be an organic development, but no one can consider it such in the Byzantine Church. No, the way forward here is liberty. Organic development can take place only where there is liberty. Our liturgical books offer liberty on this issue. Development must not be forced. Those who force development cannot claim that it is organic. The debate is most certainly not about how the Anaphora should be taken out loud. The debate is whether the Holy Spirit will be free to lead or whether He shall be stifled into one position or another. Father Thomas wrote:
…By "liturigical" renewal I am refering to the rediscovery and committment through vision and plan of an entire liturgical "ethos." The Schmemanns, Tafts, and Petras's of the Church have long been teaching us that "Liturgy is Life." Well then why don't we embrace it that way? Because we are afraid of the power of Christ in our lives. Because we are afraid of the power of Christ in our Church. Father Thomas wrote:
There has been no call to our Church to step up to the "New Evangelization." A call to an active effort to evangelize is premature in a Church were the Liturgy is often poor, and where the people are afraid to pray what the Lord has given them as he has given it to them. Programs might get them in the door. Good liturgical prayer is what gets them to stay. Good Liturgy is what feeds the parish as it grows in Christ. Father Thomas wrote:
As explosive as the new translation issue has been, we are nonetheless still hovering within the safer zones of rubrics and translation. Is this because we are afraid to enter into the real renewal that is needed? I’m not sure what Father Thomas is suggesting here. Can he please clarify what he means about real renewal? For me and for many in our Church real renewal is praying our official tradition, allowing the Lord to form us and our Church. Changes will come someday, and will come as a whole to the entire Byzantine Church. I am hoping here that Father Thomas’ idea of entering into the unsafe zones does not involve more liturgical change but rather a change that is nothing less that a radical rededication of our lives and our Church to the Lord Jesus Christ! I see real renewal in parishes that take Liturgy seriously. I see real renewal and real growth in parishes that are attempting to pray our liturgical tradition. Admin / John 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207411 - 08/18/06 07:53 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 5484
Loc: Joliet, Illinois
|
When I received my first assignment as full-time senior pastor of a Church many years ago that particular congregation had been in a downward spiral for several years. I analyzed the problems they faced and they boiled down to three. In a general meeting of the congregation I ponted to the three problems and told the congregation that the way out of our dilemma is to grab hold of one of the issues and unravel it. In theory it didn't matter which we tackled first because each controlled the other.
In other words, in theory, it did not matter for our purposes whether the chicken or the egg came first we had to figure out which one we were going to develop first and then go after it. Providence would take care of the rest.
Eastern Catholicism has been in a downward spiral for some time. Specifically the BC Church has been in serious decline for some time. We know that pastors are stretched beyond reasonable limits. We know that for some reason many don't wish to evangelize. We've convinced ourselves that going to meetings actually addresses a problem. We debate over liturgy and have a majority of our temples still not looking or feeling like Eastern temples. We pour money into a seminary when we have almost no new vocations. I suppose if we wanted to really make ourselves sick we could make a nearly endless list of problems that ought to paralyze us and probably have.
Can anyone deny that we have "Analysis Paralysis" as several wits have noticed when looking at many an organization? We've become so afraid to act that the fear of acting has become perhaps the central road block to our Church.
So we continue to tinker around the edges and really don't address anything.
In my situation of many years ago I took my role as leader of the congregation seriously. I said here are the three issues that must be addressed. Each is interrelated so we can unravel this damning cycle by attacking one of them with a fury not seen heretofore. We prayed hard before setting off but we set off without delay. We grew, the ratio of women to men which had been 4:1 slowly became 2:1. Our Sunday School had only one teacher before the first fall we had 2 teachers for every class. Evangelization became central, then worship renewal, then on and on until we had a whole set of new problems. Where do we put the people? How do we modernize our building? Who will keep track of all of the funds coming in? Which missionary endeavors do we support?
This isn't anything new to Father Loya. He's done the same things and much more with what God has given him. He knows who the man on point is in the local Church and he has not shrunk from that responsibility.
Did I make some mistakes along the way? You betcha. Every good pastor knows that he will make what is considered later to be mistakes but they won't let that knowledge keep him from action.
Our efforts over the summer to organize a conference on the liturgy was not simply to give a voice to people about the liturgy. Our efforts were designed to flush out the leadership so that they would give us the guidance so desparately needed.
Who knows why that effort did not work? There was no real danger in it, at least not compared with continued inaction. But it did not work. I frankly don't know what will work, but leaders don't give up. If A doesn't get the desired result then the leder goes to B and then to 24 more options and then moves to double letter options and then to numbers until something is found that does work.
Leaders know this. Father Loya knows this.
So, which came first the Chicken or the Egg? I think we know that the chicken did but then before either came God who actually did something.
Will our bishops stand before us and analyze the issues, sort out which one he and the Church will tackle first, and give us the charge to go after it? We will see.
CDL
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207412 - 08/18/06 11:26 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 02/13/04
Posts: 146
Loc: Ruthenia
|
Originally posted by Boyarina:
Certainly not the language, but perhpas all the other "stuff," like knowing who they truly are and sticking with tradition, instead of making it up along the way. Liturgy is something that transcends time and location. It is awe inspiring to pray a Liturgy, word for word, that has been prayed the same way centuries before. The Russian church is expanding because it is doing the "old" things better. They have not trivilized their inheritance, squandering their energies on the wrong things.
Because Liturgy gives expression to a community, the handing on of tradition needs to include a dignified translation. What will people think when they hear "humankind" versus "mankind"? They will bear witness to the fact that the church has begun to engage popular culture, and these contrived intrepretations may, perhaps, bring about an outcry for more fundamental liturgical stylings.
From the date of promuglation, your Liturgy, that was once ageless, now becomes dated. Boyarina has it right. The proposed reform is already dated even before it is fully enacted. The inclusive language, the prayers out loud and all the other reforms are right from the worst of the 1960s and 1970s post-Vatican II reforms in the RCC. As they are being forced down our throats the Romans are abandoning them and returning back to their own traditions. Father Thomas has coined an excellent phrase: The Petras Recension vs. the Ruthenian Recension.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207413 - 08/18/06 11:48 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 12/15/05
Posts: 733
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
Originally posted by John Damascene:
[QUOTE]The inclusive language, the prayers out loud and all the other reforms are right from the worst of the 1960s and 1970s post-Vatican II reforms in the RCC. As they are being forced down our throats the Romans are abandoning them and returning back to their own traditions. LORD HAVE MERCY.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207414 - 08/18/06 11:51 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 08/29/98
Posts: 3811
Loc: Washington, PA
|
JD,
You have no idea what you are talking about. Inclusive language didn't become a problem in the Latin Church in the US until the revision of the NAB. It is still not a part of their official liturgical texts. They are certainly not going back to reciting the Anaphora silently. The only thing they are correcting right is dumbed down translation.
Are you able to distinguish between what the Council called for, what was officially promulgated and what some priests did of their own volition?
Are you able to realize that the right thing is the right thing whether Latins correct it first or we do? We baptize by immersion, it is the better practice, and the Latins have adopted it. The Anaphora aloud is the better practice and we are adopting that. I don't want to continue a less beneficial practice simply because the Orthodox haven't corrected it.
Fr. Deacon Lance
_________________________
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207415 - 08/18/06 12:07 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
The present Latin Mass regulations permit the recitation of the Anaphora aloud, but do not require it.
Fr Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207416 - 08/18/06 12:09 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Administrator: Father Thomas wrote:
As explosive as the new translation issue has been, we are nonetheless still hovering within the safer zones of rubrics and translation. Is this because we are afraid to enter into the real renewal that is needed? I think it means, "Re-arranging the deck furniture of the Titanic will not be the answer to saving the ship and lives!" Joe Thur
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207417 - 08/18/06 12:16 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
There's a saying that applies here.....
If you keep on doing what you're doing, you'll get what you always get!
Shame, shame that the Bishops won't listen to their clergy -- the people on the frontlines. This will be a hard lesson.
JMHO,
Cathy
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207418 - 08/18/06 12:19 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 08/29/98
Posts: 3811
Loc: Washington, PA
|
Fr. Serge,
In my 34 years I have yet to see a Latin priest recite the Anaphora silently.
Fr. Deacon Lance
_________________________
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207421 - 08/18/06 01:58 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Father Deacon Lance wrote:
[The Latin Church is] certainly not going back to reciting the Anaphora silently. In the near term I agree. In the long term, I don’t know. As I noted above, in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) noted that “silence… especially, might constitute communion before God” when referring to the Anaphora. Certainly there are those at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church who respect the older tradition and see room for it in the Church. I fully expect in our lifetimes that the RCC Mass will change back to where the priest faces East (away from the people) for a good portion of the Mass – especially the Eucharistic Prayer. When that occurs the stage will be set for the possible restoration of praying the Eucharistic Prayer quietly. Given the major changes the current Holy Father has made in the Masses at the Vatican (more Gregorian chant and more signs of an emerging trend toward restoration instead of innovation) I would not be surprised to see things happen fairly quickly. If this new liturgy (texts and rubrics) is ever mandated nationwide I am sure it will be appealed to the Holy Father. Given that Rome has granted RC priests the right to pray the 1962 version of the Latin Mass and that (as Father Serge noted) there is no mandate for Roman Catholics to pray the Anaphora out loud I am sure that the Holy Father will grant individual Byzantine Catholic priests and parishes the right to follow Byzantine tradition. Father Deacon Lance wrote:
Are you able to realize that the right thing is the right thing whether Latins correct it first or we do? We baptize by immersion, it is the better practice, and the Latins have adopted it. The Anaphora aloud is the better practice and we are adopting that. I don't want to continue a less beneficial practice simply because the Orthodox haven't corrected it. Are you really suggesting that a few people in our Church are capable of recognizing what is the right thing and that all of Orthodoxy is not? I hope not! The idea that praying the Anaphora aloud is the better practice is merely private opinion. As I noted above, the idea has been around for a thousand years and it has not been adopted by the Byzantine Church. Pope Benedict XVI is the author of the idea that “silence might be best”. What reason is there to legislate against the Holy Father’s idea when the Church will be better served by liberty? The whole problem with this proposed reform is that it is based upon what a few people consider to be a better practice. All of the arguments put forward by those who support the revision do not add up to anything more than personal preference. One should not revise the Divine Liturgy based upon the personal preference of a few. The way forward is to respect and embrace the official 1942 Ruthenian recension. Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207422 - 08/18/06 06:14 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Dear Father Deacon,
I attend Latin Masses quite seldom - but I have done so on any number of occasions and noted the silent offering of the Anaphora. If it's any consolation this is more common in England than in Ireland.
Come to think of it, though, I cannot remember ever, anywhere, attending a Latin Mass celebrated in any language other than Latin and during which the Anaphora was actually chanted, even though the Sacramentary provides music for the purpose.
I also cannot remember the last time I heard a Latin Rite priest use the fourth Eucharistic Prayer.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207423 - 08/18/06 06:45 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 09/09/03
Posts: 102
Loc: southern USA
|
Originally posted by Administrator:
If this new liturgy (texts and rubrics) is ever mandated nationwide I am sure it will be appealed to the Holy Father. Given that Rome has granted RC priests the right to pray the 1962 version of the Latin Mass and that (as Father Serge noted) there is no mandate for Roman Catholics to pray the Anaphora out loud I am sure that the Holy Father will grant individual Byzantine Catholic priests and parishes the right to follow Byzantine tradition.
Glory to Jesus Christ! Is it really true that there is no mandate for Roman Catholic priests to pray the Canon aloud? Paragraph 78 of the 2003 GIRM says that "The Eucharistic Prayer demands that all listen to it with reverence and in silence." This would seem, at least to me, to presume that the priest is praying it aloud if the people are supposed to be listending to the words. In reference to the Roman Canon, it says in paragraph 220 (speaking of concelebration) that "It is appropriate that the commemoration of the living (the Memento) and the Communicantes (In union with the whole Church) be assigned to one or other of the concelebrating priests, who then speaks these prayers aloud, with hands extended." Paragraph 223 stipulates "The commemoration of the dead (Memento) and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus (For ourselves, too) are appropriately assigned to one or other of the concelebrants, who speaks them aloud alone, with hands extended." Likewise, when speaking of Eucharistic Prayer II in paragraph 228 it says "The intercessions for the living (Recordare, Domine [Lord, remember your Church]) and for the dead (Memento etiam fratrum nostrorum [Remember our brothers and sisters]) are appropriately assigned to one or other of the concelebrants, who speaks them aloud alone, with hands extended." Similar instructions are found for the other Eucharistic Prayers. Of course, it also says in paragraph 219 "In Eucharistic Prayer I, that is, the Roman Canon, the prayer Te igitur (We come to you, Father) is said by the principal celebrant alone, with hands extended." This does not actually say for the priest to say the prayer "aloud." However, one would wonder why the priest would quietly pray parts of the Anaphora in secret while the concelebrants would be directed to pray parts aloud. -M. Therrien
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207424 - 08/19/06 04:53 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
There is nothing - except on Holy Thursday and at ordinations - which requires that the Roman Mass should be concelebrated.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207426 - 08/19/06 09:47 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
I’m pressed for time this morning but would like to offer a longish excerpt as food for thought for this discussion: “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI):
”In 1978, to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon always have to be said out loud. After much consideration, I should like to repeat and underline the point here in the hope that, twenty years later, this thesis will be better understood. Meanwhile, in their efforts to reform the Missal, the German liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis. Since the reform of the liturgy, an attempt has been made to meet the crisis by incessantly inventing new Eucharistic Payers, and in the process we have sunk farther and farther into banality. Multiplying words is no help – that is all too evident. The liturgists have suggested all kinds of remedies, which certainly contain elements that are worthy of consideration. However, as far as I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon – overlaid in part with meditative singing – became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass. My suggestion in 1978 was as follows. First, liturgical education ought to aim at making the faithful familiar with the essential meaning and fundamental orientation of the Canon. Secondly, the first words of the various prayers should be said out loud as a kind of cue for the congregation, so that each individual in his silent prayer can take up the intonation and bring the personal into the communal and the communal into the personal. Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice – the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.” (pages 214-216) Here’s my whole point again: -Those who are proposing mandates for the Anaphora to only be prayed out loud are merely latching on to a custom introduced in the Latin Church in the wake of the Vatican II reforms that has not yet borne fruit. -Roman Catholics are reconsidering this custom at the highest levels. Some top liturgical theologians are arguing for silence while the priest prays the Anaphora quietly. -Where a custom in one Church has not yet borne fruit another Church should not imitate it. -Those who argue that the custom of the Anaphora being prayed out loud is an organic process have nothing to fear from either liberty or the Holy Spirit. -Our official 1942 Liturgy offers liberty on this issue, the soil in which such an organic process might take place. -Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) notes that it was no accident that parts of the Canon were prayed in silence. [And we know that the praying of the Anaphora went quiet BEFORE the language used ceased to be the vernacular.]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207427 - 08/19/06 10:30 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 11/26/02
Posts: 1165
Loc: East
|
Originally posted by carson daniel lauffer:
Joe,
The deck chair cliche was certainly cute several years ago but how are you applying it in the present situation?
