My talk at the Catechist Workshop at the Seminary is available at my web site: www.davidpetras.com, under"Liturgical Reform." About 50 people attended, including some priests, deacons and deacon candidates.

Fr. David

Fr. David,

A comma has crept into your URL. It should read: http://www.davidpetras.com/

At first read there are a number of major issues with what Father David has written. The first is right at the beginning:

Could Father David please explain how he comes up with this idea?

Upon the first reading of what Father David has written it appears that he sets off immediately to claim that those who support a restoration of the official 1942 Ruthenian Recension are only doing so because of some misguided obedience to law. Nothing could be further from the truth. We support a restoration of the 1942 Ruthenian Recension because it enlivens the Church and forms people into mature followers of Jesus Christ.

I hope that Father David will provide us with an explanation of exactly how he formed this idea that the official 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy does not enliven the Church so that we may debase him of such an idea by responding with facts.

All reform is preceded by renewal. Father David has yet to answer many questions put to him. Why does he crusade so strongly against the restoration of the Ruthenian Liturgy as a foundation for possible reform? The Liturgical Instruction is very clear about this.

Again, Father David is building on a false premise. We do not reform the Divine Liturgy every generation. As many have noted, we allow the Liturgy to form and reform us.

Father David’s point is inaccurate and misleading.

True - Bishop Daniel did start to introduce the official Recension.
True - Bishop Nicholas was opposed.
True - Metropolitan Stephen didn’t want change of any sort.
True - Bishop Emil made a start – as much as he felt could be done as a first step with hope of further steps of renewal in the future before he was opposed.
False - Bishop Andrew’s promulgation of 1986 claimed to be a step towards a restoration of our tradition but was not. It was one part true restoration and three parts away from the recension. Van Nuys and Passaic did different things. Most of it is not in conformity with the official liturgical books. Father David should really stop pretending that this new liturgy is a step back towards our tradition. It is nothing more then him picking and choosing bits from history that he likes and claiming it is our legitimate tradition. Even the lay people who participate here have shown most of his claims to be false.
False - Metropolitan Judson did not want a true reform. What he really wanted was uniformity. He accepted the idea of renewal to the Ruthenian recension. He clearly did not want Father David’s version of reform.

This is false. 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 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?

Father David has proven once again why the New Liturgy is wrong for the Church.

JD

I always believed Father David was 'the' expert on Liturgy. You have set me straight.

Dear John,
No one is "the" expert on Liturgy. There are some of us around who claim to know something; these claims are subject to verification (and that includes me as well as others). Even the Dean of all of us in the Byzantine liturgical field - Father Robert Taft, God bless him and keep him with us writing and speaking for many more years - does not claim infallibility, and is perfectly capable of changing his opinion if someone - even one of his own students - demonstrates that he was mistaken.
The lesson there is for everyone: read as much as you can, listen to as many good speakers in the field as you can. It's like potato chips in that the more you have, the more you want - but unlike potato chips, liturgiology is not fattening! Also unlike potato chips, liturgiology requires effort and serious thought.

Enjoy!

Fr. Serge

I honestly don't see how John Damascene comes to his conclusion above. He thinks his reasoning is right, and Father David's wrong. Not everyone is going to agree.

I just finished reading Father David’s paper and what has been posted here so far. I must print it and read it through a few times, and then think a bit before replying at length. His opening postulation – that the Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension does not enliven the Church – is strange. I invite him to clarify what he means here.

I could accept (and agree with) a postulation that the Liturgy as celebrated in many of our parishes does not enliven. A look at some of our parishes provides evidence for such a postulation.

What is unclear is how Father David jumps from a supportable postulation (that the Liturgy as celebrated in some places does not enliven) to the more general postulation that the official Ruthenian recension Liturgy (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy and other services) does not enliven. If that is the postulation that Father David means to make I think he needs to provide more explanation. It seems pretty clear to me that the reason that the Liturgy might not enliven the Church is due to the “as celebrated” and not to the structure and texts of the Liturgy itself. At any rate, the conclusion that the official Ruthenian Liturgy does not enliven cannot be made until we – as a Church – pray the official Ruthenian Liturgy for a generation or two to see the fruit it might bear.

If I might rewrite part of what Father David wrote as food for thought as how I would approach this discussion:

Father David wrote:
Part of the problem of why the Liturgy does not enliven the Church is because it has been done only in obedience to laws. We were taught when we were young, that it is one of the laws of the Church that we must attend the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and holy days of obligation. It wasn’t that we really wanted to be there, and the Liturgy was thought by many to be boring - still today - but it was the law.

