Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have not yet written to Rome with my concerns about the RDL, as Fr. Thomas Loya urged me to do. It is high time I did so.

Below is part of a piece I posted on another forum. I am thinking about revising it and making it the basis for my letter to Rome. Of course the style will have to be very different. I want to make it more complete and yet also keep it concise. So I would welcome any thoughtful criticisms or suggestions to this end.

______________________________________________________________

The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church in the U.S. has indeed made a change for the worse in its "Revised Divine Liturgy." I will list and very briefly comment on some of the problems with it.

Mandatory abbreviations of the ritual. There has always been openness in the Byzantine tradition, both Catholic and dissident, to taking parochial abbreviations. Nevertheless the full ritual was always presented in the Liturgicon and other service books, so that anyone could distinguish between what the full norm is and what the parochial abbreviation is. With the new books the usual and customary abbreviations are the only thing printed, and they are mandatory. This is a serious breach of tradition. In the case of my own parish it is a major loss since ten years ago we took all three antiphons of three verses each, with the little litany between them, at the beginning of the Liturgy. Now we have books which print only the first verse of each antiphon and the little litanies are banished.

The new music. The RDL books contain standardized notation for several settings of various liturgical chants, and it is in the style of Carpatho-Rusyn plainsong. However, this actually limits the musical repertoire because only the music contained in the books is officially permitted, and we have a vast number of settings which have been dumped. Our wonderful oral tradition of plainsong, passed from cantor to cantor through generations, with local variations everywhere, has been effectively replaced with a sanitized, standardized, everywhere-the-same music; we now have a McLiturgy.

Further, the job was terribly botched in matching music to the natural accents of the text. To give but one example, the wording of the Little Doxology was changed from "Glory be to the Father," etc. to "Glory to the Father." No problem with that, but where the music previously placed the emphasis on "be" (Glo-ry BE to the Father) it now emphasizes "to" (Glo-ry TO the Father). This is simply ridiculous. You don't ever emphasize prepositions. It should be "Glory to the FA-ther and to the Son, etc.

Also our beautiful hymns have been abolished. In the course of four centuries our Ruthenian Church had brought forth a great treasury of general, seasonal, Marian, and Eucharistic hymns or chorales. Even the Soviets respected this poetic and musical legacy. But not the liturgical Nazis now in charge of feeding the sheep. Or should I say, trying experiments on us rats.

The mandated taking of the presbyteral prayers out loud. This is a stupid hobby-horse of modernist liturgists. We formerly had a beautiful practice in which the most part of the Eucharistic Prayer was said quietly at the altar while the choir and people sang covering chants, some with melismatic phrases. Now both text and music are trimmed down so that all must "listen prayerfully" to every word that the priest prays. Gone is the sense of Mystery.

The arbitrary and unnecessary changes in the translation. These are too numerous to list, but here are some of the more jarring ones: "Let us commit ourselves...to Christ our God" instead of "Let us commend ourselves..." "Commit" smacks of individual self-determination, while "commend" expresses self-entrustment to God's mercy. The Greek word Paratitheme means to "hand over" and has always been translated "commend."

In the Eucharistic Prayer, "The New Testament" has been changed to "New Covenant." Diatheke could mean either, but the context, in which Christ as Testator is bequeathing his Body and Blood, his very life, to his disciples for all time, demands the word "Testament." There is no good reason to say "Let us offer the Holy Anaphora in peace" when we formerly had the "Holy Oblation." In the anamnesis the Greek simply reads "We offer You Yours of Your own, in behalf of all and for all. There's no way you can make the words out to mean "always and everywhere."

Worst of all in this regard, and the most controversial by far, is the use of horizontal gender-inclusive language. In the Creed, instead of "Who for us men and for our salvation" they have "For us and for our salvation." If the word men is not important here but merely expendable, why did not the Creed originally say, Who for our salvation came down from heaven, etc? Why the double phrase in the original? The answer lies in the fact that the Creed was alluding to Genesis 1: 26. Man was made in the Image of God because the Incarnation was God's plan from the beginning.

A special problem of inclusive language occurs in the word Philanthropos (lover of man). It was previously translated "Lover of mankind." Now it is "Lover of us all." The visual analogy would be to slap a yellow smiley face over the face of Christ Pantokrator. Further, the phrase "Our God who loves mankind" is used over and over again in the Liturgy. It is an assault on truth and sanity to hear constantly, "Our God who loves us all." And of course the revisers changed "brethren" to "brothers and sisters." All of this is nothing but capitulation to Anti-Christian political correctness, which is part of cultural Marxism. The plea that such changes are needed to communicate effectively in modern English is hogwash.

The irony of all this is that it is simply another phase of Latinization of the Byzantine churches in communion with Rome. But instead of the symbolic Latin usages, such as statues, Sacred Heart devotions, etc. we now have the Latinization of assimilation to modernity and false ecumenism.

By the way, this liturgical "reform" has been carried out contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff. Liturgiam Authenticam, while addressed primarily to the Latin Church, sets forth principles that are universal. And it specifically rejects all inclusive language, not only vertical, dealing with God, but horizontal, dealing with Man. And I know from interviewing Father Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., a known proponent of inclusive language, that he was the only one in the Oriental Congregation who reviewed and approved the work of the revision committee. It was not approved by the Holy Father at all.

______________________________________________________________

... McLiturgy, good analogy!

Ung

I like it very much. Excellent job. I have only one criticism. I think it would be best to tone down some the descriptive rhetoric when it comes to opinion, so as not to show any type of irrational anger. Yes. Many of us are angry at what has been done to the beloved Divine Liturgy---but restraint must be shown when appealing to Rome. Here are a couple of examples:


I might change the phrase "the job was terribly botched" to "There appears to be much confusion..." (or something like that).

Also, I would delete the following phrase completely:

"This is a stupid hobby-horse of modernist liturgists."