CDL I think it's an apt description our our present spiritual crisis. The hull of the church has been breached and the ocean is overtaking us. There have been a few life boats since 1646, but even those boats are leaking. It's time for the Byzantine Orthodox and Catholic Churches to haul out the blueprint (The Gospels) and rebuild the ship. BTW has anyone else seen Father Thomas Hopko's recent writings over at www.ocanews.org ? Replace OCA with BCC and it sounds like our church. Why a new Divine Liturgy?  Where is the rest of the plan to get our church evangelizing again?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207428 - 08/19/06 10:38 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by carson daniel lauffer:
Joe,
The deck chair cliche was certainly cute several years ago but how are you applying it in the present situation?
CDL Dan, Its not about me, Dan. It was about Mr. Administrator's problem with what Fr. Thomas wrote in his post. I wasn't trying to be cute. Mr. Administrator had a problem understanding Fr. Thomas in one area. I only tried to use an analogy the way I saw it back then and see it today. This is still the present situation, especially in safe areas of liturgical tweeking. To answer your question, my analogy is still applicable. We must grow outside the box of liturgical navel-gazing. Listen to what Fr. Thomas has been teaching, especially in the post I was only trying to convey understanding. There is much more. Joe
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207430 - 08/19/06 04:33 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 942
Loc: usa
|
Here is a lengthy quote from the Holy Father (Cardinal Ratzinger) on the Divine Liturgy. I forget where I found it. But it is apropos to this thread; An ancient legend about the origins of Christianity in Russia relates that when Prince Vladimir of Kiev was in search of the true religion for his people, there came before him, one after another, the representatives of Islam from Bulgaria, the representatives of Judaism, and the envoys of the Pope from Germany. Each proposed their faith as the right one and the best of all. It is said, however, the Prince remained dissatisfied. He only reached a decision, the story goes, when his own envoys came back from Constantinople, where they had attended a solemn liturgy in the Church of Santa Sophia. They were full of enthusiasm, the legend says, and said to the Prince: "When we came to the country of the Greeks, we were brought to where they celebrate the liturgy for their God... We do not know if we were in heaven or on earth... We experienced that there God dwells among men..." This story is, as it stands, certainly not historical. The adherence of the "Rus" to Christianity and the definitive decision to associate itself with Byzantium occurred through a long and complex process, the main outlines of which modern scholars feel they have been able to retrace with some exactitude. But, as always, this legend carries within it a profound nucleus of truth. In fact, the inner power of the liturgy, without a doubt, played an essential role in the spread of Christianity. Even beyond this general connection between liturgy and mission, however, the legend of the liturgical origin of Russia's conversion to Christianity tells us something even more specific about the inner connection between the liturgy and Christian mission.
THE BYZANTINE LITURGY WAS NOT "MISSIONARY"
In fact, the Byzantine liturgy which so moved the Russian visitors in search of God, was not in and of itself, missionary. It was not an interpretation of the faith addressed to those on the outside, to non-believers, but was rooted entirely within the faith. In the Acts of the Apostles, there is a passing reference to the fact that St. Paul celebrated the Eucharist with the Christians of Troas "in the upper chamber" (Acts 20:8). The early Christians connected this "upper chamber" in a way that seemed to them entirely obvious with the fact that the disciples, together with Mary, waited in prayer and received the Holy Spirit in the upper room (Acts 1:13) after the ascension of the Lord. This upper room in its turn was identified--and this was historically correct--with the room of the Last Supper, in which Jesus had celebrated the first Eucharist with the Twelve. The upper room became the symbol of the internal gathering of the faithful, of the capacity of the Eucharist to enable one to transcend ordinary daily habits. The upper room thus came to express the "mystery of the faith" (1 Tim 3:9; cf 3:16), at the center of which stands the Eucharist. The Roman liturgy inserted this acclamation "the mystery of the faith" into the narration of the institution of the sacrament. In so doing, the Church made the acclamation a constitutive part of the central Eucharistic event. In this way, the Church correctly interpreted the primitive Christian heritage: the Eucharistic liturgy, as such, is not directed toward the non-believer, but, as a Mystery, presupposes an "initiation": only someone who has entered into the mystery with his life can participate in it; someone who knows Christ from the outside only, like "the people," whose opinions Peter refers to the Lord near Caesarea Philippi just before his Christological confession (Mark 8:28), cannot participate in it. Only he can communicate with Christ in the Sacrament who, in the communion of faith, has already reached a profound agreement and understanding with Him. Let us return to our legend. What persuaded the envoys of the Russian Prince that the faith celebrated in the Orthodox liturgy was true was not a type of missionary argumentation whose elements appeared more enlightening to listeners than those of other religions. Rather, what struck them was the mystery as such, the mystery which, precisely by going beyond all discussion, caused the power of the truth to shine forth to the reason. Put in a different way, the Byzantine liturgy was not a way of teaching doctrine and was not intended to be. It was not a display of the Christian faith in a way acceptable or attractive to onlookers. What impressed onlookers about the liturgy was precisely its utter lack of an ulterior purpose, the fact that it was celebrated for God and not for spectators, that its sole intent was to be before God and for God "euarestos euprosdektos" (Romans 12:1; 15:16): pleasing and acceptable to God, as the sacrifice of Abel had been pleasing to God. Precisely this "disinterest" of standing before God and of looking toward Him was what caused a divine light to descend on what was happening and caused that divine light to be perceptible even to onlookers. We have, in this way, already reached a first important conclusion regarding the liturgy. To speak, as has been common since the 1950s, of a "missionary liturgy" is at the very least an ambiguous and problematic way of speaking. In many circles of liturgists, this has led, in a truly excessive way, to making the instructive element in the liturgy, the effort to make it understandable even for outsiders, the primary criterion of the liturgical form. The idea that the choice of liturgical forms must be made from the "pastoral" point of view suggests the presence of this same anthropocentric error. Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, it serves to transmit information--in so far as this is possible in view of the weariness which has entered the liturgy due to the rationalisms and banalities involved in this approach. In this view, the liturgy is an instrument for the construction of a community, a method of "socialization" among Christians. Where this is so, perhaps God is still spoken of, but God in reality has no role; it is a matter only of meeting people and their needs halfway and of making them contented. But precisely this approach ensures that no faith is fostered, for the faith has to do with God, and only where His nearness is made present, only where human aims are set aside in favor of the reverential respect due to Him, only there is born that credibility which prepares the way for faith. It is not necessary for us here to take into consideration all the various ways and possibilities of mission, which certainly must often begin with very simple human contacts, always illuminated by enough at present to affirm that the Eucharist as such is not immediately oriented toward the missionary reawakening of the faith. The Eucharist is located rather within the faith and nourishes it; it gazes primarily upon God and attracts men and women by means of this gaze. It attracts them through the divine condescension, which becomes their ascension into communion with God. The liturgy seeks to please God, and to lead men and women to consider pleasing God also the criterion of their lives. And, from this point of view, the liturgy is certainly and in a very profound sense the origin of mission.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207431 - 08/20/06 12:05 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
The Administrator's comments regarding silence in the Liturgy cited from writings by the Holy Father do not pertain to the liturgical practice of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic or Orthodox). Praying the Anaphora out of the hearing of the people is not the same as silence. Outside of the procession with the Holy Gifts during the PreSanctified Liturgy, I have not witnessed a silent period during our liturgical services. The current practice of the "silent Anaphora" has the priest praying portions of the Anaphora in a low voice while the cantors and/or congregation are singing. For example, once the Sanctus is finished the priest intones the words of institution aloud. The Byzantine practice of Anaphora prayed in a low voice by the priest during liturgical hymns is not the silence as communion before God to which the Administrator refers.
The Latin practice of silence was just that- silence. As I recall, the priest would pray the Roman Canon in a low voice after (not during) the Sanctus, so there was an extended period of silence during the Mass. Since there was complete silence, the hand bells would alert the faithful to the elevation of the Gifts. Yet, the faithful became separated from the action at the altar, so much so, that pious practices, like praying the rosary, developed to fill the silence. I hardly think the Holy Father is an advocate of returning the Mass to this scenario.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207432 - 08/20/06 04:41 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Dear Father Deacon,
Three points this morning:
1. It would be well, and useful, to read all of Pope Benedict's published work on the liturgy - it's good in itself, it will be worth-while to become further acquainted with his thoughts on the matter, and it will remove the need for speculation about what his thoughts are.
2. For the Roman Rite, one must distinguish between a Low Mass (which was the more common form of celebration) and a High Mass (which was always the normative form of celebration). At High Mass, the usual practice was to sing the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are filled with Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest) while the bishop or priest was already quietly offering the Post-Sanctus portion of the Anaphora. The choir would then be silent, everyone would kneel down, and prayerfully await the Institution Narrative (read inaudibly, of course, but everyone over the age of seven knew perfectly well what the bishop or priest was saying) and the Elevations. Then the choir and often the congregation would stand and sing the Benedictus (Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest) while the bishop or priest continued to offer the remainder of the Anaphora. When the singing was done, everyone would again kneel down and await the conclusion of the Anaphora, the sung Amen, the sung Lord's Prayer and so forth.
3. It is not particularly unusual at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil to have a notable period of quiet while the bishop or priest offers his inaudible portions of the Anaphora. Oddly enough, though, it was and to a significant degree remains unusual in the several Ruthenian-Ukrainian jurisdictions to provide complete texts of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil for use by the people.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207434 - 08/20/06 11:13 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
3. It is not particularly unusual at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil to have a notable period of quiet while the bishop or priest offers his inaudible portions of the Anaphora. Oddly enough, though, it was and to a significant degree remains unusual in the several Ruthenian-Ukrainian jurisdictions to provide complete texts of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil for use by the people.
Fr. Serge Not to say that this may occur, but I have not been present at a celebration of the Liturgy of St Basil (Catholic or Orthodox) where the inaudbile portions of the Anaphora were prayed in a period of silence. Nor have I watched a televised broadcast of an Orthodox celebration of the Liturgy of Saint Basil where the inaudible portions of the Anaphora were prayed in silence. It may not be unusual, but it's not common.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207435 - 08/20/06 04:35 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/12/02
Posts: 1101
Loc: ѲулκαндÏα
|
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
3. It is not particularly unusual at the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil to have a notable period of quiet while the bishop or priest offers his inaudible portions of the Anaphora. Oddly enough, though, it was and to a significant degree remains unusual in the several Ruthenian-Ukrainian jurisdictions to provide complete texts of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil for use by the people.
Fr. Serge As an aside... In the Galician chant tradition there are special melodies - more elaborate - to be used during the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil. This music is more than adequate to 'cover' the longer prayers and thereby avoid periods of silence, which are out of place in Eastern services. Unfortunately, most chanters do not use these melodies.  Then again, there are clergy who, in parishes where the regular melodies are used, will stop the silent prayers when the congregation/choir have finished singing and carry on with the audible texts. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207436 - 08/20/06 06:00 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Haven't taken a survey, but it would surprise me to find that conservative Orthodox are overly enthused about televising the Divine Liturgy with no control over who may be watching it or under what conditions.
