Zeek,

the main thing that is changing is our numbers, meaning the number of families and people attending our churches. Overall, they are on a steep decline. The time, money, and effort should be used to evangelize and not chop up and feminize our Liturgy.

Liturgical changes that SHOULD be taking place should be to make us MORE EASTERN, MORE ORTHODOX. This New LIturgy makes us less Eastern and Orthodox and is in direct contradiction to what +Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have been telling Eastern Catholics to do.

Why in the name of all that is good can't the Liturgical Commission update and improve translations without feminized inclusive language using the Red Book?

What harm would there be in having at least three verses of Antiphons?

What harm would there be in having the little litanies printed in the book?

The scary thing is that we don't even know all of the changes yet to come, I bet that there are some curve balls on the way.

For example, will the people's rubrics instruct them to kneel on Sundays in direct contradiction to Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council?

The few churches in our eparchies who have had the common sense to install Liturgical curtains in their churches, will the rubrics be gone for opening and closing them?

Father David and the rest of the commission is obsessed with having us in and out of church in under an hour and in the blandest and most liberal way possible, plain and simple.


Monomakh

JD

"The Holy See does not recommend anywhere that there be a mandate to pray the Anaphora out loud. Father David should immediately retract this false statement. The Holy See recommended study. A Liturgical Instruction asking priests to catechize and to possibly ask the priests to pray the Anaphora out loud a few times a year would more than fulfill this requirement. More is not better. Orthodoxy has considered the possibility for about a thousand years and still rejects it. How does Father David leap from “study” and “in some circumstances” to a mandate that these prayers be prayed out loud all the time?"

A better question would be how do you jump from the Instruction to "a few times a year".

Let's look at the entire text:

"54. The Anaphoras in the Divine Liturgy

In the celebration of the divine Mysteries, the text of the Anaphora shines like a precious treasure. The Eastern Anaphoras date back to venerable antiquity: often attributed to the Apostles, according to the living awareness of the Churches, or to saints of the primitive Church, or to other important personages in the history of the Churches, the Anaphoras are, in the act of the offering, the proclamation of praise and thanksgiving to God, and the epiclesis, which is the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

From the treasure of the Anaphoras, rather numerous according to the various Churches, care should be taken to offer the possibility of using, as is deemed suitable, more texts of the Anaphoras, some of which are no longer in use today but should be restored. 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 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.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I disagree. As Father Lance quoted the Instruction calls for nothing more than study. It is not obvious that the praying of the Anaphora aloud is viewed favorably. What is obvious is that the Instruction wants people to be familiar with the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora Prayers. I recommend not reading into the text things it does not say.

I disagree strongly. Silence is very capable of catechizing. There are times when silence before the action of God is more appropriate than words.

Certainly it is important that the faithful be familiar with the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora.

Certainly we are catechized by prayer.

But the Liturgy is primarily a time of worship. Catechesis at the Liturgy comes from worshipping, not merely from hearing the prayers.

I submit that the Eucharistic Prayer and the Gospel are two different elements of the Liturgy. The Gospel is proclaimed primarily to instruct the faithful. The Anaphora is prayed primary to make the Lord present in the Eucharist.

And yet both Orthodox and Roman Catholics are reconsidering all of this.

Most Roman Catholics don’t go to confession anymore. Yet most also receive the Eucharist on a regular basis. In many (if not most) Roman Catholic parishes (and, indeed, in many of our own) people approach the Eucharist as if it were nothing special. One is at the Divine Liturgy so of course one receives Communion!

Yes, the “receive once a year” custom was wrong.

But the reforms that have lead to the utter unsacred reception of the Sacraments is also wrong!

I don’t advocate the “one Confession for one Communion” rule. But I prefer it over what is happening in most parishes today.

"I disagree. As Father Lance quoted the Instruction calls for nothing more than study."

It calls for study for the very purpose that the Anaphora may be recited aloud, at minimum, a few times a year. One must look at the entire context for all this going back to Vatican II.

"I recommend not reading into the text things it does not say."

Would that you recommend the same to those who agree with your position. Nothing is being read into the statement, it is a logical conclusion.

"Silence is very capable of catechizing. There are times when silence before the action of God is more appropriate than words."

No it is not. You are confusing what is approriate for private meditation, reflection, and prayer with what is appropriate for public Liturgy. Catechesis is certainly never silent. Instruction requires communication. We are catechized both by what we sing and what we hear. Worship does not exclude catechesis. Silence has its place but it is not during the Anaphora. There is no silence during the Anaphora anyway. The tradition you wish to continue is that of the people singing over top of the priest's silent recitation.

"I submit that the Eucharistic Prayer and the Gospel are two different elements of the Liturgy."

They are two distinct but related elements. 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.