Please send this after some minor revisions. It is very good!!

God bless you,
R

Thanks for your thoughtful efforts. In case it is helpful, the list of deletions should also include the sentences about "Nazis" and "rats." These statements really do not help you to make your case.

I'm not clear what you are referring to in the part about the "Soviets." Since it appears to delute the case you are trying to make as well as disincline the reader to be particularly sympathetic, it is also a candidate for change/deletion.

A student

Yes. More good advice.

I think Recluse offers good advice, and I join him. I most definitely would not refer to taking the presbyteral prayers out loud as a "a stupid hobby-horse of modern liturgists." There are good, strong arguments for doing so. Now I'm not saying that there aren't also good, strong arguments for taking those same prayers silently--just that we ought to be able to disagree about this without resorting to calling each other's positions "stupid."

Ryan

Here's a simple but difficult suggestion (yes, it is possible to be both simple and difficult!):

Have your letter translated into Italian, by someone who knows the sort of Italian used by the Roman Curia. This will have two effects: it will make it easier for your letter to reach the attention of the right people, and the very work of translation will tone the text down!

Fr. Serge

Good advice has already been given. I will add more specifically that one needs to remove both all emotion and any colloquialism. Some of the terms in the original post are example of both, and would only result in the letter being ignored.

Having letters translated into Italian is a good idea. My letters to Rome were all in English (I was assured by the pro-nuncio's office in Washington, DC that the Oriental Congregation was well versed in English but certainly having it Italian would be a plus).

Keep your letter, straightforward and polite. There is enough evidence available from good scholarship to make appeals for a restoration of the official Ruthenian recension that will be successful.

Of course, those who support the Reform are also encouraged to write their letters.

I find it contradictory that some writers will state that the Eastern Bishops need to be given more autonomy from Rome so that the Orthodox will feel less anxious about future unity while at the same time others urge letters to Rome urge them in an attempt to have Rome override the U.S. Byzantine Bishop's revised liturgy.

Thank you to all. Points well taken. I'll be back to let you critique the second draft. Fr. Serge, how's your Italian?

By the way, we had a very good discussion about the Ruthenian Recension on the Incorruptibles Forum. Here's a link to the thread:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/traditionalcatholics/vpost?id=2526876

What's contradictory about having a supreme authority in the Church, but without micro-management? (I know, I know, this is fodder for a different thread).

"The mandated taking of the presbyteral prayers out loud. This is a stupid hobby-horse of modernist liturgists. We formerly had a beautiful practice in which the most part of the Eucharistic Prayer was said quietly at the altar while the choir and people sang covering chants, some with melismatic phrases. Now both text and music are trimmed down so that all must "listen prayerfully" to every word that the priest prays. Gone is the sense of Mystery."

Isn't out loud the earlier practice? Fr. Taft seems to think so and has mentioned it in a number of his books.

Father Taft informs us that 1) the priestly prayers of the Anaphora were indeed taken out loud and 2) that they were not proclaimed for the hearing of the people.

I think it is misleading to state that the recent mandate in the Ruthenian Catholic Church to pray these prayers out loud is simply and only a restoration of an earlier practice. In that earlier time these were the prayers of the priest, which he happened to pray out loud. Father Taft notes that no attempt was made by the priest to proclaim them for the hearing (education) of the people. In this new mandate, which imitates the current custom in the Latin Rite Novus Ordo, the prayers are being prayed out loud for an entirely new purpose – the education of the faithful. Prayers which were for and about God are now for and about the education of the faithful. It’s just not the same thing as what happened in the early Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has stated that this custom didn’t and doesn’t work in the Novus Ordo, and there are numerous reports that he himself prays these prayers aloud but in a low voice (i.e., prayerfully, not to proclaim) in his private Masses. No one in the Ruthenian Church has offered any demonstrable evidence telling the clergy and laity why liberty on this issue (for the individual priest to pray these prayers either quietly or aloud as the Spirit leads him) cannot be allowed. There are numerous discussions about this specific topic so readers might want to use the search tool or browse past discussions in this forum.

In the larger discussion no one who supports the Revised Divine Liturgy has offered a single reason why the official 1942 Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy is so unacceptable that it needed to be prohibited in English. All that has been offered has been statements of personal preference by those who prepared the RDL. It is really shameful that some felt that the Ruthenian recension needed to be prohibited in English celebrations in the Ruthenian Church! Pray God that ongoing appeals to Rome will prove successful and that Pope Benedict XVI will issue guarantees that local bishops may not prohibit the Liturgy of their own Church.

I’m sorry, but your post misrepresents what Father Taft said. I refer you to pages 166-167 of “Through Their Own Eyes.”

You say that Father Taft “ informs us that .... 2) [the prayers] were not proclaimed for the hearing of the people.” He says simply that the prayers were not “proclaimed,” that is, perhaps chanted in the proclamative style that we now use frequently, for physical reasons, they said the prayers with bowed heads. He does not say that the people didn't hear them. In any case, Taft says only that this is “perhaps.” You then say “prayers which were for and about God are now for God and the education of the people.” Taft says the exact opposite, “The prayers aren’t for God, they’re for us.” (P. 167, lines 2 and 3). Taft quotes Justinian’s Novella 137, which reads, “all bishops and presbyters to say the prayers used in the divine oblation [ = Divine Liturgy, my note] and holy baptism not inaudibly, but in a voice that can be heard by the faithful, so that the souls of those who listen may be moved to greater compunction and raise up glorification to the Lord God.” (Quoted by Taft on page 103 of the same book) I cannot see how anything could be more clear. The prayers do not tell God what he has done for us, but they raise up our souls and minds to glorify him for what he has done for us.

I thank Father David for his post.