The magnificent and highly edifiying video-recording of the canonization of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco does not give most of the Anaphora at all.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207437 - 08/21/06 10:54 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
I thank Father Deacon John for his posts. I ask him to reconsider some of what he has written. As Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) noted, in the West the quietly prayed Canon was “overlaid in part with meditative singing”. In the East it was usually overlaid entirely with singing. Father Deacon might be able to legitimately argue that there is a qualitative difference between a total silence and a silence overlaid with meditative singing, but he cannot get away from the fact that the faithful fully participate even when the Anaphora is prayed quietly. [This is the heart of the discussion as those who support the mandate for the priests to pray the Anaphora aloud have claimed that the people do not really participate when they don’t hear every word.] Praying the Anaphora out of the hearing of the people is a type of silence. In the East this silence is overlaid with the meditative singing of the “Holy, Holy, Holy”, the “We Praise You” and the hymn to the Mother of God. In the West it was filled with the “Sanctus” and the rest. The principle of silence overlaid with meditative singing is the same, even though the overlays are not identical. Father Deacon mentions that he hardly thinks the Holy Father is advocating a return of the Mass to the time when the people quietly prayed the Rosary (or other pious practices) to fill the time. He is quite right here. The Holy Father has described his ideas to create a proper filled silence – that the priest prays the first words of the various prayers as a cue to the people. Essentially that is what our traditional form does! As the priest intones the public parts of the Anaphora he is cueing the people as to where he is in his prayer (“Let us give thanks to the Lord” / “It is proper and just”, “Singing, shouting, crying out”, “Take, eat…”, “Drink”, “We offer to You Yours of Your own”, “Especially … for the Mother of God”).But Father Deacon fails to address my questions (those who support the revisions always seem to fail to answer the questions put to them): -The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? -Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity? It seems once again the liberty offered by our Ruthenian liturgical tradition is best.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207438 - 08/21/06 12:27 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Administrator:
As the priest intones the public parts of the Anaphora he is cueing the people as to where he is in his prayer (“Let us give thanks to the Lord” / “It is proper and just”, “Singing, shouting, crying out”, “Take, eat…”, “Drink”, “We offer to You Yours of Your own”, “Especially … for the Mother of God”). Its always nice to know where one is during Liturgy. Included in the above mentioned acclamations, we used to ring them handbells. We were too busy kneeling and praying the rosary. It is typical of the liturgy for the deacon to remind the people to be attentive. But why is he mute during the Anaphora? Why no command to look alive!? At least we had handbells. Why are prayers for Baptism and Crowning taken aloud, but not the entire Anaphora? I notice how 'aloud' aloud is when some parts of the Anaphora are taken aloud, but NOT ... and I shiver just thinking of it ... the epiclesis (never the epiclesis!). It seems to me that when we take parts of the Anaphora aloud, we cherry pick what meets the litmus test of the moment. Are we "less" Eastern? Then no Epiclesis. Are we Orthodox? Then Epiclesis aloud with blessings and Amens, but only bowed head during the Institution Narrative. If silent, then the olbigatory Words of Institution, the Kodak moment of Transubstantiation. Handbells too and the host lifted aloft for all to see. But no Anaphora in our liturgy is truly silent. Somewhere, someone decided to pick what parts were good enough to be taken aloud. These parts remind me of watching a movie where one person is on the phone talking to someone we can't see or hear. We only hear the responses. But responses to what? We are hiding an excellent opportunity to allow the liturgy become a school of prayer. My inquiry is not into how we should pray the Anaphora by whose tradition and/or rubrics, but what is the NATURE of an anaphoric prayer? When and where did we start messing with prayers like this? The Anaphora is a beautiful prayer. One doesn't have to fully 'understand' it in order to appreciate it and learn from it. Is there a magical age of reason when the words of the Anaphora make sense? Aside from this century's version of tradition, what exactly IS the nature of the Anaphora? I would think that a silent Anaphora falls in the same boat as a private Baptism/Chrismation and Crowning. Where something should be public and celebrated, it is, instead, hidden under some falsely alleged aura of mystery and incense. Joe
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207439 - 08/21/06 01:17 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Joe - in one posting you raise many questions, but the questions are not bad so I'll take a crack at it. The deacon is not mute during the Anaphora. It begins with the deacon's admonition "Let us stand aright, let stand well, let us attend to offer the holy oblation in peace!" If the diptychs were done in full (a rare event these days) we would hear more from the deacon during the Anaphora. Why are prayers for Baptism and Crowning taken aloud, but not the entire Anaphora? A fair question. One possible answer is that since these events are by their nature relatively rare, people are honestly unlikely to know what is going on unless it goes on out loud. A second might be that there does not seem to be the same temptation to abuse these texts for conjuring purposes. As to the Epiclesis, I have attended Divine Liturgy in one or two Orthodox parishes where it is read aloud, with the "Amen" responses coming from the people - and this seems to be an anti-papal demonstration. Father Archimandrite Ephrem has commented negatively on this phenomenon more than once. The Kodak moment of Transubstantiation? Having a taste for blasphemous humor, I enjoyed that line, but nevertheless I recommend against its use - it's likely to offend people (I myself wondered what a "Kondak" moment might be - and then I realized that "Kodak" was not a typographical erre!). In any event, though, the whole idea of isolating a specific moment in the Anaphora as the Magic Moment of Transubstantiation is itself a Western distortion of the patristic understanding of what is going on - and leads directly to the Reformation error of cutting out the entire Anaphora except for the Institution Narrative. At the risk of having people scream at me (I'm used to it!) I would suggest that the Divine Liturgy following the Dismissal of the Catechumens is not a school of prayer; it is prayer itself - and that is another matter. Mystification is not part of the Anaphora, but mystery is, and cultivating an aware adoration of what is happening invisibly is no bad thing to do. As to understanding the Anaphora - on the one hand, it is no more than right that understanding should be encouraged in several ways, such as good preaching on the subject, and providing people with the relevant texts. But we must beware of a facile reductionism which would claim that so long as the Anaphora is done aloud and in the vernacular, there is no longer a problem of understanding - because, of course, there are many problems of understanding and some of them are linguistic. No matter how much one may "dumb down" the translation, there will remain passages that are not in day-to-day use and which are not readily grasped by much of anyone. Trying to go deeper into the Mystery is an assignment, not just for a lifetime, but for eternity. Your question as to the nature of an Anaphoric prayer is legitimate and justified, but would require a lengthy answer (and I don't claim to have the entire answer). so at least for the moment, I pray thee hold me excused! When and where did we start messing with the Anaphora? Surprise, surprise - the pressure to have the Anaphora aloud begin when the Latins began doing this. In other words, it's quite recent. That does not mean that nobody, ever, suggested such a thing previously - but it does mean that the Church, as distinct from certain heretical movements, did not see fit to do this in practice. The Anaphora is most certainly a beautiful prayer, and we can cerainly learn from it - having spent all of the past fortnight working on a translation of an unusual variation of the Anaphora of the Liturgy of Saint Basil, I can assure anyone that the effort has heightened my appreciation of it. But the actual liturgical proclamation of the Anaphora during the Divine Liturgy is not a study session - there we are called to enter into the prayer, not to study it. Our study of the prayer is an excellent preparation, and an excellent reflection. Is there an "age of reason" when one magically understands the Anaphora? Well, I'm 64 and I wouldn't claim to have reached such an age yet. I've spent much time in my life studying the Anaphora, and I know a few things about it, but a full understanding is and will probably remain beyond me. That doesn't inhibit me from praying the Anaphora and rejoicing in it. The Church does not teach, and has not taught, that Baptisms and Weddings should be done privately. The Church does teach and has taught that the offering of the Anaphora in silence is no bad thing. Unless we are to take this as prima facie evidence that the Church has been wrong for well over a thousand years, it might be wise to spend some time reflecting on the differences which lead to these different approaches. Here's a clue: whether the Anaphora is in silence, or aloud, or some combination of the two, the Priest may not offer the Divine Liturgy alone except in cases of dire emergency (such as a priest in prison who must serve the Liturgy by hismelf in order to be able to give Holy Communion to other prisnoers). It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the Priest who offers the Anaphora silently is not offering the Anaphora privately. Do you have something against incense? Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207440 - 08/22/06 12:32 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
//The deacon is not mute during the Anaphora. It begins with the deacon's admonition "Let us stand aright, let stand well, let us attend to offer the holy oblation in peace!" If the diptychs were done in full (a rare event these days) we would hear more from the deacon during the Anaphora.//
Dear Fr. Serge,
My question about muteness was in regard to the key moments when the crowd is told when things are happening – based on Mr. Administrator’s comments.
//… people are honestly unlikely to know what is going on unless it goes on out loud.//
Exactly! Otherwise, we have congregations that WILL find something understandable to do – like pray the rosary while Father so-and-so does his thing up there.
//A second might be that there does not seem to be the same temptation to abuse these texts for conjuring purposes.//
We proclaim the Scriptures publicly and it’s been abused and misused for centuries. What else is new? The Anaphora is a beautiful text teaching us about the economia of salvation – of God. We hear doxologies, which are very much ontological in orientation (since Basil changed it to counteract natural orthodox subordinationism). I find the silent Anaphora similar to Stephen’s long speech to the Sanhedrin where he taught the stiff-necked clerics a thing or two. Wonderful opportunities to learn the salvation of our Lord in His economia, yet we opt to silence the Anaphora, which is not a private priestly prayer, and truncate Stephen’s speech in our lexicon. What do we have against the economia?
//As to the Epiclesis, I have attended Divine Liturgy in one or two Orthodox parishes where it is read aloud, with the "Amen" responses coming from the people - and this seems to be an anti-papal demonstration. Father Archimandrite Ephrem has commented negatively on this phenomenon more than once.//
I’ve attended Orthodox liturgies where the Institution Narrative is recited by the priest with the congregation, but the Epiclesis taken silently. Anti-papal too? You see, I am not afraid of possible heretical abuses that might arise from the crowd, but from clergy who have their own agendas. One priest takes the Anaphora aloud, but skips the Epiclesis. Too Orthodox. How do we know our clergy are actually praying the Anaphora? If I say, “Amen,” what am I saying Amen to? Do you sign contracts without first reading it?
//In any event, though, the whole idea of isolating a specific moment in the Anaphora as the Magic Moment of Transubstantiation is itself a Western distortion of the patristic understanding of what is going on - and leads directly to the Reformation error of cutting out the entire Anaphora except for the Institution Narrative.//
Is it really magic that should be our concern or a subtle form of Gnosticism? The little people seem to be given the cold shoulder in what is really their work too. Doesn’t Liturgy imply work of the people or is their “work” just pray, pay, and obey? Are we just too stupid not to be clued in with what was written as Anaphoras? We too cut everything out publicly but the key moments. We are no different than the Reformers, but we tend to treat anaphoric prayer as private priestly prayers.
//At the risk of having people scream at me (I'm used to it!) I would suggest that the Divine Liturgy following the Dismissal of the Catechumens is not a school of prayer; it is prayer itself - and that is another matter. Mystification is not part of the Anaphora, but mystery is, and cultivating an aware adoration of what is happening invisibly is no bad thing to do.//
Our liturgies do act as a school of prayer, assuming that liturgy is more than the Divine Liturgy. There is always a cultic tendency in our church to emphasis the mystical aura of the priest at the expense of prayer and worship. We worship God, not liturgical hats and jewelry. God is mystery, not the secret rites of the clergy behind curtains. Sorry for my take on this.
//As to understanding the Anaphora - on the one hand, it is no more than right that understanding should be encouraged in several ways, such as good preaching on the subject, and providing people with the relevant texts.//
And saying it out loud so people can hear it. I don’t buy your excuse. We administer Communion to infants without asking them to read a theological treatise or two.
//But we must beware of a facile reductionism which would claim that so long as the Anaphora is done aloud and in the vernacular, there is no longer a problem of understanding - because, of course, there are many problems of understanding and some of them are linguistic.//
Reductionism? Saying the Anaphora out loud is reductionism? For some who are yelling, “Minimalism here and minimalism there” (in regards to the Antiphons) I find it odd that the argument would be made for a silent Anaphora in this way. Actually the Anaphora will take longer.
//No matter how much one may "dumb down" the translation, there will remain passages that are not in day-to-day use and which are not readily grasped by much of anyone. Trying to go deeper into the Mystery is an assignment, not just for a lifetime, but for eternity.//
Then don’t translate anything for fear of dumbing down. The Gospels were translated as well as our prayers. Why not the Anaphora? Our tradition was always to speak in the language of the people. Why ignore such traditions now for false fears?
//Your question as to the nature of an Anaphoric prayer is legitimate and justified, but would require a lengthy answer (and I don't claim to have the entire answer). so at least for the moment, I pray thee hold me excused!//
This was my ultimate question and you ignore it to comment elsewhere.
//When and where did we start messing with the Anaphora? Surprise, surprise - the pressure to have the Anaphora aloud begin when the Latins began doing this. In other words, it's quite recent. That does not mean that nobody, ever, suggested such a thing previously - but it does mean that the Church, as distinct from certain heretical movements, did not see fit to do this in practice.//
I meant when did we start taking it silently?
//The Anaphora is most certainly a beautiful prayer, and we can cerainly learn from it - having spent all of the past fortnight working on a translation of an unusual variation of the Anaphora of the Liturgy of Saint Basil, I can assure anyone that the effort has heightened my appreciation of it. But the actual liturgical proclamation of the Anaphora during the Divine Liturgy is not a study session - there we are called to enter into the prayer, not to study it. Our study of the prayer is an excellent preparation, and an excellent reflection.//
This is gobbledeegooklingo for clerical Gnosticism.
//Do you have something against incense?//
No. Just when it becomes the focus of our worship and not God.
God bless,
Cantor Joe Thur
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207441 - 08/22/06 05:57 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Like anyone else, I can only answer a question in my own way. If you do not care for my choice of what to address in your list of questions, that is your privilege. It is my privilege to refrain from writing a full-blown dissertation on this Forum.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207442 - 08/23/06 12:41 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Father Serge wrote://… people are honestly unlikely to know what is going on unless it goes on out loud.//To which Joe T responded:Exactly! Otherwise, we have congregations that WILL find something understandable to do – like pray the rosary while Father so-and-so does his thing up there.People will only find something else to do when they are poorly catechized. The real problem here is that you and others are assuming that there is a problem that needs fixing without first having enough information to discern if there is a problem. When and why did the Anaphora start to be prayed quietly? We know that it happend while the liturgical language was still understandable by the people so the idea that it only went quiet after the people could not understand it is incorrect. As Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) stated: “It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon – overlaid in part with meditative singing – became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy.” The solution to the specific problem you state is not in changing the Liturgy but in educating the faithful: Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote: ”It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass. My suggestion in 1978 was as follows. First, liturgical education ought to aim at making the faithful familiar with the essential meaning and fundamental orientation of the Canon. Secondly, the first words of the various prayers should be said out loud as a kind of cue for the congregation, so that each individual in his silent prayer can take up the intonation and bring the personal into the communal and the communal into the personal.Joe Thur wrote:The Anaphora is a beautiful text teaching us about the economia of salvation – of God. We hear doxologies, which are very much ontological in orientation (since Basil changed it to counteract natural orthodox subordinationism). I find the silent Anaphora similar to Stephen’s long speech to the Sanhedrin where he taught the stiff-necked clerics a thing or two. Wonderful opportunities to learn the salvation of our Lord in His economia, yet we opt to silence the Anaphora, which is not a private priestly prayer, and truncate Stephen’s speech in our lexicon. What do we have against the economia?Joe, you are missing the whole point of worship here! Worship is about worshipping – giving glory and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Divine Worship is not primarily about people, and their need to learn. The Church Fathers – Basil, John Chrysostom and the others – did not give us a liturgy that focused primarily on teaching. They gave us a Liturgy which was oriented toward worshipping God. Many Protestants have little or no worship in their Sunday services and concentrate mostly on teaching. We are orthodox / Orthodox Christians. For us Divine Worship focuses – surprise! – on the Divine! The Liturgy of the Word (where there is teaching) is followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist (where there is thanksgiving). Joe Thur wrote:I’ve attended Orthodox liturgies where the Institution Narrative is recited by the priest with the congregation, but the Epiclesis taken silently. Anti-papal too?I take it that Joe means that the priest recited the first part of the Anaphora out loud and not that the congregation prayed this part of the Anaphora together with the priest! But no, this would not be anti-papal. The rise of the praying the Epiclesis out loud is an abuse. It was a specific response to the West’s pointing to the moment of the Words of Institution as the specific moment when the change takes place. [The East only states that the change takes place during the Anaphora.] Joe Thur wrote:You see, I am not afraid of possible heretical abuses that might arise from the crowd, but from clergy who have their own agendas. One priest takes the Anaphora aloud, but skips the Epiclesis. Too Orthodox. How do we know our clergy are actually praying the Anaphora? If I say, “Amen,” what am I saying Amen to? Do you sign contracts without first reading it?The proper response to an individual priest with an agenda is to bring the problem to his bishop. Is Joe really worried that his priest is not praying the Anaphora at all when he does not hear it? Joe, do you have a fullness of understanding of what takes place in the Anaphora? If yes, you are way ahead of the Holy Father who says it is a Mystery. If no, how can you say “Amen” to something you have heard but really don’t understand? Do you sign a contract that you have read even though you might not have any understanding of what all the legal phrases mean? Me, I don’t need to hear the words in order to know they are true and say “Amen”. I participate fully whether I hear or don’t hear the prayers prayed by the priest. I participate fully whether I see or don’t see the action of the priest or not. Joe Thur wrote:Is it really magic that should be our concern or a subtle form of Gnosticism? The little people seem to be given the cold shoulder in what is really their work too. Doesn’t Liturgy imply work of the people or is their “work” just pray, pay, and obey? Are we just too stupid not to be clued in with what was written as Anaphoras? We too cut everything out publicly but the key moments. We are no different than the Reformers, but we tend to treat anaphoric prayer as private priestly prayers.Magic? Gnosticism? For a practice that the Holy Father himself says is preferable to the current custom on the Latin Church? That’s not worth replying to. The Divine Liturgy is the work of the people. Each has his part. The priest has his prayers. The deacon gives voice to our petitions to which we respond an affirming “Lord, have mercy” and other texts. That we do not hear every word of the priest does not mean we do not participate fully. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote: It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass. … [The silent anaphora] is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is united, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice – the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.”The private praying of the Anaphora prayers by the priest does not make them the private prayers of the priest. Go and reread what the current Holy Father has written (what I posted above is an excerpt). Joe Thur wrote:Our liturgies do act as a school of prayer, assuming that liturgy is more than the Divine Liturgy. There is always a cultic tendency in our church to emphasis the mystical aura of the priest at the expense of prayer and worship. We worship God, not liturgical hats and jewelry. God is mystery, not the secret rites of the clergy behind curtains. Sorry for my take on this.The catechesis that comes from praying the Divine Liturgy comes from worshipping, not from studying during the worship. Again, it is the primary reason for Divine Worship. I’m not sure about Joe’s comments about “the secret rites of the clergy behind curtains”. Is he suggesting that that the people need to see the action of the priest to be sure he’s doing what he is supposed to do? Is he suggesting that he can’t say “Amen” to something he has not seen and can be assured has happened? Is this a subtle call to take down the icon screen and have the priest stand behind the altar so that the people can see? That would be a logical extension (or next step) to the demand for a mandate to pray the Anaphora out loud. Joe T wrote:I meant when did we start taking it silently?That’s the first legitimate question Joe has asked. As I have noted numerous times the full answer to all the questions on this issue needs to be found before the Church has a real understanding of the question why the Anaphora is prayed quietly. I recommend to Joe that he read what I posted from the Holy Father since it speaks to that. I will post a portion again: Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote: ”It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon – overlaid in part with meditative singing – became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy.Right now we know that the quiet praying of the Anaphora was not an accident but a purposeful development. We know that when the Anaphora began to be prayed quietly while the liturgical language was still understandable. We know that the Holy Father believes that dismissing the development as a mistake is too simplistic. We know that the Holy Father allows liberty on the issue while preferring the praying of the Anaphora quietly. We know that there have been those in the East at various times during the past thousand years or so who have advocated praying the Anaphora out loud but that the Church has always rejected the idea. We know that the current push by a few to pray the Anaphora out loud did not exist before the Latins started doing so after Vatican II. There is certainly much to learn and many questions to answer before we can begin to change anything. Father Serge wrote://The Anaphora is most certainly a beautiful prayer, and we can certainly learn from it - having spent all of the past fortnight working on a translation of an unusual variation of the Anaphora of the Liturgy of Saint Basil, I can assure anyone that the effort has heightened my appreciation of it. But the actual liturgical proclamation of the Anaphora during the Divine Liturgy is not a study session - there we are called to enter into the prayer, not to study it. Our study of the prayer is an excellent preparation, and an excellent reflection.//To which Joe T responded:This is gobbledeegooklingo for clerical Gnosticism.Again, Christians are primarily catechized by prayer, not by hearing or studying the texts of the prayers during Divine Worship. Divine Worship is about giving glory and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is not about us. This is Liturgics 101. I will again ask my questions (that no one supporting the Liturgical Revision seems willing to answer): -The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? -Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity? It seems once again the liberty offered by our Ruthenian liturgical tradition is best.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207443 - 08/23/06 02:36 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 08/17/02
Posts: 113
Loc: Where there be dragons
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207444 - 08/23/06 04:09 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Oddly enough, I dislike being quoted out of context. Here's the original exchange: Joe Thur wrote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are prayers for Baptism and Crowning taken aloud, but not the entire Anaphora?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I replied:
"A fair question. One possible answer is that since these events are by their nature relatively rare, people are honestly unlikely to know what is going on unless it goes on out loud. A second might be that there does not seem to be the same temptation to abuse these texts for conjuring purposes."