I think a more valid postulation would be:

Part of the problem of why the Liturgy does not enliven the gathered Church in some parishes is because the fullness of the Ruthenian Liturgy has never been embraced. We were taught when we were young that our Liturgy was not truly Catholic and second class. Many of our priests and bishops bought into this and changed much of our Liturgical Tradition in order to be accepted by the Catholics. But it didn’t work. The people never really wanted these changes but they were forced upon us. Spending time at a Liturgy that is not really ours (that is a poor imitation of someone else's) can indeed be boring and I understand why people don’t want to go to those types of Liturgy.

But there is a better way. The better way is to change the “as celebrated” from what it is in many places to what it should be according to our official liturgical books.

It is not the Liturgy that is broken. What is broken is the “as celebrated”.

The solution is not to do a rewrite of the rubrics and texts of the Liturgy. The solution is to be radical and to pray the Liturgy in as full a form as is possible.

The solution is not to reform the Liturgy according to the tastes of some but to pray the Liturgy in its fullest form and allow it to form us. We have not tried this for hundreds of years and see the fruit of our not trying. Yet in our midst we see parishes that are thriving. And these parishes are parishes that take the “as celebrated” seriously and attempt to pray the official Ruthenian Liturgy.

In the thread “Which Byzantine Rite / Church is thriving?” Slavipodvizhnik wrote:

The only recipe for a successful future for our Church is to abandon all thoughts of reform and to finally embrace our official Ruthenian Liturgical Tradition and pray it in as full a manner as is possible. The ROCOR parishes noted above (and other Byzantine Parishes) that are growing are not growing because they are revising the Divine Services. They are growing because these parishes are praying the Divine Services.

John / Admin

Amen to that, John!

Dear friends

I was doing a little following of links here there and everywhere tonight and finally came across a very very interesting wee item


Catechesis on the Liturgy

quote from the Parish Bulletin of Sunday 13 August

I attended the live presentation at the workshop. Both Father David and J. Michael gave excellent presentations.

I believe you are missing the point Father David was trying to make. I took him to mean that as a church our catechists have traditionally taught members that there is a "law" saying we MUST attend church on Sunday. That the primary reason and motivation for attendance is TAUGHT as obedience to this law.

His point in the presentation is that this is the wrong emphasis. By focusing on the "legal" requirement of attendance instead of the spiritual benefits and experience we put the wrong mind set into the faithful.

Steve Puluka
Cantor and Catechetical Coordinator
Holy Ghost Church
Mckees Rocks, PA

Fr. David spoke of the harmful effects of legalism in regard to attendance at the Liturgy.

Ironically, the implementation of this proposed new liturgy can only be accomplished by legalistic means.

The new liturgy is by and large being imposed on the majority of clergy and people who do not want it or who have not called for it.

Steve,

I think you’re the one missing the point.

Father David is making the same argument he always makes.

He is correct to state that some people go to church only out of a sense of obligation. These people miss out on many if not most of the spiritual benefits of the Liturgy.

He is incorrect to then apply this argument to those who support the restoration of the official 1942 Ruthenian Liturgy. (How could you have missed this?) Father David is saying that those who support the restoration of the official 1942 Ruthenian Liturgy are doing so because they are being legalistic. He is also saying that if we had a correct mindset we would not be worried about the 1942 Liturgy and would instead adopt his revisions. Father David could not be more wrong in his understanding.

The biggest fallacy of his article is that if you believe his arguments about the need to mandate the praying of the Anaphora out loud you have to first accept that for the 1,800 years it was prayed quietly the Divine Liturgy failed to enliven the Church. No reasonable person believes that.

JD

JD,

The Divine Liturgy exists beyond rites, recensions, rubrics and customs. No matter how badly done it has intrinsic value. That does not mean there are not better ways of doing it. The Latin Church had Low Massess for hundreds of years and people were enlivened by it. Was it the best way to do Mass? I think most would agree no. The Divine Liturgy is fine with the Anaphora silent and I am enlivened by it. However, I think the Liturgy with the Anaphora aloud is better and I am more edified and enlivened by it. And every serious reform movement in the Byzantine Church has thought the same, Kollyvades, ZOE, the Fathers of Vatican II, etc.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. David in no way accused the past 1,800 years of being a failure or being wrong, and several times stressed that exact point. Times change, all things change, the very concept of life is change. Therefore it is inconcivable that the Liturgy should never change. If a person considers the fact that the response of "Amen" is the reaffirmation of the priestly prayers by the congregation, then the congregation should be privy to what it is they are in agreement.

It is certainly wrong to postulate that the Liturgy can never change. This, however, does not prove that any specific change is therefore given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai and may not be challenged.

Fr. Serge

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.