I have quoted the entire section from pages 166 and 167 that Father David references in previous threads. I will again quote a portion of it (this is a transcription of spoken Q&A with Father Taft responding):

Father Taft appears to be saying is that the average worshipper would not have heard the priest praying his prayers aloud because in the culture of that time every individual prayed his prayers aloud. "[T]he person in Church by himself or herself said their prayers aloud. We know that from ancient culture." It is very logical to conclude that the prayers were not being prayed for them to hear (education) but that they were being prayed for their salvation.

I acknowledge that Father Taft notes later that “[t]he prayers aren’t for God, they’re for us.” I have quoted this previously and spoken to it. There is good reason to indicate that Father Taft is incorrect in this conclusion. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) noted in a speech published in Eutopia magazine (May/June 1999) that the Eucharistic Liturgy was not about us or for us (in the sense of education of the faithful).

The focus of the Eucharistic Liturgy was not man but God. It is “celebrated for God and not for spectators.” “Its sole intent was to be before God and for God ‘euarestos euprosdektos’”.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) continues (and I quote this separately for emphasis):

This is important. When you make the Liturgy about us, about education, about socialization, about the construction of the community it fails to be about God. It is only when human aims are discarded (setting aside "all earthly cares") that "His nearness is made present".

Now we add this the very practical fact that in his “Spirit of the Liturgy” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) says that the practice has not borne fruit it is illogical to mandate a custom that imitates the custom of the Roman Catholics (done for the same reason not long after their experiment).


Yes, the prayers raise up our souls and minds to glorify God. The prayers accomplish this by their being prayed, not by us being educated by them. Worship is not about the education of man but about glorifying God.

The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud has not borne fruit in the Latin Church and no less a man than the one who is now Pope Benedict XVI has stated that there are problems with the custom. That alone should be ample evidence that mandating a custom others are having problems with is not appropriate. Still, even if Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) had stated that such a custom was bearing fruit it would be inappropriate to mandate it, as the Ruthenian Church should be respectful of the need for unity on liturgical matters with both other Churches that use the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) as well as the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). If the custom is of the Holy Spirit it will develop organically across Byzantium. If it is not of the Holy Spirit mandates will only work for a little while, and ultimately harms the liturgical unity the Ruthenian Catholic Church shared with the larger Byzantine Church.

I continue to pray the Lord God that the ongoing appeals to Rome will prove successful and that the Pope Benedict XVI will issue guarantees that the local bishops may not prohibit the full Liturgy of their own Church.

John,

You continue to conflate saying the prayers aloud with the sole purpose of education rather than with kergyma. I don't think anyone would claim that hearing the Gospel proclaimed (a kergyma) is for the purpose of education yet it is educational or at least can be. The Anaphora aloud is the same. It is a kergyma. That it can be educational does not nullify its kergymatic character.

Nor can it be claimed with any credibilty, even if done by the Holy Father, that the Anaphora aloud has not borne fruit in the Latin Church. Based on what? Are we going to lump all the post-VII liturgical practices, both valid and abuse, into one pot and toss them all?

If we are to talk of bearing fruit, what fruit can be claimed to have been had from the silent Anaphora? The biggest Apostasy the Church has ever known in the form of Revolutionaries taking over France, Communists taking over Russia, or Nazis taking over Germany? A handful of partisans didn't do it themselves. The Eastern Churches in America, Orthodox and Catholic, suffering drastic declines as they can't hold onto their third and fourth generations? Now I will not claim that this is all or even partially the fault of a silent Anaphora, it cannot be proven. Neither can the problems of the current Latin Church be blamed on an Anaphora aloud.

I also reject your idea that the Holy Spirit is the inspiration for every tradition that currently exists. Sometimes men reject the Holy Spirit's guidance and do as they wish, because of expedinecy, convenience, corruption, etc. That is how a man like Rodrigo Borgia gets elected Pope. That is how we have a Nikonian Recension. That is how something that was intended to be proclaimed, like the Anaphora, gets turned into a silent prayer in the name of pseudo-mysticism.

We have bigger things to worry about than liturgical unity with the larger Byzantine Church. If the Orthodox don't worry about it among themselves, we don't need to, despite Rome's wishes for it.

I agree with you that priests should be able to take the full Liturgy if they choose, but I also think the bishops are within their rights to mandate the minimum prayers they wish taken aloud.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I have always agreed that changes in the Divine Liturgy should occur organically over time--not by sudden mandate.

Why have the prayers been mandated to be taken aloud? Is it because of the opinion of Fr Taft?

If one looks strictly at the sensus fidelium, not even the mandates of Justinian could change the predominance of the silent or recited (non-"proclaimed") Anaphora amongst either clergy or people.

Nikonian, pre-Nikonian, Greek, Balkan, or Slavic, nearly all extant sluzhebnyky with celebratory notes or rubrics have indications for "exclamations" clearly indicating not all of the presbyteral prayer is to be taken aloud.

Who is to be so presumptious as to say how the Holy Spirit was or is guiding us? Why cannot the presbyter decide, as has been the operative and workable practice for 1500 years? Or is developed praxis and received tradition only an anachronism, open to dismissal by the enforced mandates of a small committee?

Thank you, Father Deacon Lance, for your post.

I agree that there is an educational value to everything that is spoken at all Divine Services, and have spoken to this. The problem here is that a Liturgy which has been ‘fine tuned’ by the Holy Spirit during the past two millennia is now being revised via mandate to emphasize the educational aspect, with the reasoning given that the more of these prayers the people hear the more they will be educated and lifted up. That relationship between how many words one hears and how lifted up one is not a linear one. I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) was absolutely correct when he spoke: “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.” (see fuller quote in my previous post). I believe that the Ruthenian liturgical reform is based upon this same “anthropocentric error” that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks to. The reform was certainly offered with the best of intentions, but the reform is based upon an erroneous foundation.