Mr. Thur 'rsponded' with an out-of-context quote from that paragraph:
"people are honestly unlikely to know what is going on unless it goes on out loud."
Do excuse - or don't - but he has left out the condition: as is obvious from my full paragraph, which I have just provided, I wrote those words with quite specific reference to the celebrations of Baptism and Crowning, in response to his original question as to why those two Mysteries are done aloud, while the Anaphora is not. It would be an unusual parish in which the faithful regularly attend a Baptism and a Crowning each week. One hopes that the faithful attend the Divine Liturgy each week, and therefore are more thoroughly familiar with the Divine Liturgy each week.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207445 - 08/28/06 12:33 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Mr. Administrator, Thank you for publishing the Anaphora in your red pew books. They have added greatly to the liturgy, especially since our pastor takes it out loud. Your publication has helped in the needed catechesis. Our faith is not a secret faith.
Fr. Serge, it seems you are always being taken out of context. To me, you seem to be advocating Clerical Gnosticism. Compulsory celibacy became a tradition in the church too. Will you also advocate it? I think you are confusing the incomprehensibility of God (His immanence) - as mentioned in the Anaphora - with His economia. Are you saying that what God did for us is so incomprehensible that we shouldn't hear about it? Should we ask our clergy to stop preaching the Gospel because what Jesus did was so sacred that us poorly unenlightened folks should not hear of it? At one time, the church promoted the utmost sacredness of what THEY are doing that people stopped going to Communion. The people were too sinful to communicate. What went on in the altar stayed in the altar. If catechesis is what is needed, dear Father, then what exactly are you waiting for? Catechize us! What should we do or learn about the Anaphora to be permitted to hear it aloud? What does it take to be one of the illuminati?
Clerical gnosticism is just one aspect of the sickness of religion.
Joe
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207446 - 08/28/06 12:53 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Joe, Thank for your comments. I have published various liturgy books for private use, some that contain the full liturgy in traditional form and others that abbreviate it and give the text for the Anaphora. As I have said repeatedly, I believe that the full text of the Liturgy should be available to everyone (and is, in most of our official prayer books). The decisions on what goes in each book are made by the priests who request them. I am merely a servant. I notice that you continue to not respond to any of the points I made or the questions I asked. I can only take this that you are admitting that you know I am correct in the points I have made. If you had actual responses that would hold up to scrutiny (instead of just accusations) you would have made them. Regarding your accusation of Clerical Gnosticism against Father Serge do you also make the same accusation against Pope Benedict XVI? He has also made the case that silence might be best. I will ask my questions again and again (that no one supporting the Liturgical Revision seems willing to answer): -The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes? -Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity? It seems once again the liberty offered by our Ruthenian liturgical tradition is best. Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207447 - 08/28/06 08:54 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 09/09/03
Posts: 102
Loc: southern USA
|
Originally posted by Administrator:
-The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. <snip>
-Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity?
Glory be to Jesus Christ! I just have a few quick comments/questions: (1) Has Pope Benedict XVI said anything in regard to praying the anaphora aloud vs. in secret since he was elected? Has he ever actually prayed the Anaphora in secret at a Liturgy? Can we really say that "this is the opinion of the Holy Father" if in fact he has not said anything regarding this topic since becoming Pope? (And yes, I know how well educated he was before his election as Supreme Pontiff, but perhaps I just like being cautious with equating the words of a man while Cardinal with those he makes as Pope). (2) Does anyone have any statement from an Orthodox bishop prohibiting his priests from praying the anaphora aloud? I only ask this because any time I've visisted an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy (which, I admit, has not been a great number of times) part or all of the Anaphora is prayed aloud (more, at least, then the various intonations). (3) And, one more point in regard to this whole Anaphora aloud thing: Does is not strike anyone odd that, for example, after singing the "It is proper and just..." the priest intones a sentence fragment that makes no sense on its own "Singing, shouting, crying out and saying the triumphal hymn." Or what about (one of my favorites from the whole Liturgy) "Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary"? Just to be clear, I come from a parish where the Anaphora is always prayed/taken/said/sung (whichever word you choose to use) aloud, and so I actually hear the complete sentences, and know why these phrases do make sense. However, I must still say that every time I go to somewhere where the Anaphora is prayed (mostly in) secret, that I always have to think for a moment when the priest just intones some prayer half-way into a sentence. "Singing, shouting..."- who is singing and shouting? "Especially for our most..."- what especially? The cases from the Liturgy are numerous. Does no one else wonder about this when he or she goes to a Liturgy where most of the prayers are prayed in secret? -M. Therrien
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207448 - 08/28/06 10:59 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
M. Therrien, Thanks for your post. (1) As far as I know Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken to these issues since his election. I doubt his opinion has changed (but time will tell). [Please note that I have always carefully noted that he wrote these things while a cardinal and that they are not official commands of the Holy Father.] There was an institute back in July on the thought of Pope Benedict XVI at which one of the speakers was Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Certainly it is wise to at least acknowledge that what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on liturgy acquires an even greater significance for the Church now that he is pope. It seems logical to revisit what he has written and learn from the mistakes of the Latin Church (as they conduct a “reform of the reform”). Do you see something in Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings that suggests that mandating the custom of praying the Anaphora aloud is justified? His public writings as a cardinal suggest that he would not support a mandate, so it seems that liberty would continue to best serve the Byzantine Catholic Churches in this matter, at least until we either ask him about it or he speaks about it. (2) Father Anthony and others have already spoken to this – yes, there are some bishops who threaten suspension for those priests who would pray these prayers aloud. It is my understanding that most of the Greek Liturgicons quite clearly give the rubric that these prayers be prayed quietly. No Orthodox Church has mandated such reforms. (3) Not at all. I respect that the Church has set up an icon screen between the faithful and the holy place, and even calls for the doors to be closed at certain times during the Liturgy. Parts of the Divine Liturgy (like the proclamation of the Gospel) occur in the body of believers, in front of the icon screen. Other parts (like the Anaphora) occur behind the icon screen in the holy place. Sometimes we glimpse through the doors with our eyes. Other times we glimpse through the doors with our ears. Everything has a proper place and time. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) again: It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon – overlaid in part with meditative singing – became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass. My suggestion in 1978 was as follows. First, liturgical education ought to aim at making the faithful familiar with the essential meaning and fundamental orientation of the Canon. Secondly, the first words of the various prayers should be said out loud as a kind of cue for the congregation, so that each individual in his silent prayer can take up the intonation and bring the personal into the communal and the communal into the personal. Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice – the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.” What strikes me as odd is that some would mandate a change in custom rather than allowing for organic growth. I have noted numerous times that the out loud Anaphora may indeed be the custom across Orthodoxy in a few generations. I have never once advocated a prohibition against a priest praying these prayers aloud if he chooses (and where the official liturgical books allow him freedom). Why mandate when liberty will better serve? What also strikes me as odd is that those who support a mandate can’t justify it. Some have even gone to the length of twisting a Vatican Liturgical Instruction that calls for study on the issue as somehow a justification for a mandate! No, again and again, the way forward is the liberty already allowed by our tradition. My two questions (that those who support the revision simply refuse to answer): -The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes? -Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity? Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207449 - 08/29/06 10:14 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 08/29/98
Posts: 3811
Loc: Washington, PA
|
John,
Your questions have been answered by Fr. David, Fr. Thomas and myself. That you do not accept the answers or the reasoning behind them does not mean your questions have gone unanswered. However, I will repost my answers which I feel are ample reason to mandate taking the Anaphora aloud despite the longstanding practice of taking it quietly and that it is not practiced by the majority of the Orthodox.
The Instruction says "at least" implying that at a minimum it should taken aloud a few times a year. More is better since the Anaphora is a "masterpiece of mystagogical theology" and a "proclamation of praise and thanksgiving to God". Combine this with the fact Rome gave its recognitio to our plans it should be obvious that taking the Anaphora aloud is viewed favorably.
It is pretty hard to be formed by mystagogical theology if one nevers hears it proclaimed. And the Anaphora is a proclamation as the Instruction states. The problem is if a procalmation is not proclaimed it is no proclamation at all. It would be like the deacon/priest reading the Gospel silently to himself with the people reading along in silence or worse yet just sitting there.
I also do not think it coincidence that the movements among the Orthodox for frequent Reconcilliation and Communion are the same ones taking the Anaphora aloud and advocating others to do the same.
The Instruction clearly states the Anaphora is: "in the act of the offering, the proclamation of praise and thanksgiving to God," The Gospel and and the Anaphora are both proclamations. The Gospel is kergymatic proclamation the Anaphora is anamnetic proclamation.
Fr. Deacon Lance
_________________________
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207450 - 08/29/06 11:03 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Dear Father Deacon,
Sorry, but your "answers" do not seem responsive. At the risk of repeating myself, appeals to Rome's approval are quite unconvincing until and unless they are accompanied by the actual letter of approval. Moreover, Rome has been known to permit things that Rome does not particularly approve of - that ghastly Slovak liturgical travesty of the eighties is a case in point.
On more occasions than I can count, it has been my privilege to attend, concelebrate and celebrate Divine Liturgy in Rome at several beautiful Greek-Catholic Churches, two of which are under the direct jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. On NO occasion in Rome have I ever heard the Anaphora offered aloud, nor has anyone ever suggested to me that I should have done that, or that I should do that, when I am serving there.
