www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question #1 on New Translation of Liturgy

It appears that the new translation of the liturgy could be quite a kick in the teeth to traditionalists. If it comes to fruition I am curious on some of your thoughts. Normally I would say that after two thousand years we should have this stuff settled, but since the so called leaders in our church have to keep on bringing this stuff up we can join their silly parade.

Don't ask me how I know about the changes. If you don't believe me then take the following questions as hypothetical ones.

If the antiphons were only to have one verse

i.e. only

Vosklinite Hospodevi vsja zeml'a,....
Shout joyfully to the Lord all the earth,....

and then right to the Second Antiphon and skipping
Rcyte Bohu: kol' strasna d'ila Tvoja,...
Say to God: How awesome are Your deeds!...

Would churches who took all of the verses of the Anitphons have to now only take one verse?

If they took the other verses would the be in 'error'?

Why take out all of the verses?

Any thoughts?

More questions to follow in the coming days and weeks.

Michael Cerularius

The East will rise again!

Yes, we "vostochniks" are not in favor of these and other changes that have been made!

Christos Voskrese! Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ungcsertezs

Christ is Risen! At the present moment, without exaggeration there are as many as three hundred English translations of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom on the market. What need is there for another one?

Christ is truly Risen!

Incognitus

Christ is Risen!

Has the new translation of the Divine Liturgy already been released to the laity? Where is the referenced text?

In Christ,

John

Because 300 is such an even number, and 301 would be more Byzantine?

Christ is Risen!
Photius

I like the present texts, and I don't really see any need for a new translation.

No it has not been released to the laity. I don't have the referenced text to display at the moment, and if you don't want to believe what I have seen with my own two eyes then take the questions as hypotheticals.

IMHO, the salient point is that a very non-traditional text is about to be jammed down our throats and it's time to bring up some points about what is about to occur.

More to come.

Michael Cerularius

The East will rise again!

Some time ago, my brother, Father Deacon Lance posted the text on this forum. This has been discussed many times on this forum. If any one cares to review past discussions, you can certainly do a search.

For the most part the so-called new translation of the Divine Liturgy reflects very few textual changes. As I understand, the textual changes reflect the translation from the Greek where the Slavonic may not reflect the Greek version of the DL. I hardly think it will be faith shattering. If anyone has attended the annual Uniontown pilgrimage of late, then you've pretty much experienced the so-called new translation. Seems someone is trying to stir a tempest in the teplota.

Michael Cerularius,

you speak of "so-called leaders in our Church". Any text of the Divine Liturgy will be promulgated by the Metropolitan with the Council of Hierarchs. Is there some doubt in your mind that our Hierarchs are in fact the leaders of our Church?

Dear Deacon John,

Maybe it won't be faith shattering, but it does hurt.

The parish where I grew up, way back in the '70s always sang the antiphons at the begininng of the Liturgy ("Shout joyfully etc."), all the verses. I loved it then, and I love it now.

I went to Uniontown, and I heard the shortcuts there. Maybe it doesn't shatter my faith, but it hurts. Why won't they let me sing my antiphons. That is my job at the Liturgy! I feel disappointed and somehow cheated when the cantor jumps on to the "Glory" and then after one verse of the next antiphon, jumps again to the "O only begotten".

I think, maybe the cantor is in a hurry, maybe he has somewhere else to go? Maybe there is a good reason, but I haven't heard it yet.

Why have they taken 'my' antiphons? Why are they being shortened?

If there is a really good reason, then it would be easier for me to accept it. (...and I am waiting to hear it.). But for now, it seems like the cantor is taking short cuts, and I feel sad, and disappointed. I like the antiphons, I enjoy praying them, I enjoyed singing them, and what's the rush to eliminate them, without any reason being given?

It doesn't shatter my faith, but it does shake it a little.

I went to Uniontown, and I heard the shortcuts. I used to go every year, but I haven't been the last couple of years. The reason I haven't gone for the last three years, is because they won't let me sing my antiphons. If they don't want me to sing, they don't want me either.

It only hurts.