Can you offer evidence of that the custom has borne fruit in the Latin Church? In an earlier discussion even Father David argued that the reason the experiment must continue (in the West and now in the Ruthenian Church) is so that it may someday bear fruit. We have Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) himself stating that “the German liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis.” I in no way have lumped all the post-VII liturgical practices into one pot. I have quoted Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaking directly to the new custom of praying the Anaphora aloud. It seems to me that my position of liberty is the logical one here, and that a mandate for the priest to pray these prayers aloud is wrong, given both the fact that the Latin liturgical theologians indicate that the custom has created a “crisis” and that the mandate destroys our liturgical unity with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).


I have never made such a claim.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states: “It is no accident that in Jerusalem, for 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.”

No pseudo-mysticism here. Given that the novella of Justinian in 565 didn’t work and we now see Latin liturgical theologians of such esteem stating that the custom is not working in the Latin Church’s Novus Ordo it is legitimate to say that claiming that the quietly prayed Anaphora is all a mistake is “just too easy”. No, liberty on this issue is the way forward and it is liberty that will allow the Spirit to lead organic development.


That there are other things to be worried about is not a valid reason to forget about liturgical unity.

The Orthodox do have an amazing amount of liturgical unity. If you place the liturgical books from the various recensions using the Byzantine Liturgy side-by-side you find that the corpus is very close. I find this amazing given the governance style found within Orthodoxy, and the fact that for long periods in history various local Churches have been cut off from one another.

Here again is a good sense of how liturgy properly develops:


Trust the living tradition! Wonderful! Definitely a message worth listening to. Sensus Fidelum anyone? The idea of creating a liturgical commission to revise the Divine Liturgy is itself evidence of a Latin mindset regarding Liturgy. Liturgical commissions should be limited to producing exactingly faithful translations of the normative texts (as literal as is possible balanced only with elegance).

I continue to pray the Lord God that the ongoing appeals to Rome will prove successful and that the Pope Benedict XVI will issue guarantees that the local bishops may not prohibit the full Liturgy of their own Church.

John

Slava Isusu Christu! (Glory be to Jesus Christ!)
Slava Na Viki! (Clory Forever!)

Gabriel--the letter is quite, quite well thought out and put together. The advice is good---letting go of some emotional content and changing wording will get you taken more seriously. It's easy to dismiss someone who is obviously taking a stand based on emotion and not logic. Your first draft could have been taken that way. So follow the advice and lose some of the wording.

Translating into Italian (Curial Italian, at that!) is another wonderful bit of advice. Maybe send it in both English and Italian? That way there is no excuse for it to be ignored.

Now the big question-when are you going to send it? I don't know the date of your first posting, but based on the amount of replies and the debate on saying things outloud and quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and Father Taft, it was a bit ago. Did you have a deadline?

I understand the one comment about why are we appealing to Rome when we are suposed to be autonomous. I thought the same thing myself many times. However the answer is--we don't have much of a choice. Complaints to those in charge just seem to be ignored. Maybe they aren't being ignored, but there has been no real reply from anyone. And that kind of says something by itself. If they are listening and want to make changes to help answer some points raised by members of their flock, it could have been done in a very clear way. But that hasn't happened either. If it has, I certainly missed it. Which is possible since I know so little about how things operate. But if those in charge don't listen, what choice does the flock have? Some have jumped throughthe broken fence and escaped. Literally. Others are eyeing the broken fence and thinking very hard about jumping. That alone should bring the shephards in charge to pay attention and do something about the fence. One way or another. But do it verbally and with finality. And quickly.

What's the deadline?

Tim

And still others have jumped through the fence and found a wonderful pasture.

As the old saying goes, "I'm not sure I have a dog in this fight." Nonethless, I'll offer a thought or two:

I am grateful to have been accepted as a 'de facto' if not 'de jure' member of various BCC parishes over the years (at which times I have observed the ebb and flow, with more or less success, of various liturgical reform efforts). Until recently, I had been impressed with the realism of some BCC parish priests and layfolk (and even some hierarchs) in accepting that it might be necessary to "let a thousand liturgical flowers bloom" as this "Particular Church" rediscovered its past and charted its future in America. I found that attitude a healthy alternative to the rubric-ridden nit-picking that I had encountered elsewhere. I was also impressed by what seemed to be a genuine desire within the BCC to exercise at least some of the ancient rights that had been recognized when our forefathers in the Faith re-entered communion with the Church of Rome.

On the other hand, I have been unhappy to see the BCC and other Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition apparently accept the balkanization that seems to be a byproduct of the Oriental Code and also fail to take advantage of the liturgical scholarship and pastoral experience of sister churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

Whatever the technical or aesthetic merits of suppressed Litanies, 'proclaimed' priestly prayers, the use of ancient liturgical languages, or "official" musical settings, it would seem that the best place to resolve any differences would be at the parish level, with advice from experts and gentle guidance from local hierarchs. I find it hard to see what can be gained by inviting a Roman dicastery to involve itself in this local matter.

It is sad that we just can't self manage. Therefore, we need someone to hold the measure stick up for us. That currently is Rome. There is a huge disconnect between the clergy on what our church is supposed to be. Some remain horribly Latinized, while others' Liturgical practices were robbed by the RDL, not enhanced. Still others remain defiant and celebrate some other previously progulmated Liturgy.

The answer lies in a strong Bishop who's willing to discipline those priests whose practices fall so far out in left field they are not recognized as being Byzantine. Pray for more vocations, as the extra priests will be fill-in for the time when a Bishop sends a disobedient priest to the monastery to contemplate obedience.

And, keep writing, Rome can't ignore us for long!