As to the relationship between frequent Communion and the reading of the Anaphora aloud in Orthodox experience, read the history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet persecution. Reception of Holy Communion increased expontentially and remarkably. Offering the Anaphora aloud was unheard of since the demise of the Renovationists.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207451 - 08/29/06 12:00 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Dear Father Deacon Lance, Thanks for your post. I’m sorry but my questions have not been answered. They have been talked around. What has been posted so far by those advocating the revision of the Divine Liturgy has been personal opinion, not sound liturgical theology supported with references to theological works. Let’s look at your responses. Your take on what the Liturgical Instruction says is incorrect. Even a casual read of the Instruction on the issue of praying the Anaphora out loud shows that the concern here is that people be familiar with the wonderful theology contained in these prayers. It asks for “study”. Let’s look at what the Instruction says: ”Considering that the Anaphora is a true masterpiece of mystagogical theology, it is appropriate to study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud, so as to be heard by the faithful. The pastors should see to it that the people are formed according to that theology which is present in so pre-eminent a way in the Anaphora.”The goal here is clearly that the people be formed according to the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora. The goal is not that the Anaphora be prayed aloud always and everywhere. The Instruction asks the Church to “study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud”. How do you get from the Instruction’s directive for “study” and “some circumstances” to a mandate that it be prayed out loud all the time? The “at least” applies to “some circumstances”. I’m sorry but “more is better” is not a solid liturgical foundation for anything. What is clear is that the Instruction recommends “study” the possibility of praying these prayers aloud because it wants the people formed. One really has to twist the clear meaning of the text of the Instruction to get a mandate to pray these prayers out loud at every Liturgy. You say that “It is pretty hard to be formed by mystagogical theology if one nevers hears it proclaimed”. I disagree. I daresay that a single well prepared and well given presentation on the Anaphora in a parish would do more to form people in these prayers than 50 years of praying them out loud (although I’d prefer a series of lectures repeated every few years). It’s been done in more then one parish with excellent results. The questions asked that no one will answer: -The Latins have experimented with this custom for two generations now. Has the formation occurred in the Latin Church? Are the people now formed properly in the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora? What is the evidence? Father David has admitted that we need to wait another generation for evidence (even as he crusades against allowing the restoration of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgy for even one generation!). -The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questioned when he was still cardinal. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes? -Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity? Father Deacon, I respect that you (and others) like these prayers to be prayed out loud. But you have offered no theology whatsoever to support a mandate. Is stretching a sentence in the Liturgical Instruction and pretending that “study” really means “mandate” solid theology? What you have done is to skip all the questions I have asked and jump to the conclusion that you want and assumed there has been some theology there somewhere. I invite you (or anyone) to take even just the questions I have asked again and again in this thread and answer them one at a time. Start with a historically accurate discussion of how the custom of the quietly prayed Anaphora developed and its relationship to the development of the icon screen. Follow with an analysis of what Cardinal Ratziner and others wrote on taking these prayers quietly. Discuss what a “filled silence” is. Address the Liturgical Instruction’s directives (including on working together with other Churches (Catholic and Orthodox)). Address the issues of unity [How will a mandate away from the Orthodox custom affect prospects of unity? Is not unity more important than mandating a custom that a priest is already free to do according to the official rubrics of our Liturgy?] Fill each argument with sound theological references. If you look at it seriously you’ll see that there has been no serious theological apologia for the Revision beyond “we like it we want it”. Liturgical renewal is not about forcing our own personal likes upon the Liturgy. That’s really all that is happening here. Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207452 - 08/29/06 12:13 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Administrator:
The decisions on what goes in each book are made by the priests who request them. I am merely a servant. I dare say that what the bishops decide to put in their liturgy books affects you greatly. No? If their books get sent out to all the parishes in the Metropolia, your service will no longer be needed. This is the ultimate competition. To have one's liturgy book rendered null and void in both music and translation. You've done a great job servicing these priests and their special requests. As a cantor, I've made use of your books for many years and found them a positive contribution. How will you now support our bishops? God bless, Joe
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207453 - 08/29/06 12:18 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Administrator:
The goal here is clearly that the people be formed according to the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora. If you have eyes, see. If you have ears, listen. If you are a Ruthenian, then put a bushel basket over it. I’m sorry but “more is better” is not a solid liturgical foundation for anything. How about them Antiphons? Isn't more verses better than one? God bless, Joe
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207454 - 08/29/06 12:21 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Administrator:
Regarding your accusation of Clerical Gnosticism against Father Serge do you also make the same accusation against Pope Benedict XVI? He has also made the case that silence might be best. The Popes have also written and taught much on the mandatory celibacy too. Originally posted by Administrator:
Liturgical renewal is not about forcing our own personal likes upon the Liturgy. That’s really all that is happening here. Is this a confession?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207455 - 08/29/06 01:26 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Joe, Thanks for you post. Joe T wrote:
I dare say that what the bishops decide to put in their liturgy books affects you greatly. No? If their books get sent out to all the parishes in the Metropolia, your service will no longer be needed. This is the ultimate competition. To have one's liturgy book rendered null and void in both music and translation. You've done a great job servicing these priests and their special requests. As a cantor, I've made use of your books for many years and found them a positive contribution. How will you now support our bishops? Interesting take! But no, it’s not a matter of competition. I learned a long time ago that it is a privilege to serve even for a short time. What affects me is not my participation in anything (or lack of it). What affects me are the changes to the liturgy, which we have been discussing. Changed rubrics, missing litanies, exclusive “inclusive language” and the rest are all steps in the wrong direction and will not serve to promote good liturgy, support unity, or build up the Church. How will I help the bishops? By continuing to encourage them to return to our official Ruthenian tradition as we have been directed to, to embrace it and to live it in its fullness so that it may form our Church. Our Church has survived the liturgical mandates of Bishop Nicholas Elko. These are really no different and will pass in time. Joe T wrote:
How about them Antiphons? Isn't more verses better than one? LOL! A better question when discussing antiphons is why are fewer verses than those given in our official texts deemed better? We must always start with the standard, giving it the respect it is due. I am not advocating more or less then what is part of our Ruthenian recension. I am advocating our recension. Joe T wrote:
The Popes have also written and taught much on the mandatory celibacy too. Is there a point here? It’s not difficult to discern the difference between a discussion about the common principles of liturgy and a discipline in the Latin Church. On this issue we seemed poised to mandate a custom that the Latin Church still considers to be an experiment, one which Father David has admitted has not yet shown any fruit. Why are you so eager to copy the Latins before any other Byzantine Church has considered this? Are you suggesting that we should also mandate clerical celibacy? Joe T wrote:
Is this a confession? This question makes no sense. I have never once advocated that our official liturgical recension be changed to conform to my personal taste in liturgy. I have continually advocated that we respect and keep the official Ruthenian recension as our standard. In every case I have deferred to our official liturgical tradition and supported it. Do you have so little respect for the official Ruthenian recension that you consider it not as a standard but merely as personal taste in Liturgy? It’s pretty obvious that you continue to choose not to answer any questions put to you and instead just make jokes. Each time you do so you are admitting that you cannot defend the positions you have taken. If you could, you would have given responses that would hold up to scrutiny. Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207456 - 08/29/06 06:48 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Administrator
Member
Registered: 03/04/03
Posts: 1746
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
Originally posted by Joe T:
I dare say that what the bishops decide to put in their liturgy books...
God bless,
Joe "Their liturgy books"? A very disturbing idea, I fear. It is our Liturgy. It belongs to the whole Church, which is not to say that all of us have authority over it, to do whatever we like with it. It is a tradition (given by God) to be received, studied, cherished, and passed on, whole and entire. The Liturgy is ours, and our children's. the unworthy, Elias
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207458 - 08/30/06 12:26 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 2927
Loc: Ohio
|
Originally posted by Hieromonk Elias: Originally posted by Joe T:
I dare say that what the bishops decide to put in their liturgy books...
God bless,
Joe
Fr. Elias, As Steve Martin used to say, "Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!" I apologize if I implied that the bishops are merely publishing THEIR private books. I MEANT WHAT EVER BOOKS THE BISHOPS PUBLISH, PROMOTE, PROMULGATE, SHOVE DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS. WHATEVER BISHOPS DO IN THEIR ROLE AS BISHOPS. Does it matter what they publish? We're going to do what we want to do anyway. You are going to celebrate liturgy YOUR way; Fr. Serge will celebrate liturgy HIS way; Fr. _______ (fill in the blank) will celebrate liturgy HIS way. And the only time the liturgy will be celebrated the bishop's way is when he is physically present! Will it be any different? Cantors aren't ordained, so they don't need to hold up to a promise of obedience. They too will do whatever they feel comfortable with. What's the big deal? Pastors will simply cut-and-paste what they like into their liturgy books. Priests will take the Anaphora aloud or silent. Who is going to police them? Will you get fired during a crisis in vocations? I'm being a realist. This is all a blip on the doppler radar. Been there, done that. Here we go again! Ever watch or read, "Much Ado About Nothing" ??? God bless, Joe Thur
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207459 - 08/30/06 06:13 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Father Serge is pleased to guarantee you that His Grace our Bishop here will do no such thing! Divine Liturgy is on Sundays at 4:00 PM; be welcome. I suggest coming armed with a complete text of the Divine Liturgy in the language of your choice.
Is the Divine Liturgy different when the Bishop comes? Most certainly it is: the Bishop serves a full Pontifical Liturgy, thank God. In 2005 His Grace was here for Holy Week and Pascha; it was worthy of the Feast of Feasts.
Neither the Bishop nor I are accustomed to serve the Divine Liturgy "our own way" - we don't have one. We serve in the way which the Church has given us.
Cantors are indeed supposed to be ordained.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207460 - 08/30/06 06:25 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Administrator
Member
Registered: 03/04/03
Posts: 1746
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
Originally posted by Joe T:
Does it matter what they publish?
Joe Thur Dear Joe, I am sorry, but I am very disappointed with your post, and the attitude you show to our Church, and to our wonderful liturgical books. I celebrate exactly what I find in the Liturgical book I found in the altar when I came to this parish 9 years ago. It is the only Liturgicon I have used since I was ordained a priest 20 years ago. It is the official Liturgicon of our Church, I have studied it, and I am carefully faithful to it, word for word. If there is a "my way" (if that is true), then "my way" is careful fidelity to the Ruthenian Recension and to the books of our Church. Your idea (and the idea of the Revisionists) that the official books of our Church have no significance, and that they can and should be discarded or revised according to fashion or personal taste, is exactly what disappoints me. I think it is our worship that unites us, and only the official books of our recension can unite us all! It does matter. the unworthy, Elias
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#207462 - 08/31/06 08:11 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Administrator
Member
Registered: 02/16/05
Posts: 3404
Loc: New York
|
Dear Joe T,
I am posting this as the moderator of this Forum. Your posts have stretched the limits of charity that is the primary rule here on this Forum. A couple of points I going to bring up, will not be tolerated by any poster here on this forum.
First, in your previous posts, and I will cite dates and times that you posted them if need be, you accuse the clergy of “Clerical Gnosticism”. By implication and use of this term, you are implying that the clergy are in heresy, and by being such have excommunicated themselves from the church, and thus making the sacraments void of grace. Are you one to make a judgment such as this for those that are following the prescribed rubrics approbated and approved by the hierarchy in full communion with the Church? Are you aware of what such an accusation if proven false carries as a penalty to the one that makes it?
Next, while I have been rather lenient in the discussions here in this section and even on this thread, I will not tolerate rudeness or shouting in posts. All capital letters on multiple words in succession constitute shouting. This will not be tolerated under any circumstance from any poster regardless of standing on this forum. The same also carries forth in regards to ridiculing any poster. This is a place for discussion as Christians, and posters on both side of the issues presented are extremely sensitive to something that is vital to our worship and the core of our corporate prayer.
The attitude and behavior exhibited in your posts will not be tolerated in the future. If you can not post in a civil manner, you are requested not to post at all. This will be my one and only warning in the matter. Any further transgression will be dealt with quickly and decisively.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Adminstrator
_________________________
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207464 - 09/01/06 04:53 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by Administrator: ...
The questions asked that no one will answer:
-The Latins have experimented with this custom for two generations now. Has the formation occurred in the Latin Church? Are the people now formed properly in the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora? What is the evidence? Father David has admitted that we need to wait another generation for evidence (even as he crusades against allowing the restoration of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgy for even one generation!).
-The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questioned when he was still cardinal. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes?
-Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity?
...
Liturgical renewal is not about forcing our own personal likes upon the Liturgy. That’s really all that is happening here.
Admin / John Lest I further be accused of argumentative silence, I will only address the comments regarding Benedict XVI's reflections as a theologian. John and others have appealed to the writings of the present Holy Father regarding praying the Anaphora aloud. Reflecting upon the Liturgy as a private person or a college professor or an eminent theologian is quite different than one who writes or speaks as the Pope of Rome. Then Cardinal Ratzinger has been quoted as writing that the Eucharistic Prayer recited aloud is or has been an experiment in the Latin Church. Yet in an official English translation of the Church document, Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, (trans. General Instruction of the Roman Missal), approved by John Paul II in 2000, (English translation approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 17, 2003, Prot. N. 2235/02/L) one reads the following: The Prayers and Other Parts Pertaining to the Priest
30. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ.43 It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the "presidential prayers."
31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal.
32. The nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention.44 Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.(emphasis added)
33. The priest, in fact, as the one who presides, prays in the name of the Church and of the assembled community; but at times he prays only in his own name, asking that he may exercise his ministry with greater attention and devotion. Prayers of this kind, which occur before the reading of the Gospel, at the Preparation of the Gifts, and also before and after the Communion of the priest, are said quietly.
43. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 33.
44. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Musicam sacram, On music in the Liturgy, 5 March 1967 , no. 14: AAS 59 (1967), p. 304.
Lest anyone misunderstand note 30 above identifies the Eucharistic Prayer (the Anaphora) as a "presidential prayer." That the Instruction "demands" the presidential prayers be spoken out loud because these prayers are the prayers directed to God on our behalf is not indicative of a temporary experiment. Perhaps, some misunderstand the context of the Cardinal Ratzinger's reflection.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207465 - 09/01/06 08:32 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Father Deacon John, Thank you for your post. First, thank you for bringing to our attention that the Roman documents for the Latin Church now obligate the priest to pray these prayers aloud. Since they were promulgated in 2000 and 2003 it is certainly understandable that Cardinal Ratzinger did not specifically discuss it in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, since that was written in 1999 and published in 2000. I will stand corrected in my comment that there is continued freedom on this practice in the Roman Church. You noted that maybe “some misunderstand the context of Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflection”. No, I believe not. Although apparently not enshrined into law at the time of his writing, Cardinal Ratzinger was objecting to the custom you quoted. Allow me to requote Cardinal Ratzinger yet again: ”In 1978, to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon always have to be said out loud. After much consideration, I should like to repeat and underline the point here in the hope that, twenty years later, this thesis will be better understood. Meanwhile, in their efforts to reform the Missal, the German liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis. Since the reform of the liturgy, an attempt has been made to meet the crisis by incessantly inventing new Eucharistic Payers, and in the process we have sunk farther and farther into banality. Multiplying words is no help – that is all too evident. The liturgists have suggested all kinds of remedies, which certainly contain elements that are worthy of consideration. However, as far as I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon – overlaid in part with meditative singing – became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass. My suggestion in 1978 was as follows. First, liturgical education ought to aim at making the faithful familiar with the essential meaning and fundamental orientation of the Canon. Secondly, the first words of the various prayers should be said out loud as a kind of cue for the congregation, so that each individual in his silent prayer can take up the intonation and bring the personal into the communal and the communal into the personal. Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice – the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.” (pages 214-216) It is clear enough that Cardinal Ratzinger was stating: 1) that the early development of the praying of the Canon quietly was no accident, 2) that he believes that ”It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass” and that 3) “as far as [he] can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God.”What specifically do you believe that we are misunderstanding about Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments? It is pretty evident that he disagrees with the custom of praying the Eucharistic Prayer aloud and is promoting the idea of a “filled silence”. People disagree all the time. A liturgical directive would need to be respected and followed but there is absolutely nothing wrong with commenting that the directive is wrong and urging those in authority to change it. As I noted, now that Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI his writings take on greater level of significance. Can you please tell me in which specifics I am incorrect in my understanding of what he has written? Again, I thank you for the information. Your post raises a question: If the custom of the priest praying the Anaphora out loud is no longer considered experimental in the Latin Church perhaps there is some evidence that the custom has borne fruit. Such evidence would be necessary for people of good will on both sides of this discussion. Perhaps even Cardinal Ratzinger was not aware of it when he penned his comments? I don’t know if there was an underlying logic in your post, but might I assume for the purposes of discussion one that came to my mind immediately after I read your post? What you seem to be saying is: 1) I (and some others) have quoted Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings that “silence might be best” in support of keeping the liberty offered by our official Ruthenian liturgical tradition in saying the Anaphora quietly or aloud. 2) You have provided proof that the Latins (at least since this document) now require this prayer to be prayed aloud. 3) We must, therefore, have misunderstood the context of Cardinal Ratiznger’s remarks. Again, not assuming that this was the logic behind your statement let’s apply it to our situation in the exact same way: 1) Some in our Church have proposed changes to the Divine Liturgy, including those that would mandate the priest praying the Anaphora aloud. 2) Our Liturgicon provides directives on how to take the Liturgy. Some prayers are officially directed to be prayed quietly by the priest. Other prayers have traditionally been prayed quietly by the priest even though there is no specific rubric to do so (although there is in the liturgicons of other Byzantine Churches). 3) Those who say that some in our Church are supporting the idea of praying the Anaphora aloud are misunderstanding because no one would ever support the changing of an official rubric. Since that does not make any sense I will conclude that my guess at what your logic might be is wrong and ask you to explain further. I thank you for quoting my questions (that no one supporting the revision seems willing to answer!). I will repeat them (with a slight edit to the first one now that you have provided us with some good information): -The Latins have experimented with this custom for two generations now and enshrined the custom into the General Missal. Why? Has the formation occurred in the Latin Church? Are the people now formed properly in the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora? What is the evidence? Father David has admitted that we need to wait another generation for evidence (even as he crusades against allowing the restoration of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgy for even one generation!).