"And yet both Orthodox and Roman Catholics are reconsidering all of this"

Reconsidering what? If you think the Latin Church will go back to silent Liturgies you are crazy. What have the Orthodox to reconsider? They have by in large not acted on the recommendations of those advocates. I would also point out that the Orthodox who do promote frequent Reconcilliation, Communion and Anaphora aloud do not have the problems the Latins have and this makes your comparison look reactionary rather than reasoned.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I am going to step in and point some things out regarding the Orthodox Churches. The above statement makes it seem that the above is the norm. It is far from it at present in the Orthodox Churches. In my capacity with my archdiocese, I have had to travel throughout this country and several other places in the world and served at a multitude of churches. Though frequent Communion and Confession has been pushed for over twenty years, it is only just really starting to show progress in the variety of jurisdictions. It still has at least another generation before it is the norm across the board for the churches in this country.

As for the anaphora being taken aloud, a minority of parishes in a few jurisdictions actually have this as their regular practice. In most cases this is frowned upon completely by the hierarchs, and in some cases outright forbidden under pain of suspension. I know of only one jurisdiction that openly allows only one part of it to be said aloud as a standard.

I have seen Deacon Lance repeatedly make this to seem as if is this the norm of Orthodox Christian liturgical practice. It is not the current liturgical standard, but only a few that may or may not have the tacit approval of the hierarchs and Churches.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Yes, look at the entire context. The desire here is that the faithful might be familiar with the wonderful theology of the Anaphora. The Instruction asks that the Church “study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud, so as to be heard by the faithful.” There is absolutely no way you can get from a call for study to a mandate that it be prayed out loud always and everywhere. Even reading into it one cannot get beyond the point where a specific bishop or synod of bishops might instruct their priests to pray the Anaphora out loud “in some circumstances”.

No, I have never once argued that the priest be prohibited from praying the Anaphora out loud. I have argued for liberty where the recension allows liberty, since it is from liberty that organic development springs.

Yes, I recommend the same to all. I take documents for what they say, not for what some might conclude they say. If the Church meant “We want the priests to pray the Anaphora out loud at every Divine Liturgy” it would have said so.

What has been my consistent position here? That the rubrics of the 1942 Ruthenian recension be respected. These rubrics do not specify that the priest pray the Anaphora either quietly or out loud. My argument for continued liberty in this area is far more powerful as soil for true organic development than a mandate that these prayers be prayed out loud. A mandate – be it that the Anaphora must be prayed aloud or that it must be prayed quietly – effectively kills all chance of organic development.

No confusion here! The best catechesis can occur without words and in silence. Remember the teaching of St. Seraphim of Sarov: "The soul speaks and converses during prayer, but at the descent of the Holy Spirit we must remain in complete silence, in order to hear clearly and intelligibly all the words of eternal life which He will then deign to communicate.”

Yes, they are distinct and related at the same time. The Gospel is proclaimed primarily to instruct the faithful. The Anaphora is prayed primary to make the Lord present in the Eucharist. The Instruction does not state anywhere that the Anaphora is not the same offering and proclamation of praise and thanksgiving when it is offered quietly. Remember that we offer to God what is already his. We do not make the offering to the people. It’s not about the people. It’s about God.

Of course the main problem with the logical flow you are presenting is that you must take it to its logical conclusion. If you argue that the people must hear the prayers of the Anaphora then you must also argue that they must see the act of offering by the priest. This means taking down the icon screen and having the priest stand behind the altar facing the people.

Point of study: Why did the early Christians choose to pray the Anaphora quietly? We know that this custom developed while the liturgical language was still the spoken language. Why?

Questions:

1. Are you so ready to condemn 1,800 years of tradition when even the Holy Father says that silence might be best?

2. Why is the liberty offered by our official Ruthenian tradition so unacceptable?

3. What fruit has there been from the custom by the RCs of praying the Anaphora aloud? Father David has already admitted that there is none so far even as he demands we imitate their experiment that they are not yet sure about.

I expect several things to occur in the Latin Church in our lifetimes.

I expect that there will be a shift in the position of the priest during the Liturgy. There will be a restoration of having him face East (along with the congregation) during parts of the Liturgy, most probably starting with the praying of the Eucharistic Prayer. In many places outside North America this was never lost. I’d have to hunt through my little library but somewhere Cardinal Ratzinger (now, of course, Pope Benedict XVI) speaks to this.

I also expect that some steps will be taken to reduce the casual way that the faithful approach the reception of the Eucharist. It will be a definite retreat from the ‘everyone receive no matter what’ attitude that prevails today and that came with the V2 reforms.

The Orthodox do look at what has happened with the spread of frequent communion in the RCC. As I have noted above, there are negative elements they do not want to embrace.

As Father Anthony pointed out, the custom of praying the Anaphora out loud has not risen above the opinions of individual Orthodox. As I have pointed out numerous times, no Orthodox Church is considering a mandate to pray the Anaphora out loud. Liberty is the better way.

What is reactionary in anything I have written? I have advocated no mandates. I have advocated continued liberty as already given in our official liturgical books. I have quoted Benedict XVI that silence might be best.