Some further observations -

One of the difficulties we are dealing with here is that the early Christians were not asking the same questions about Liturgy that we are asking. The culture and conditions of life were quite different. One fact is certain - that the original custom was for the priests to say the prayers aloud. No other option was contemplated. John seemingly would have us accept that the people did not actually hear the prayers. However, this is not certain one way or the other, but only after the Liturgy moved out of houses into church structures. Taft suggests that the people may not have heard the prayers because the priest prayed bowing. He uses the word “perhaps,” so this is not certain. As a scholar, Taft establishes his conclusions only on what we can definitively determine. Whether the people actually heard the prayers may depend on circumstances and may have varied from place to place. Certainly, as time passed, and the vernacular language changed from the liturgical Greek, the people understood the prayers less and less and perhaps actually hearing them became less of a priority. The only evidence that we have that there was a “mystical value” to the prayers in the early centuries was from Syria. The Greek and Latin cultures and philosophies were more logical/practical. History itself is messy - trends go back and forth and practices vary from place to place. We cannot make such absolute claims as: by the sixth century the prayers were silent, Justinian’s novella was a failure, Syrian theology prevailed everywhere, etc.

The second thing that is certain is that we have to act on our needs today. I firmly believe we need to get in better touch with the meaning of the Paschal Mystery, which is unfolded in the presbyteral prayers. The seeming attitude that we must not “learn” anything from the Liturgy is obscurantism. The anaphora is the promulgation of the gospel in prayer. Whatever meaning it had for the ancients, and certainly in the house liturgies of the first centuries the prayers were clearly said, the meaning must be restored for us today. The practice of the audible anaphora has been on the table for over a century in the Orthodox Church. The audible recitation of the anaphora has been done in our churches since the 70's. After many years, the bishops, moderators of the Liturgy, have decided that this is a value that should be restored, and have re-promulgated the original “rubrics,” as is their right. Perhaps this is the work of the Holy Spirit! At any rate, the decisions of the bishops as the ordained ministers of the liturgy has intrinsically more weight than the individual opinions of any of us as to where the Holy Spirit is working. The decision of the bishops is not contrary to the policy of the universal Church as expressed through the Roman See, nor to numerous interventions by Orthodox conferences, recommendations and theological opinions.

There is an opinion afloat, apparently, that the development of the Liturgy is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that, hence, however the Liturgy has concretely developed cannot be changed, since it is the work of the Spirit. I agree with Deacon Lance that this is not necessarily so. I believe certainly that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and that, in general, the development of the Liturgy has come about through obedience to the Spirit. However, it is not necessarily true that all liturgical developments have been “evolution,” some have been “devolution,” because, as human beings, wee do not always follow accurately the guidance of the Spirit. One might read Thomas Pott’s “La réforme liturgique byzantine,” particularly the first part. It should appear soon in English translation. I might observe that John gives the introduction of the gospel of Mark at the beginning of Paschal Matins as an example of “organic development.” I think it is a devolution, since it replaces the Paschal Vigil with a single gospel - not even the one found in the vigil Matthew 28:1-20) which, therefore, may no longer be read in the liturgical cycle, if priests, as frequently happens ignore the Vigil Liturgy.

Deacon Randall makes the argument - plausible at first sight - that the rubric “vozhlashenije” at the end of a prayer indicates that the rest of it was said silently. This is certainly how it has developed, but his argument is not as strong as it appears. The introduction of the rubric may follow the liturgical development. “Vozhlashenije,” or, in Greek, “ekphonesis,” might be translated “exclamation.” It is almost always a doxology which concludes a prayer. Now, one may well read a narrative aloud and “exclaim” at the end, for example, “what a wonderful story this was.” At any rate, the doxologies sometimes are integral to the prayer, and sometimes are simply attached to the end of a prayer from a repertoire of stock doxologies, and serve as a “presbyteral cue” for the people to respond “Amen.” Hence, his argument is not as strong as it first seems.

Let me try to understand what you are saying here.

At best, it is uncertain whether the prayers were said aloud. A Syrian Tradition may in fact point to a mystical value. Nevertheless, the Liturgy developed organically with the inaudible prayers. So now--in the 21st century--the BCC committee has determined that the prayers should be prayed aloud and has mandated this on the Church. Do I have that right?

I was not awatre that so many were out of touch with the Paschal Mystery.

And yet it has not been forced down the throats of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Are you saying that the bishops have cornered the market on the Holy Spirit!

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

The Pope of Rome seems to differ. And I did not know that the Eastern Catholic bishops were so influenced by Orthodox theological opinions.

I am sorry, and perhaps I misunderstand--but it seems to be the height of arrogance that you insinuate that the Fathers of the Church did not properly heed the call of the Holy Spirit, thus allowing the Liturgy to devolve.

Stephanie...I normally agree with you but not so on this statement...it's not the Bishop who needs to be strong and rule with an iron fist...the faith is kept by the people...the Bishop needs to be strong in listening to his flock...Trust the Holy Spirit to guide...don't look for "top down mandates"...in my humble opinion, that has been the reason for the fall of the BCC...

Chris

The admission that my point is factual with regard to actual liturgical development if anything strengthens and confirms my point, especially with regard to the reality of what the liturgical history and development have been. My argument is plausible because it is supported by the historical development of the Liturgy in this regard.

Since indeed this practice of the exclamation has developed into universal use, and the vast (nearly unanimous) majority have understood it in this way, perhaps I am on to something.

Certainly those most familiar with the historical context of the Slavonic rubrics, the Old Ritualists, understand it in this way of "exclamation" in its organic development (yes, organic development - this is simply the way it has developed for centuries and has come to be the common usage). I don't see abandoning what has come to be the organic development and general understanding of liturgical practices as preferable to what may possibly be a falsely anachronistic approach to the revision of liturgy. Certainly in the Latin Church this is being reassessed.



First of all Liturgy is not a story. It is revelation of the Most Holy Trinity in action, it is the doorway to the deifying Mysteries. I don't see that this comparison is either compelling or appropriate.

Secondly, any "cue" would involve a means for the priest to elevate the "cue", to place specific emphasis on this whether the preceding was read aloud or not. This also implies what precedes it has been performed at a "lower level" to necessitate the "cue".