-The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questioned when he was still cardinal. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes?
-Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity? I am sure that no one thinks these questions unworthy, since they spring right out of the Liturgical Instruction. I pray and hope that someone who supports this revision of the Byzantine Liturgy will answer them instead of continuing to ignore them. At the very least I am sure that everyone should support the idea of contacting the Holy Father directly so that he may clarify his comments and provide us with his direction. Again, thank you Father Deacon John for your comments, and even more for your service to the Church. Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207466 - 09/02/06 10:51 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by Administrator: Father Deacon John,
Thank you for your post.
First, thank you for bringing to our attention that the Roman documents for the Latin Church now obligate the priest to pray these prayers aloud. Since they were promulgated in 2000 and 2003 it is certainly understandable that Cardinal Ratzinger did not specifically discuss it in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, since that was written in 1999 and published in 2000. I will stand corrected in my comment that there is continued freedom on this practice in the Roman Church.
You noted that maybe “some misunderstand the context of Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflection”.
No, I believe not. Although apparently not enshrined into law at the time of his writing, Cardinal Ratzinger was objecting to the custom you quoted.
...
Admin / John John: The GIRM was actually revised in 2000, the English translation of the revision was approved in 2003. As early as 1970, the GIRM read: PRAYERS AND OTHER PARTS ASSIGNED TO THE PRIEST
10. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the eucharistic prayer is preeminent; it is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the prayers: the opening prayer or collect, the prayer over the gifts, and the prayer after communion. The priest, presiding over the assembly in the person of Christ, addresses these prayers to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present.[19] Thus there is
good reason to call them "the presidential prayers."
11. It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions and words of introduction and conclusion that are provided in the rites themselves. By their very nature these introductions do not need to be expressed verbatim in the form in which they are given in the Missal; at least in certain cases it will be advisable to adapt them somewhat to the concrete situation of the community.[20] It also belongs to the priest presiding to proclaim the word of God and to give the final blessing. He may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (before the celebration begins), to the liturgy of the word (before the readings), and to the eucharistic prayer (before the preface); he may also make comments concluding the entire sacred service before the dismissal.
12. The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.[21] While the priest is reciting them there should be no other prayer and the organ or other instruments should not be played.
13. But the priest does not only pray in the name of the whole community as its president; he also prays at times in his own name that he may exercise his ministry with attention and devotion. Such prayers are said inaudibly. Praying the Eucharistic aloud has not been an experiment since at least 1970. It will be interesting indeed to see how much, if any, of the Holy Father's previous writings as a theologian will influence the praying aloud of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Pauline Mass.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207467 - 09/02/06 12:37 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 02/13/04
Posts: 146
Loc: Ruthenia
|
Roma locuta est; causa finita est.
Father Deacon tells us that Rome has spoken.
The Latins are correct!
All of Orthodoxy is wrong!
We are to imitate the Latins, not Orthodoxy!
Latinizations all over again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207469 - 09/02/06 02:49 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Father Deacon John, I concede the point that the Roman Catholic Church has introduced and accepted the innovation that the Anaphora be prayed aloud in the Latin Church. Do you feel that we should we follow Roman Catholic innovations in our Church? Is that really the origin of this suggestion that we should introduce this custom into the Byzantine Catholic Church? My other questions still await your answers (or the answers of anyone supporting this revision to the Byzantine Liturgy). Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207470 - 09/02/06 03:21 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by John Damascene:
Roma locuta est; causa finita est.
Father Deacon tells us that Rome has spoken.
The Latins are correct!
All of Orthodoxy is wrong!
We are to imitate the Latins, not Orthodoxy!
Latinizations all over again. Perhaps you need to understand how the Church operates in things liturgical: Rome speaks for the Latins, Pittsburgh speaks for us.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207472 - 09/02/06 03:38 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by Administrator: Father Deacon John,
I concede the point that the Roman Catholic Church has introduced and accepted the innovation that the Anaphora be prayed aloud in the Latin Church.
Do you feel that we should we follow Roman Catholic innovations in our Church?
Is that really the origin of this suggestion that we should introduce this custom into the Byzantine Catholic Church?
My other questions still await your answers (or the answers of anyone supporting this revision to the Byzantine Liturgy).
Admin / John John, I was not the one who introduced the writings of a Latin theologian, even if he is the current Roman Pontiff, to defend Byzantine/Orthodox liturgical practices. However, I do favor the bishop's or priest's praying/intoning aloud the whole Anaphora (not just clues here and there) while the faithful listen in attentive silence not because it mimics a Latin practice, but rather, because this practice gives life to the Liturgy. Granted, one could read the Anaphora while the priest prays in silence, but if this is preferable then why not have the Apostolic and Gospel Lessons handed out along with the Liturgy books? Or maybe we should have the people follow the calendar and have them read the Lessons at home. No there is something moving, mystical, and sensual to experience and hear the history of our salvation within the Divine Liturgy Personally, I think pew books distract from the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207473 - 09/02/06 04:25 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Dear Father Deacon,
At the risk of being flippant,referring to Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, as "a Latin theologian" rather resembles describing violin music as the sound produced by dragging a horse's tail over the dried gut of a cat.
If one reads His Holiness's writings on Liturgy carefully - and I have done precisely that, and still do - it becomes clear that the Author is not a man hidebound by a narrow adherence to the post-Vatican II (or pre-Vatican II) liturgiology, ecclesiology, discipline and spirituality of the Roman approach. I was listening to him only a couple of hours ago speak about the propriety of entrusting beatifications to the Local Churches. In the same interview, Pope Benedict also gave an unsolicited and strong endorsement of the Eastern Churches of the Middle East, while correcting someone who described Christianity as a "European phenomenon" and a few minutes later suggested a film on the life and work of Saint Gregory Nazianzen. This is not exactly the Baltimore Catechism view of the Church and the world.
Meanwhile, you call to our attention the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (novus ordo) on the proclamation of the Anaphora aloud. Leaving aside for the moment the interesting question of just what the juridical value of that document is (it certainly does not affect celebrations of the Roman Mass according to the 1962 Missal), it has no bearing whatever on the Byzantine Liturgy, any more than the practice of "Mass facing the people" is held up for our imitation.
There is a disturbing phenomenon or tendency which might be termed "neo-latinization" - abandoning as a lost cause the older latinizations but rushing to imitate the fashions in the Latin Church. Examples are so numerous that I won't bother to quote them now - perhaps others would care to contribute some gems. It seems fairly clear that the attempt to impose the recitation of the Anaphora aloud belongs to this category; it certainly did not arise spontaneously from within the Christian East.
If by any wild chance the Holy Father wishes to distance himself from some, any or all of his previous publications, His Holiness is free to do so. But he has given no indication of any such desire. On the contrary, he has permitted a fresh series of reprints, in several languages, since his election to the pontifical throne. That makes it difficult to suggest seriously that his published writings, re-published by agreement with the Author, do not represent the Author's thinking and views. His Holiness is not required to write all of his books over again.
But the hour grows late, and tomorrow is Sunday.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207475 - 09/03/06 04:55 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Dear Pavel Ivanovich:
Molodets!
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207477 - 09/03/06 11:15 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Administrator
Member
Registered: 03/04/03
Posts: 1746
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
What do churches that don't have pews, call their "pew books"?
the unworthy,
Elias
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207479 - 09/04/06 02:13 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Oddly enough, here is a real issue of sorts. It's not so much a problem at the Divine Liturgy, but it can certainly be a problem at other services, especially the Vigil.
There are people - including myself - who wish to be able to follow the service in the service-books (notice the plural). This requires having the service-books available for the purpose, obviously. One can scarcely insist that every parish maintain a complete set of service-books for each parishioner, plus a few more sets for possible visitors! But some of us take this seriously enough to provide ourselves with the necessary books (at considerable expense, incidentally).
Where are we supposed to put these books during the service which we are attempting to follow? If there is a pew - as there should not be - that's not an adequate answer; one cannot satisfactorily rest the service-books on the floor, nor on the back of the pew ahead of one's own, because the usual result will be that the books fall to the floor.
Back in Western Ukraine and present-day Eastern Slovakia, it was the custom to print large, weighty copies of the "Sbornik", a compendium of needed texts for the divine services. These books also were heavy, especially since if it was to be used in a dimly-lit church, the Sbornik had to have print of reasonable size. But they somehow served the purpose; people knew - and some older people still know today - prodigious quantities of liturgical texts in Church-Slavonic.
I don't really claim to have a fully satisfactory answer to this question, even though I could continue the discussion at some length. But here's a suggestion: About 30 years ago in the aftermath of Vatican II, the Oriental Congregation published a beautiful 4-volume Anthologion - in Greek - of the more necessary liturgical texts. Fortunately for me, Archbishop Joseph (Raya) gave me a set. It would be well to publish this again, in Church-Slavonic (since Church-Slavonic is relatively stable) and even in other languages (such as English) if texts can obtain a reasonable degree of acceptance.
The Greek edition is long since sold out, and owing to the financial woes of the Holy See, there is not the necessary financial backing for a reprint. Please God there will be.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207480 - 09/04/06 10:47 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
John
Member
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 5900
Loc: Virginia
|
Father Deacon John, Thanks for your post!  Father Deacon John wrote:
I was not the one who introduced the writings of a Latin theologian, even if he is the current Roman Pontiff, to defend Byzantine/Orthodox liturgical practices. Please go back and read my posts that include quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). You will see that I quoted him speaking from two perspectives. The first perspective in which I quoted him was with him speaking as a general liturgical theologian and historian. Here I noted that he stated that the custom of praying the Anaphora quietly is: 1) “no accident” (meaning it was purposeful), 2) “from a very early time” (meaning, among other things that it occurred while the liturgical language used was still understandable by the people) and 3) seems to have originated in the Christian East ( “Jersualem”). These are historical comments that are not related to him being a Latin theologian. The second perspective in which I quoted him was with him speaking as a theologian of the Latin Church about the Latin Church. In this perspective he stated with regard to the Eucharistic Prayer: 1) “that in no sense does the whole Canon always have to be said out loud” and that 2) the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God.” How did I sum up Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments? I summed them up by stating that: 1. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) dislikes the current custom in the Latin Church in which the Anaphora is prayed out loud. 2. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has called for a change in the custom to return to what he considers a “filled silence”. 3. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) notes that the custom of the Anaphora being prayed quietly comes from the earliest times, from Jerusalem, was no accident, and happened while the liturgical language was understandable. 4. Since there are notable theologians in the Latin Church who are unhappy with the custom in the Latin Church and are calling for a change, and since we do not see any evidence that this practice has produced the desired outcome, we ought to wait to see what happens in the coming generations before mandating their custom in our Church. 5. We need a better understanding of history, of exactly when, where, and why the custom of praying the Anaphora quietly developed, and how it is related to the rise of the icon screen. 6. We need to consider that there are those in Byzantine Orthodoxy who have spoken of praying the Anaphora aloud for the past thousand years and that Byzantine Orthodoxy has not embraced the idea. 7. We need to consider unity, both with our fellow members of the Ruthenian Recension (the other Catholic and Orthodox Churches that make up the recension), with the rest of the Byzantine Church (both Catholic and Orthodox). 8. Since our liturgical books allow liberty in this matter we really need to do nothing and allow the Spirit to lead. Father Deacon John wrote:
However, I do favor the bishop's or priest's praying/intoning aloud the whole Anaphora (not just clues here and there) while the faithful listen in attentive silence not because it mimics a Latin practice, but rather, because this practice gives life to the Liturgy. Granted, one could read the Anaphora while the priest prays in silence, but if this is preferable then why not have the Apostolic and Gospel Lessons handed out along with the Liturgy books? Or maybe we should have the people follow the calendar and have them read the Lessons at home. No there is something moving, mystical, and sensual to experience and hear the history of our salvation within the Divine Liturgy I accept and respect that you personally feel that the custom of praying the Anaphora out loud gives life to the Liturgy. I accept and respect that Father David (and a few others) personally feel that the custom of praying the Anaphora out loud gives life to the Liturgy. [Father David (a good man who serves Christ and the Church with great faith and love) has even gone so far as to say that “the Liturgy does not enliven the Church” (for various reasons) – a premise which he has not yet provided any proof for and one which I reject utterly and totally.] Guess what? I know not a small number of clergy and people who feel that kneeling and not standing at the Divine Liturgy gives much life to the Liturgy. I even know a few who believe that the use of hand bells and some of the other Latin customs adopted by our spiritual fathers and mothers gives much life to the Liturgy. I know many who believe that a whole host of customs that are not our own give life to the Liturgy and should be adopted by our Church. Are you really suggesting that we revise the Ruthenian Liturgy because you and a few others feel that some new custom gives life to the Liturgy?If yes, I reject that idea completely. I have never advocated anything in Liturgy for our Church except that we finally and fully embrace the fullness of our official Ruthenian recension. We ought not to revise the Liturgy based upon the personal tastes of a small number within our Church. We ought not revise the Liturgy at all except in consultation and cooperation with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension and the entire Byzantine Church. I repeat my previous call for 1) scholarship (we need a full and accurate accounting of the historical development of all the customs in both the Byzantine Liturgy and Ruthenian recension celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy), 2) liberty (where our liturgical books allow it, liberty best serves in this case) and 3) unity (working together with all the Byzantine Churches, especially those Catholic and Orthodox Churches which are part of our Ruthenian recension). I again (and again, in peace) invite those who support the forced revision of our Liturgy to answer any of the many questions I have put forth. I also have a suggestion to make to anyone and everyone. As a Church that has wandered far from our liturgical treasure we cannot pretend to currently have a mature understanding of our tradition. To obtain that understanding we need to pray our tradition (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy) in its official form for at least a generation or two in the majority of our parishes because it is by praying the Liturgy that we are formed by it. For those who wish a crash course in Byzantine Liturgy I highly recommend keeping the Vigil at your local ROCOR parish. Keep Sundays and feast days (of course!) at your local Byzantine parish. But also keep the old calendar feasts (and maybe even the Saturday evening Vigil) at your local ROCOR parish. Do this for at least five years. Right now, as a Church, we do not even have the beginning of an understanding of the treasure that is the Byzantine Liturgy. Praying the feasts with your local ROCOR parish can be a quick, five year primer in the general Byzantine Liturgical Tradition. Admin / John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207481 - 09/04/06 11:17 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 2436
Loc: The Third Rome
|
Originally posted by Administrator: Father Deacon John,
I also have a suggestion to make to anyone and everyone. As a Church that has wandered far from our liturgical treasure we cannot pretend to currently have a mature understanding of our tradition. To obtain that understanding we need to pray our tradition (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy) in its official form for at least a generation or two in the majority of our parishes because it is by praying the Liturgy that we are formed by it. For those who wish a crash course in Byzantine Liturgy I highly recommend keeping the Vigil at your local ROCOR parish. Keep Sundays and feast days (of course!) at your local Byzantine parish. But also keep the old calendar feasts (and maybe even the Saturday evening Vigil) at your local ROCOR parish. Do this for at least five years. Right now, as a Church, we do not even have the beginning of an understanding of the treasure that is the Byzantine Liturgy. Praying the feasts with your local ROCOR parish can be a quick, five year primer in the general Byzantine Liturgical Tradition.