Thirdly, I would also observe that "Doxology" by its nature not only implies a specific prayer of praise, but also implies a more exuberant way of expressing that praise relative to other kinds of prayers.

I have great difficulty with dismissing the movement of the Spirit in what has come to be the historically demonstrated organic development of liturgical usage in this case.
FDRLB

It always mystifies me when a committee decides that hundreds of years of organic development is incorrect--and they will "restore" the proper praxis.

X. B!
C. I. X!

"It always mystifies me when a committee decides that hundreds of years of organic development is incorrect--and they will "restore" the proper praxis. " quote Recluse

Is this not the basis of our celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy?

'Diak' writes: "I have great difficulty with dismissing the movement of the Spirit in what has come to be the historically demonstrated organic development of liturgical usage in this case."

I tread further into this dispute with some trepidation, but I would suggest that it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that wherever we happen to be liturgically (or happen to have been at some time in the past) is (a) the unalloyed product of the guidance of the Spirit, (b) the point where the Spirit wants us to be at the moment, (c) the point beyond which we dare not move without some indisputable evidence of the Spirit's urgings.

A humble assessment of how we got to where we are now (and how our Churches got to where they were at various points in the not-too-distant past, especially in North America) may suggest that not everyone involved in the development of our Liturgy (cleric or lay, Catholic or Orthodox) has at all times and places necessarily responded intelligently to the promptings of the Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ, to be sure, but it is not His glorified Body. It is made up of imperfect people, however educated, all of them influenced by their past experience and their present environment.

Perhaps we need to be more accepting of our imperfections and limitations and work with the situation as it is, rather than trying to call down a Roman thunderbolt on the RDL. I remain optimistic that a Church that could survive the 'Elko fiasco' can find its own authentic liturgical voice in North America. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us to realize our mistakes when we make them (even if not as quickly as some would hope). I pray that the hierarchs, clergy and laity of the BCC will find a way of communicating openly and honestly about liturgical matters and develop the patience and trust to listen to each other, and to the Spirit.

I think rather the stretch is that 1500 years of development should be regarded as being either misguided or without guidance by the Spirit.

'Diak' writes: "I think rather the stretch is that 1500 years of development should be regarded as being either misguided or without guidance by the Spirit."

Of course, none of the posts on this topic has said that.

It does not impugn the action of the Spirit in the development of Liturgy to suggest either: (a) that human responses to the promptings of the Spirit may not always be the best, or the only possible, way in which the People of God might have responded; or (b) that every development in Byzantine liturgical expression over 1500 years must always and forever be maintained.

I do not think it irreverent to compare our liturgical treasures to a collection of family hierloom garments. All can be loved and cherished. Some might be admired and then stored away again, however, because found unsuitable for today's social or climatic conditions. Others will be taken out and used for a while. Some of those will require tailoring, however, to fit the needs of today's wearers. And many will be a perfect fit.

Byzantine liturgical practice over the past 1500 years has not been a seamless progression. It has proceeded by fits and starts, discarded some things and then rediscovered them, and been subject to any number of cultural and social influences.

To offer one example: I still recall my shocked reaction one morning, as I knelt in the Cathedral in Uzhhorod over a decade ago. The 'main' altar, with its soaring iconostas, was dark. Meanwhile, a half dozen or more priests were celebrating "read" Liturgies at Latin-style side altars along the side aisles of the church, individually and without so much as a server to assist any of them. A purist might have criticized them (as I was tempted to do), but then I realized that these were men who had kept the flame of Faith alive during the Soviet period. They had lived to see the restoration of the Byzantine Church and the Eparchy of Uzhhorod, and were worshipping in a temple only recently restored to Byzantine Catholic use. I said a prayer of thanks for their courage and perseverance.

I doubt that the Bishop of Uzhhorod dealt with these liturgical "old-timers" by issuing sternly worded letters, imposing penalties, or making threats. I doubt, too, that he enlisted the assistance of a Roman dicastery in guiding these men toward a fuller expression of their liturgical heritage.

This view of liturgy, while not explicitly irreverent is potentially dangerous by comparing the lived revelation of the Mystery of Mysteries throughout the centuries in liturgical development to a collection of items, "heirlooms", whatever materialistic simile one wants to derive. Everything becomes subject to line-item removal or revision, possibly denying or reversing an organic historical development based on what is purported to be a necessary "societal" impetus to change.

When the Kyivan Church accepted Christianity, the Liturgy did not change with reductions, modern language or a tampering of the extant texts as received in the name of "comforming" to "societal needs". It did adapt culturally by providing the Liturgy in a language understandable to the people, but it retained in its form, text, and rubrics, a truly Constantinopolitan liturgy that most likely was celebrated with a silent Anaphora if we are to believe the rubrics in most of the extant Slavonic texts.

Did it develop further? Certainly, but in extra length, texts, unique musical developments, specific rubrical additions, etc. - hardly the same as we see now in the revisionist push to abbreviate texts, standardize music that was never previously standardized and mandate modernized language.

If this materialistic premise of liturgy being a collection of "heirlooms" is accepted, then every aspect of Liturgy is subject to a relativistic valuation/devaluation and redefinition largely based on, as we have seen with inclusive language, societal revisions rather than the received tradition or the sensus fidelium.

I am all for pastoral prudence; such as with the Ektenia of the Catechumens being optional outside of Lent or other times when there are no Catechumens. I do not oppose outrightly the aloud Anaphora; I do not prefer it and oppose mandates which have been facile since the time of Justinian to control a practice that has become standard usage over 1500 years.

I am not for a revisionist approach to liturgy that idealizes certain modernist sociological phenomena ("inclusive language") or ignores the historical development of the liturgy over what one or a few persons interpret as the "proper" liturgical development and the "real" guidance of the Spirit. And again, I definitely do not presume the Spirit to be inoperative, misguiding or deceptive throughout 1500 years of liturgical development.