Admin / John John, many are! I can't publicly post names because I don't want to get anyone in trouble with their bishop, but hardly a week goes by where ther is not a local Byzantine Catholic priest in "civvies" attending services. I currently have every last book on liturgics, saved from my days as a seminarian in Jordanville, lent out to them. Just this past Thursday, 2 were at my place where we did an Akafist to the Kursk Mother of God. The interest is definately there! It really is a shame that Eastern Catholics have to go to the Orthodox "incognito" to learn about their own Traditions. And the real loss to the Eastern Catholics is that those that do learn about their Traditions, frequently become fully Orthodox. The best Apologists that the ROCOR has are those hierarchs, Catholic AND Orthodox, who have abandoned their own Traditions. Alexandr
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207482 - 09/06/06 12:38 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
And the real loss to the Eastern Catholics is that those that do learn about their Traditions, frequently become fully Orthodox. You know Alex, your post is too true! I too am a Greek Catholic who spends Lent and holy days at an Orthodox Church....we've sort of adopted each other! I've spoken to the priest there, and sadly he feels my pain. I want to be Catholic, but I also have a longing to be Orthodox. I'm afraid the new Liturgy may push me over the edge. The real drama this year, where will I spend Easter? At the church I can take communion at, or at the church who more fully celebrates the Resurrection of Christ and whose people are more prepared for this exceptional day..... Cathy
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207483 - 09/06/06 12:49 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 12/15/05
Posts: 733
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
Originally posted by Cathy:
I'm afraid the new Liturgy may push me over the edge. These are my feelings also Cathy. It is very painful for me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207484 - 09/06/06 03:20 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by Slavipodvizhnik:
John, many are! I can't publicly post names because I don't want to get anyone in trouble with their bishop, but hardly a week goes by where ther is not a local Byzantine Catholic priest in "civvies" attending services. I currently have every last book on liturgics, saved from my days as a seminarian in Jordanville, lent out to them. Just this past Thursday, 2 were at my place where we did an Akafist to the Kursk Mother of God. The interest is definately there! It really is a shame that Eastern Catholics have to go to the Orthodox "incognito" to learn about their own Traditions. And the real loss to the Eastern Catholics is that those that do learn about their Traditions, frequently become fully Orthodox. The best Apologists that the ROCOR has are those hierarchs, Catholic AND Orthodox, who have abandoned their own Traditions.
Alexandr Alexandr Are you saying if those priests were to show up in clerical garb they would be warmly greeted? If they show up "incognito" it may be just to avail themselves of the prayer. In any event, if we can learn from Orthodox how to celebrate the services, what is the shame? The shame would be to withhold liturgical services from the people.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207486 - 09/06/06 05:14 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 02/13/04
Posts: 146
Loc: Ruthenia
|
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
In any event, if we can learn from Orthodox how to celebrate the services, what is the shame?
The shame would be to withhold liturgical services from the people. But we are not learning from the Orthodox how to celebrate the services. We are changing all the services so that they do not look like the Orthodox. That is the shame!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207487 - 09/06/06 05:24 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
Deacon John wrote: Are you saying if those priests were to show up in clerical garb they would be warmly greeted? If they show up "incognito" it may be just to avail themselves of the prayer. Well, I would buy your explanation that the Byzantine priests are showing up for the prayer in Orthodox Churches if you didn't skip over the sentence that stated...... Alexandr wrote: I currently have every last book on liturgics, saved from my days as a seminarian in Jordanville, lent out to them. Why, oh why would they need these books if they're just showing up for the prayer????????? I tend to believe Alexandr, because when I want to experience liturgy correctly, and I grow tired of the Green Book, I take my Greek-Catholic body and stand it in an Orthodox church. I suspect in some cases for the priests, it's just not worth "chewing through the restraints." And I agree further with Alexandr, once you have priests delving into orthodox spirituality it's probably likely they'll want to stay. The OCA mission in Tampa is an example of how people grew tired of the Byzantine Church playing around with the Divine Liturgy. JMHO, Cathy
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207488 - 09/06/06 05:32 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
JD wrote: We are changing all the services so that they do not look like the Orthodox. Yes!!!! If we were moving our Liturgy closer, by first adding the word orthodox to the text of our Divine Liturgy we might be learning something....or correcting "forever and ever" to read, "unto ages of ages." But we haven't, have we? Instead of making it more traditional, we're making it more contemporary....just like our Latin friends did so many years ago....I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of the party line. Cathy
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207489 - 09/06/06 05:58 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Dear Cathy,
Do not despair! The USA is a big place, and I don't know where you live (nor is there any reason why I should know where you live), but I can assure you that there are Greek-Catholic Churches Out There which will welcome you for an edifying and remarkably complete and well-prepared Holy Week and Pascha. If that requires travel and taking time off from work - well, can you think of anything better to do?
Are Vespers and Orthros an inalienable part of our tradition? Yes, most emphatically. Is it a shame that they are unavailable in so many of our parishes? Yes, certainly.
However, it doesn't end there. I could (but won't) name an Orthodox priest who faithfully served the Vigil every Saturday evening for seven straight years, with his children singing - and no one, but no one, showed up. Too many people regard Saturday night as "America's night to howl". The good Father was still alive and well when last I looked; I can assure you that if nine people would commit themselves to coming faithfully to the Vigil, serving, reading, chanting and above all keeping it going, he would be on his knees thanking the Good Lord.
I'm not just being hypothetical - I also know a priest (this on is Greek-Catholic) who announced that Saturday Vespers would be cancelled for the summer months. The faithful came to him and asked him how many people would justify holding the service. He named a number, and they promptly organized a rota - Saturday Vespers continued without interruption. It really can be done.
On the other hand, there are many priests who are responsible for two or more parishes, and who are run off their feet just trying to accomplish a bare minimum. So try asking them simply to permit an organized group of the faithful to come to Church regularly at a set hour for Reader's Services.
More could be said, but I trust the point is made.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207490 - 09/06/06 06:13 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 2436
Loc: The Third Rome
|
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo: Alexandr
Are you saying if those priests were to show up in clerical garb they would be warmly greeted? If they show up "incognito" it may be just to avail themselves of the prayer.
In any event, if we can learn from Orthodox how to celebrate the services, what is the shame?
The shame would be to withhold liturgical services from the people. Dear Fr John, Of course they would be warmly greeted if they show up in Riassa and Pectoral Cross. The reason they don't is because they are afraid of wagging tongues! You know what I speak of. Every Enzhi Baba out there has a direct line to the bishop's ear! I am personally friends with a few of them. We talk on the phone, support each other, relax together (Even barbecue lamb sometimes! )They voice the same gripes I hear on the Forum. They are and want to remain Catholic, but at the same time they want to preserve their Traditions. They feel like they are being asked to choose. My heart goes out to them. It has already been made known to them that they will always have a home in Orthodoxy, if that is what they choose. Alexandr
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207491 - 09/06/06 11:08 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Originally posted by Monomakh:
Are you agreeing with us who say that there is shame in our church for withholding services like Vespers and Matins?
In Parma and Pittsburgh, 95% of the parishes don't offer either of these services. These services are our tradition and should not be withheld. Hopefully you do agree.
Monomakh My comment about withholding services is rhetorical. Services such as matins and vespers may not be celebrated, but I highly doubt they are withheld in our parishes. Of those who feel strongly about restoring such services to the parish, I would suggest you encourage your pastor to offer these services and then you show up to these services. There is nothing more discouraging for a pastor then to have a parishioner complain about the lack of particular services and then that same person does not bother to participate in these services.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207492 - 09/07/06 07:26 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
Only yesterday I contributed a posting in which I advocated precisely the same practical measure, although without shouting about it.
Nonetheless, it's difficult, if not impossible, to deny that there are and have been parishes where the clergy have deliberately withheld services in circumstances which would have been conducive to the retention of the services.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207493 - 09/07/06 08:40 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 05/09/06
Posts: 492
Loc: just south of nowhere
|
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
My comment about withholding services is rhetorical.
And here I thought it was logical.
Services such as matins and vespers may not be celebrated, but I highly doubt they are withheld in our parishes.
Of those who feel strongly about restoring such services to the parish, I would suggest you encourage your pastor to offer these services and then you show up to these services.
Maybe you can explain why 90%-95% of our parishes in Parma and Pittsburgh don't offer them then. Are you saying that it is the peoples job to ask for them, or was that another rhetorical statement? You know as well as I do that many of our parishes are filled with people who have never heard of either of these services, so how could these people ask for something they don't know exists? In many parishes it is the duty of our clergy to educate and offer these services. 100% of our parishes should offer these services and it shouldn't always be the people (although there's nothing wrong with it) asking for these services that makes them occur. And that is not a rhetorical statement.
Of those who feel strongly about restoring such services to the parish, I would suggest you encourage your pastor to offer these services and then you show up to these services.
There is nothing more discouraging for a pastor then to have a parishioner complain about the lack of particular services and then that same person does not bother to participate in these services.
You need to get a new webcam to watch me on because your insinuation that I and others who want to see Vespers and Matins at all of our parishes would suggest to our pastors to have these services and then not show up is simply false. Yeah, yeah, I know, it was rhetorical. When you shout in all caps to '...show up..' you are insinuating that I would have my pastor have these services and not show up.
Unlike your post, here are some facts:
For years I have attended a couple of Orthodox churches for Vespers and Matins because they were the only places that offered these services. There are one or two churches in the Parma Eparchy that do offer these now and I attend them and no longer have to go to these Orthodox churches.
Just this past Thursday, I attended New Years Vespers at the local Melkite parish with my four year old son. I had to go to a Melkite parish because no Ruthenian parish had Vespers that night. So I 'showed up' at another Greek Catholic church that offered the service.
It is disappointing to see a member of our Diaconate assume the worst in people. Also the shouting used in the original message was another disappointment, especially since I regularly attend and '..show up..' to services like Vespers and Matins and the fact that the Moderator of this thread had specifically addressed the shouting issue in a previous post on this thread. It is a shame to see a member of this board, a moderator of various subjects on this board, a member of our Diaconate, and a fellow Greek Catholic use the tone and content of your last post. The next time I 'show up' to Vespers and/or Matins I'll pray for you.
Monomakh
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#207494 - 09/07/06 02:27 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
Dear Monomakh:
I apologize for my "shouting," and I thank Fr Anthony for the correction. My post was not directed at you personally.
I wanted to italicize the text for emphasis, not embolden and capitalize to shout, however my two year old son had just climbed into my arms and I must have hit the "caps lock" key for the text and hit the bold key instead of italics. After hitting the post key, I left the computer to return him to bed.
I cannot comment about the liturgical services (or the lack thereof) in any other location. From my limited knowledge, I understand the priests in these eparchies may cover two or more parishes. Expecting them to celebrate the full cycle of services at each parish is not realistic.
At my own parish, we cannot have one Divine Liturgy because of space limitations. Our priest celebrates 3 Sunday Divine Liturgies, 1 on Saturday evening with Vespers, 2 on Sunday morning each preceeded by the Office of the Third Hour. This may not be ideal, but given the realities of space limitations, this is what we do, and we needed to start somewhere. This is a parish where not too long ago, people came "to pray the rosary before Mass." Not surpisingly, more people arrive to pray the Third Hour than to pray the rosary. However, these situations will take time, patience, encouragement, catechesis, etc to change.
I applaud you for taking the initiative to educate yourself and praying the holy services. Perhaps, you, Monomakh, are in a position to inform/teach/encourage your fellow parishioners of these services and request/encourage your pastor to celebrate these services. If your pastor declines, politely request to lead them yourself.
Thank you for your offer to pray for me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207495 - 09/07/06 02:34 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 04/17/05
Posts: 112
Loc: cleveland
|
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo: Originally posted by Monomakh:
Are you agreeing with us who say that there is shame in our church for withholding services like Vespers and Matins?
In Parma and Pittsburgh, 95% of the parishes don't offer either of these services. These services are our tradition and should not be withheld. Hopefully you do agree.
Monomakh
Of those who feel strongly about restoring such services to the parish, I would suggest you encourage your pastor to offer these services and then you show up to these services.
There is nothing more discouraging for a pastor then to have a parishioner complain about the lack of particular services and then that same person does not bother to participate in these services. Father Deacon John, What's more discouraging, having people who ask for services not show up or not having services such as Vespers or Matins for 75+ years in over 90% of our parishes? Are you actually implying that the reason for the absence of Vespers and Matins at over 90% of our parishes for the last 75+ years is because people haven't asked for them. And those who have asked for them turn around and don't show up. Monomakh makes a good point that the vast majority of our people have never even heard of these services and therefore could never ask for them. Plain and simple it is our Deacons (including you) Priests and Bishops responsibility to provide education and explaination and guidance to our people as to what these services are, why they are important, the info regarding the current feast that is found in these services, etc. and then provide these services period. Now, does that absolve us in the pews from doing anything? Of course not. But our deacons, priests and bishops are our leaders and leaders have to lead. And on this subject our leaders should be leading us to restoring these lost Traditions such as Vespers and Matins and restoring the beauty of our Eastern Faith. Complaining that people don't show up is just that, complaining. Once again, a complete education effort of all the faithful needs to take place so that a true effort is made to have an understanding of Vespers and Matins. Finally, support and praise should be given to those like Monomakh who are encouraging these services rather than a disrespectful attitude. We should be happy that after all of the watered down Eastern Christianity that many have put up with that they are still with us and not with the Orthodox who would welcome them with open arms and a kinder attitude. MC
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207496 - 09/07/06 02:39 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 04/17/05
Posts: 112
Loc: cleveland
|
Well, timing is everything.
I took time to post a thoughtful reply to Fr. Deacon John's earlier post(two posts ago) and after posting saw that he had posted an explanation for his earlier post just 6 or 7 minutes prior.
I think that the salient points of my post are still relevant and I applaud the Fr. Deacon for commending Monomakh for his encouragement of our Eastern services. His explanation answered some of my questions that I had of his post.
MC
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207497 - 09/07/06 03:18 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 1608
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
MC: To tell the truth, I do not have an answer to your question: Are you actually implying that the reason for the absence of Vespers and Matins at over 90% of our parishes for the last 75+ years is because people haven't asked for them. And those who have asked for them turn around and don't show up. In speaking to some of the elderly cradle Byzantine Catholics, most remember the celebration of Vespers and Matins, other do not. Those who do recall the celebration of Vespers and Matins remember a change came about when the parish began to celebrate multiple Sunday Liturgies. This may account for Vespers and Matins falling into disuse. This I have noticed- when the priest celebrates 1 Sunday Divine Liturgy, the other services are celebrated as well. When the priest celebrates multiple Sunday Divine Liturgies, either in one parish or 1 Divine Liturgy in multiple parishes, Vespers and Matins are not celebrated. In this last instance, the priest cannot be expected to celebrate Vespers and Matins. However, if laymen can take the initiative to learn about these services (these are being taught at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute), maybe, just maybe, these concerned laymen may be ready, willing, and able to serve Vespers and Matins as reader services.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207498 - 09/07/06 03:43 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
However, these situations will take time, patience, encouragement, catechesis, etc to change. Encouragement from who? Certainly not the priests and bishops. There have been so many times when different groups in the Eparchy of Parma have attempted to "rally the troops," only to find that priests do not print announcemnts in their bulletins advertising the event, or they withold pertinent information. One person had to keep restocking flyers on their parishes announcement table because a stack of 50 would be missing from the previous week. Since there was limited access to the church, and no weekday liturgies, well....you can come up with your own answers. I applaud you for taking the initiative to educate yourself and praying the holy services. Perhaps, you, Monomakh, are in a position to inform/teach/encourage your fellow parishioners of these services and request/encourage your pastor to celebrate these services. If your pastor declines, politely request to lead them yourself. What constitutes being in a position to inform/teach/encourage others? Anytime a layman does this, they are "poo-pooed" by the priest. Most priests do not like it when their feet are held to the fire by parishioners -- they often label them as trouble makers. When I spoke to my parish priest about not kneeling on Sundays based upon what I read in the "Light for Life" series, I was told my intrepretation of it was wrong, and that "x" amount of years in the seminary overruled anything I read. With these kinds of attitudes, what are we to do?
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207501 - 09/07/06 06:45 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
The rules are out there what should be happening in Church but they just choose not to do follow the proper rules. Yes, because the Bishops choose to get "lathered up" over silly things like money, and the priests know the things the bishop should be policing, he isn't. As one bishop recently told me, "....there's always hope." Whatever that means...what I wanted to say was, "maybe the Holy Spirit is working through lowly ol' me!!!" JMHO, Cathy
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207502 - 09/08/06 10:17 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 08/29/98
Posts: 3811
Loc: Washington, PA
|
"Go to the Orthodox church that is usually right around the corner"
Yes, please do, see that most have pews and kneelers and that they kneel on Sundays despite Nicea.
Fr. Deacon Lance
_________________________
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207504 - 09/08/06 10:38 AM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 1039
Loc: Arizona
|
Trouble is, there are pious practices associated with kneeling that give some parishioners personal comfort. I recall an OCA parish where the priest advised his congregation not to kneel during the Great Entrance. An elderly woman told him, "I've been kneeling during the Great Entrance all my life, and I'm not about to stop now."
It IS possible to gradually do away with pews by removing a few at a time over an extended period, and putting chairs for the elderly and infirm along the walls as is done in some churches. It's just not typical of most churches in America, because for 100 years or more pews have prevailed, along with other atypical customs. Americans usually know no different way, and are apt to reject removing the pews unless very gradually persuaded. They tend to see no pews as an innovation instead of a restoration.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207505 - 09/08/06 12:17 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Moderator
Member
Registered: 08/29/98
Posts: 3811
Loc: Washington, PA
|
Monomahk,
It is just that it is very hard to convince a parishioner that getting rid of pews and kneeling on Sundays is an Easternization when they can walk around the corner to the Orthodox Church and see both.
Kneeling is a touchy issue as well. Yes, we should not kneel on Sundays because kneeling is penitential and every Sunday is a little Pascha. The trouble is, in our society, kneeling has no connection with penance, it is seen as a sign of reverence. All the catechisms in the world are not going to change the mind of someone who is convicted that kneeling is the most reverent posture before our Lord in the Eucharist.
And I don't think we are talking about incorrect verses correct practices, just practices that have changed do to historical circumstance. Most Byzantine Churches in America, Orthodox and Catholic, have pews and kneel on Sundays. If one can convince a parish to return to the ancient practice that is great, but I don't think we should look down on the others as incorrect.
Fr. Deacon Lance
_________________________
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207506 - 09/08/06 12:52 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 5599
Loc: Dublin
|
So far as the pews are concerned - and I fully agree with Bishop Kallistos that we should "take them out and burn them" (unless, of course, the wood is of sufficient quality to warrant recycling it) - one problem I've observed, which puzzles me greatly, is that many people seem to feel downright threatened by an open space. They will cling to a wall as if they were afraid that without the wall they might fall over.
It's not as bad with movable seating - but they don't really like that either. There is something solid about pews that they find reassuring.
I don't understand the cause of this, so I have no particular suggestion as to what to do about it.
Fr. Serge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207507 - 09/08/06 12:57 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 05/09/06
Posts: 492
Loc: just south of nowhere
|
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Monomahk,
It is just that it is very hard to convince a parishioner that getting rid of pews and kneeling on Sundays is an Easternization when they can walk around the corner to the Orthodox Church and see both.
Kneeling is a touchy issue as well. Yes, we should not kneel on Sundays because kneeling is penitential and every Sunday is a little Pascha. The trouble is, in our society, kneeling has no connection with penance, it is seen as a sign of reverence. All the catechisms in the world are not going to change the mind of someone who is convicted that kneeling is the most reverent posture before our Lord in the Eucharist.
And I don't think we are talking about incorrect verses correct practices, just practices that have changed do to historical circumstance. Most Byzantine Churches in America, Orthodox and Catholic, have pews and kneel on Sundays. If one can convince a parish to return to the ancient practice that is great, but I don't think we should look down on the others as incorrect.
Fr. Deacon Lance Fr. Deacon, thank you for your post. Let me clear. I don't think you think this, but just for the record, I am not advocating a Taliban style method of having someone walk around with a bamboo stick and wack those you kneel.  There is a fine line between looking down on people and telling it like it is. Canon XX is pretty explicit, I didn't write, noone alive today wrote it. Several, several hundred years ago these topics were debated and issues decided. It always amazes me, and this is not to look down on others, how people can take a cafeteria style belief to their faith and practice. I like this but not this and I'll practice how I like. Well that's not how it is. That's not looking down on people, it's just how it is. I respectfully disagree with you by the way. It is about correct practices versus incorrect practices. Canon XX says no kneeling on Sundays. It's pretty clear. I don't know how to be any clearer. Monomakh
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207508 - 09/08/06 01:14 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 3355
Loc: US
|
Almost every Orthodox church I have visited in this country has either pews or chairs aligned in the nave like pews. I have only seen kneelers, and kneeling in two churches.
Andrew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207509 - 09/08/06 01:51 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 185
Loc: USA
|
They tend to see no pews as an innovation instead of a restoration. And this is because, why???? Because the priests and deacons are not doing their jobs -- they're too afraid people will leave a church that is teetering because it doesn't have the courage to be what it needs to be -- like Pope John Paul the II requested of Archbishop Judson -- prove that your church can be Orthodox in communion with Rome! The trouble is, in our society, kneeling has no connection with penance, it is seen as a sign of reverence. All the catechisms in the world are not going to change the mind of someone who is convicted that kneeling is the most reverent posture before our Lord in the Eucharist. The first sentence isn't true...because Latins kneel to go to confession, and I believe that is a sign of penance. Wouldn't you agree that's their intent? It's a case of our priests not educating their parishioners. Deacon Lance, in all seriousness, why don't you take this on as a pet project in your parish just to see if educating the parishioners could bring about a change? I know of one priest in the Parma Eparchy who has a 60+ parish who taught his parishioners all about the "little" Easter, and they no longer kneel. It can be done. Most Byzantine Churches in America, Orthodox and Catholic, have pews and kneel on Sundays. This is an over-generalization, because in my area I know of very few Orthodox churches that have kneelers. Since the Eparchy is bent on "correcting" our Liturgy, why not also work on correcting the bad habits we've picked up from the Latins and Protestants-- like kneelers and pews? Like Father Serge said, many could be recycled so this could be thought of as an "income" stream for the parishes, if nothing else. JMHO, Cathy
_________________________
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207510 - 09/08/06 02:34 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 2436
Loc: The Third Rome
|
Deacon Lance is actually correct. I belong to a ROCOR parish, ya know, hard line Orthodox and all that. My parish is a very multicultural mix The building was originally an American Metropolia Church, so there are pews. On Sunday, it is very easy to tell what background each parishoner is, as the Great Russians stand, the Carpatho-Russian kneel, and the poor Americans look around trying to guess what they should do! (I had to throw that in! ) Yes kneeling technically is incorrect. And over the years, I have noticed it less and less. But for many of Carpatho Russian background, it is just the way they have always done it. I'm sure Father could just say "That's it, no more kneeling", but what would that do other than hurt some feelings. With time and education, people eventually see and learn. Same deal with the pews. On the North wall of the Church, there is a huge, really "slatki" mural of Christ blessing the children, with Raphaelesque fat baby Cherubs and all. Technically, is it an icon - no. But many years ago, one of the families payed dearly to have it painted on the wall. So there it stays, until the plaster cracks and needs replaced. Then something more "correct" will be done. This way, everyone is happy. Grace is not measured by correctness of icons, how many poklons one makes etc. With time and learning, with the emphasis on the spiritual as opposed to the corporal, by the Grace of God, we will get there. By the way, if you really want to confuse a Russian bishop, do a hierarchal service with a tetrapod! They really don't know how to deal with them! :p Alexandr
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207511 - 09/08/06 03:02 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/12/02
Posts: 1101
Loc: ѲулκαндÏα
|
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Kneeling is a touchy issue as well. Yes, we should not kneel on Sundays because kneeling is penitential and every Sunday is a little Pascha. The trouble is, in our society, kneeling has no connection with penance, it is seen as a sign of reverence. All the catechisms in the world are not going to change the mind of someone who is convicted that kneeling is the most reverent posture before our Lord in the Eucharist.
Fr. Deacon Lance Fr Dcn Lance, My attitude towards kneeling was changed simply by reading, so what could some catechism accomplish? As to "all the catechisms in the world" not being able to change deeply held convictions that kneeling is proper, what other convictions should we be aware of that cannot be changed by catechism? I've encountered people (Catholics) who believe every word uttered by a Pope to be infallible - hopeless case. And the belief that saying prayer 'Y' a 'X' number of times will result in 'Z'? Nah, don't waste your time on them. How many more convictions cannot be changed? Let's compile a list and pass it along to those who prepare catechisms so that they don't waste their time on hopeless causes. Κύριε Ιησού Χριστέ, Υιέ του Θεού, ελέησόν με τον αμαρτωλόν.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207512 - 09/08/06 03:03 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 07/12/02
Posts: 405
Loc: Pennsylvania
|
"Almost every Orthodox church I have visited in this country has either pews or chairs aligned in the nave like pews. I have only seen kneelers, and kneeling in two churches."
Glory to Jesus Christ!
It is really time for all of us to stop posting as if our own limited experience is the same as "what is true in all times and places."
Kneelers are, in fact, quite commonly found in Orthodox chures with pews. I would not assume that this means that these Orthodox kneel on Sundays or during Pascha. However, I can tell you with assurance that the Orthodox Church (Antiochian) in Bridgeville, PA (which has never been a Uniate parish) HAS kneelers and people DO KNEEL every Sunday (except during Pascha). In the twenty or so ACROD parishes I visited or served in during the 1980s, ALL of them had kneelers. I can't tell you whether people knelt on Sundays, because I wasn't ever in those churches for divine service on the Lord's Day.
It is incredibly important to realize that NONE of us can accurately present the ENTIRE picture of either the Byzantine Catholic Church or of any of the Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. There is way too much variation from parish to parish to do that.
That's why the internet is replete with "in my experience" or "as I have observed."
Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207514 - 09/08/06 03:34 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 11/12/02
Posts: 1175
Loc: West of Johnstown
|
"In the twenty or so ACROD parishes I visited or served in during the 1980s, ALL of them had kneelers. I can't tell you whether people knelt on Sundays, because I wasn't ever in those churches for divine service on the Lord's Day." The ACROD parish in Windber, Pa has kneelers and they knelt down during the consecration and before communion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207515 - 09/08/06 03:35 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 3355
Loc: US
|
Originally posted by Professor J. Michael Thompson:
It is really time for all of us to stop posting as if our own limited experience is the same as "what is true in all times and places."
Kneelers are, in fact, quite commonly found in Orthodox chures with pews. I would not assume that this means that these Orthodox kneel on Sundays or during Pascha. However, I can tell you with assurance that the Orthodox Church (Antiochian) in Bridgeville, PA (which has never been a Uniate parish) HAS kneelers and people DO KNEEL every Sunday (except during Pascha). In the twenty or so ACROD parishes I visited or served in during the 1980s, ALL of them had kneelers. I can't tell you whether people knelt on Sundays, because I wasn't ever in those churches for divine service on the Lord's Day.
It is incredibly important to realize that NONE of us can accurately present the ENTIRE picture of either the Byzantine Catholic Church or of any of the Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. There is way too much variation from parish to parish to do that.
That's why the internet is replete with "in my experience" or "as I have observed."
Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA Since my statment was quoted, I'll add a little more. You may recall what started this was this statement "Most Byzantine Churches in America, Orthodox and Catholic, have pews and kneel on Sundays." I simply added a rejoinder that this has not been my experience. I didn't say it's not true (though I don't know if it is). I didn't say my experience represented the overall picture of Orthodoxy in America. I just said it was my experience. I've been in multiple OCA, AOA and GOA parishes on both coasts and the midwest. Out of all of those one had kneelers (Antiochian, and they used them on Sundays). That is my experience, take from it what you will. I have in some places seen individuals kneel without the use of kneelers. A Romanian family in one place I knew knelt on the floor during the Great Entrance and the Epiklesis. At our current parish (ACROD), they have kneelers and people use them, including myself because I don't wish to stand out. I would not be surprised to find this the norm in our diocese. Andrew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#207516 - 09/08/06 03:52 PM
Re: "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal
|
Administrator
Member
Registered: 02/16/05
Posts: 3404
Loc: New York
|
Dear all,
As the moderator of the section, I am stepping in. First, you may have noticed the title of this thread has been changed. I have had some concerns given to me by of some posters. They feel to single out one priest and to blame him not matter how instrumental his efforts may be for the proposed liturgical revisions is inappropriate and unfair, and I must say that I happen to agree with the points as they have been presented. As we are all aware, this is not a one man effort, but the work of the IECL.
Second, I am at fault for this one, this thread has twisted and strayed in many directions. In reality, the last twenty plus posts have very little to with the original topic of this thread. Instead, I count the possibility of at least six other topic threads here. If you want to discuss kneelers, pews and whether or not it is appropriate or if the practice should be mandated to be abolished, start another thread. If the praying of presbyterial prayers aloud is a concern, start another thread. The same can be said about pew or people’s books. I can go on, but it would require me to reread all 110+ posts to separate topics.
I am going to close this thread, and encourage our posters to create new threads regarding topics of concern regarding the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy. I am going to warn posters though as in other forum sections, topics will closely monitored to prevent straying. If the thread is found to be straying a warning will be given, and if it not heeded and another thread started, the thread will be closed off. This thread makes it extremely difficult for anyone to get any clear idea from the number of topics placed in one thread.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator
_________________________
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index