Nor do I - he indeed offers pastoral prudence and patience in this regard, which is admirable indeed when dealing with liturgical usage. The promulgation letters for the RDL seem to many as onerous and sternly worded and do not offer any options in the matter. I don't recall many hierarchs since the Nikonian reforms attempting to promulgate a "sole text" in this way. I am quite pleased that in the UGCC the priest can decide based on pastoral situations in the case of extra Ektenias, silent Anaphora, etc. rather than blanket mandate which may not at all respect his particular parish spiritual needs or conditions.

I thank Father David for his post.


Nothing I have posted has suggested that the people have never heard the prayers. It seems quite logical that those standing nearest the priest would hear the prayers (if he was praying loud enough) while those standing at the farthest point of the assembly might not hear them. Father Taft notes, “The people were incapable – the person in Church by himself or herself said their prayers aloud. We know that from ancient culture.” It is logical to conclude, at least as a working hypothesis, that the priest was offering the prayers to God on behalf of the people and for no other reason. Given that many (if not most) individuals would be praying their own prayers aloud it is difficult to accept Father David’s implication that these prayers were prayed out loud for the specific intention of transmission of information (education) because that education was necessary for the individual believer to be raised up.

The specific point I am making is that there is a qualitative difference between a prayer that is prayed prayerfully and a prayer that is prayed for the education of man. During the praying of the Anaphora a priest should focus his whole being upon the prayers. When you give him (and the Anaphora) the additional task of proclamation for the education of man (i.e., the transmission of information) the focus of his prayer is no longer solely about God.

Note the argument presented by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) on the purpose of the Divine Liturgy, and especially the Anaphora: “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.” [Full quote and reference in my previous post.]

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is absolutely correct when he states that with such an emphasis on man in the Liturgy “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.” In this instance the prayers are no longer “for us men and our salvation” but “for us men and our education”. This change in emphasis is what makes it more difficult for faith to be fostered. I acknowledge that this was not the intent but it is most certainly the effect.


There are numerous problems with Father David’s claim that the mandate to pray the Anaphora aloud for the education of man renews the equivalent custom of the early Church. We see from Father Taft that while the prayers were prayed out loud by the priest there was no special effort made to proclaim them for the purposes of education. We see from Father David’s post here that the custom varied from place to place, that there was some evidence of a “mystical value” in these prayers being prayed quietly in the early centuries from Syria. And we see from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) that: “It is no accident that in Jerusalem, for 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.” No, none of what has been presented by Father David or others supports any idea that in the early Church the Anaphora prayers were prayed for education purposes, that it was necessary for the Church (individual believers or the gathered Church) to hear the prayers so that they might have their souls raised up. The most we can conclude is that they were prayers prayed prayerfully, and just happened to be taken aloud in some places and at some times. There is certainly nothing in any of the evidence that justifies Father David’s demand for a mandate that these Anaphora prayers be prayed aloud. The most logical position on this topic is the one that I have offered. Allow the individual priest liberty in praying these prayers either in a low voice or aloud. In that way he can focus solely on praying the prayers and not be distracted by the additional task of having to proclaim them to educate the faithful.

Look at what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is speaking about when he speaks about the “possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. … 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.” [“Spirit of the Liturgy", pp. 214-216] Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is saying that when the focus of these prayers is solely upon God (and not upon the education of the faithful by purposeful hearing) that the people “set aside all earthly cares” (including the need to be educated by hearing words) and join with the angels who sing “let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.” In silence, they better express the mystery, better and more faithfully worship the Godhead. Silence and awe better expresses the mystery hidden from all ages, and which is veiled to the senses, (sight, taste, touch and HEARING), but which is revealed only in silent faith. Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is on to something important here. And, when we see that the Latins themselves are considering retreating from this custom of praying the Anaphora aloud because it has caused a “crisis” in their Church, Ruthenians ought not to imitate it with mandates but let liberty allow the Spirit to lead. It seems to me that when you give the priest the additional task of praying the Anaphora out loud for the specific purpose of education (with the idea that hearing is necessary to being raised up) you wind up imposing the Word (in a wordy and intellectual sense) upon the breath of the Spirit in a way that does violence not only to the true faith, but also to the image of the Trinity in the Church. There is a lot here that needs exploration and anything other than liberty for the priest to focus solely on being before God does great violence.

The difficulty with John's post is that it assumes the only reason you would say a prayer aloud is for education. There are numerous reasons why a prayer addressed to God might be said aloud. The simplest one is so that the people would know to what they are saying "Amen." Education, however, would hardly be a bad side effect of the prayers. His assertion that it is "my claim" to "mandate to pray the Anaphora aloud for the education of man" is setting up a "straw man." I never made such a claim. I do acknowledge the bishop's right to mandate a liturgical practice, but I have never said that it was "only for education." John's main source for his views seem to be Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI), but Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking out of the Western tradition. I do not deny the value of his words, but do not agree with them entirely and hold that they are not completely applicable to our situation. He seems to be arguing that the Tridentine practice had its value, but "silence" in the Tridentine Mass was not the same thing as "silence" in the modern "Ruthenian Rite Divine Liturgy." In fact, we seem to abhor silence as such, and cantors will often stay in the choir lofts to sing hymns rather than receive Communion with the faithful.

I thank Father David for his post.

I will agree with Father David that he does not use the specific term “education” to describe why he believes a mandate is necessary for the Anaphora to be prayed aloud. He speaks in terms of transmitting information - the need for people to hear and understand what they are saying “Amen” to. That is education. In his “Response to Father Keleher” he stated that: “What the priest says is what the people should come to know” (which could be accomplished in educational classes). Elsewhere he has stated that the people need to hear and understand what the prayers are for their “Amen” to have meaning. This again leads back to a conclusion that Father David is putting much value in idea that the transmission of information (education) is part of the reason for the Anaphora.

Father David notes that I said he desires a mandate for the Anaphora prayers to be prayed aloud “only for education”. I do not believe I used that phrase (and a search did not reveal it in this thread). My repeated point is: “When you give him (and the Anaphora) the additional task of proclamation for the education of man (i.e., the transmission of information) the focus of his prayer is no longer solely about God.” (Emphasis to “additional task” added.) A very logical conclusion to Father David’s argument is that if the people near to hear the prayers in order to say “Amen” this hearing must also educate them enough to be able to know what they are saying “Amen” to.

Father David is absolutely correct when he notes that my main source here is Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). But that is the discussion it in a nutshell! Beyond a few references throughout Orthodox history over the past millennium that consider the possibility of thinking about maybe experimenting with praying these prayers aloud there has been no serious discussion on the matter, let alone widespread experimentation. And I am still unaware of a single mandate anywhere in Orthodoxy directing the priest to pray the Anaphora aloud. So why is the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America mandating a practice that has not yet had serious discussion or experimentation within Orthodoxy?

Another reason for using Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as a main source is that the Ruthenian mandate imitates the current custom in the Latin Church. The Latins have experimented with this custom for about four decades. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks to problems the Latin Church now has because of the praying of the Anaphora out loud. Since there is no serious, wide-spread discussion in Orthodoxy regarding the praying of the Anaphora aloud and it is now the custom in the Latin Church it is very logical to believe that this mandate for the Ruthenian Church did not come from the East but from the West. Even if it did not come from West (which is difficult to accept) it makes perfect sense to take in to consideration the problems encountered by the Latins. And, in the end, it makes no sense to mandate a custom the current Holy Father is calling on the Latin Church to reconsider. It repeatedly boils down to the need for liberty and not mandates.

On the point of the “silence” in the Tridentine Mass being different than that in the traditional Ruthenian Divine Liturgy I will note that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) qualified the silence by stating that it was “overlaid in part with meditative singing”.

On the point of cantors staying in the loft to sing hymns rather then receive Communion I agree entirely with Father David. First, it is inappropriate for the cantor forgo Communion (if he had not already received that day and was free from serious sin). Second, the idea that every moment must be filled so that there is no silence is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with silence during Communion (after the prescribed hymn). [But endless Communion Hymns bothers me less than hearing cantors repeat the last part of the Cherubic hymn to avoid silence while the priest finishes his prayers and makes his way to the side altar.]

It seems to me that Father David has not really offered anything substantial to support his recommendation for a mandate to take the prayers aloud. If anything, everything offered supports my position of allowing liberty. In the end his argument always seems to devolve to “the bishop said so”. He can certainly appeal to authority and I in no way recommend anyone be disobedient. Yet appeals to authority do not win people to one’s cause.

But there are more questions that Father David has been asked and has not answered. He states that “we have to act on our needs today” but neither specifies these needs nor explains exactly how the mandated praying of the Anaphora out loud fills these needs (and, in the larger discussion, how the Revised Divine Liturgy fills these needs in a way that our very own 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy does not and cannot). In addition, he needs to explain why the needs of the Ruthenian Catholic people are so different than those of the Ukrainian Catholic people who belong to the church down the street, the Carpato-Russian Orthodox people who belong to the parish two blocks away and the needs of those who worship at the Greek, Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox parishes a few neighborhoods over. [I will note again that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church recently re-affirmed that the official Ruthenian recension is its norm and the standard for that Church.] There are many more questions, but that is enough for today.

I will again ask our readers to remember all of the bishops and clergy of the Ruthenian Church in their prayers.

What I am having difficulty grasping is why, whenever liturgical reform is being proposed, or mandated, whether in early 20th century Russia, or in 21'st century Munhall, those who favor renovation always fix on the audible anaphora. Why this particular vestige of the early Church? Why not the married episcopacy? Why not physically locking the doors of the Church at the exclamation "Dveri, dveri"? Why not the expulsion of the unbaptized at the litany of the catechumens? What is it about the audible anaphora that has so captivated those that they risk all to change it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Alexandr

Slava Isusu Christu! (Glory be to Jesus Christ!)
Slava Na Viki! (Glory be Forever!)

Very interesting question Slavipodvizhnik. And I like the way you phrased it, with the back up examples of things that are not being pursued. Thanks. The Audible Anaphora certianly does seem to be taking up a lot of space on a thread that started out as a critique of a letter to Rome. Maybe a separate thread?

By the way, please take pity on a poor coal miner's son from Western Pennsylvania--what does it mean when Mykhal wrote:

X. B!
C. I. X!

I'm guessing it means pretty much the same thing I wrote at the beginning of my post, only it's a shortcut. Please, someone, educate me on this. I still think we need a reference page where we have the normal greetings and when to use them in the various languages of the Byzantine Rite, as well as any shortcuts such as those above. And a reference page with specific words that are used on a regular basis in these posts, for new people and those who might not understand some things or who have simply forgotten them. Any one else think these are good ideas? I can put together a Byzantine- Rus (Ruthenian) one if someone else would be willing to add the Ukrainian equivalaents, Greek equivalents and any other languages that are used regularly on this Forum.

Tim

It's been asked for years. I have never yet heard a satisfactory answer either, pan Doktor, credibly based on the historical reality of our Churches.

Tim mentioned a worthwhile point, that indeed this thread was started as a response to Gabriel's requests for comments on his letter - please remember those comments need to be on the objective merits (or lack of) the points of which you have dissention from the mandated texts of the RDL, and not use overly subjective and personal descriptives as "stupid hobby-horse", etc.

The folks in Rome may listen to reasoned statements and arguments, but they will likely not be impressed at all with invective. Be careful, objective, and patient.

The moderator(s) may indeed want to make a breakout thread of the other questions raised tangential to Gabriel's letter.