Nick

Dear Michael,

Please don't be put off by Deacon John. I am with you. There are those who are trying to convince us that asking questions about the new liturgy, or opposition the revision of the liturgy is inappropriate. Don't believe that, for one moment.

Why do they think that revising the liturgy wouldn't cause a tempest?

Question to the board,


Since it is the Metropolitan who ultimately has to promulgate the new translation, has anyone written him and asked him why the new translation does not keep the entire Rescension? If yes what were his replies?

When will the Metropolitan explain why the entire Rescension is not being published?

Has anyone discussed the ecumenical ramifications of the changes?

What does the Orthodox Church think of the entire Rescension not being published.

Do the Greek Catholics help or hinder unity by publishing this new translation?

Pope Benedict has more than once in the last two weeks spoken about unity with the Orthodox. Is his hope for unity being fostered with this new translation?

Michael Cerularius

The East will rise again!

For those unaware, the beautiful "The Divine Liturgy - An Anthology for Worship" is "hot" off the press. Published by the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Ottowa, Canada - Imprimatur Patriarch Lubomyr Husar.
It is currently being introduced to all Ukrainian Catholic parishes throughout the United States and Canada and truly is a masterpiece. Our parish in Scranton, Pennsylvania - St. Vladimir - officially began using it two Sundays ago and we love it.
Take a look: http://web.ustpaul.uottawa.ca/Sheptytsky/DLASample1.pdf

Dear Michael,

I think you are asking some of the right questions. Maybe the East will rise!

Nick

Christos voskhrese!

As far as the original question about "non-traditional" features goes...

(1) Our present Divine Liturgy book from the Byzantine Seminary Press (1978) has the First and Second Antiphons, as customarily used in the Ruthenian recension. BUT the second and following verses are in smaller type, suggesting they may not be used - as in fact they are omitted (sadly) in quite a number of parishes. (Our prayerbook, the Byzantine Book of Prayer, puts them in brackets. The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox 1988 service book gives only one verse of each psalm, and omits the remainder.)

In our current Divine Liturgy book, one verse EACH of the the typical psalms (102 and 145) is given as an alternative to the Sunday antiphons, but there is no mention at all of the Beatitudes which should accompany them.

For that matter, the existing Divine Liturgy book completely omits BOTH the Little Litanies following the first and second antiphons. Some parishes may be taking them - but are you prepared to indict ALL of our bishops for 30-odd years for omitting these two litanies?

(2) The provisional Divine Liturgy text I have seen in use at the seminary provides the first and second antiphons for Sundays and weekdays, WITH MUSIC. The second and following verses are omitted, but I have been assured that they will be in the cantor's companion volume which is in preparation, which will also included notated psalm verses for Vespers and Matins, the Glory/now and ever in the 8 resurrectional tones etc. - all the texts which are specifically given to the cantor.

(By the way, when psalms are sung responsorially, the older tradition IS for the cantor(s) to sing the verses, and all to sing the response. See Byzantine Daily Worship, for example. In fact, the Ordo Celebrationis, which IS the offical ordo for our recension, says "the chanters sing" the antiphons.)

The rubrics in the provisional text say that the typical psalms AND the Beatitudes may be sung in place of the Sunday antiphons, except on Sundays with proper antiphons. The first verse of each (the ones we traditionally abbreviate to) are given with both simple and solemn melodies. I expect that the remaining verses, and the Beatitudes, will be in the cantor's companion.

There may be reasons to like or dislike a revised translation (and yes, in some cases changes may be made precisely because the text we have diverges from the Greek. See the forum posts on the Septuagint - or should the Slavonic gospel and apostol trump the Greek Scriptural texts as well?) And if something is omitted that you want to continue to have as an option, ask for it (respectfully).

But I don't think leaving the cantor's antiphons out of the people's book is a blow against Tradition. And whether they are right or wrong, our hierarchs do deserve more respect in public than referring to them as "so called leaders".

Yours in the risen Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

What's the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? There is some truth in regards to recension rubrics.

I guess that's why the "suppressed" paschal rubrics have been implemented, to resemble the Greek usage vs. Ruthenian-Slavonic usage? ...if it ain't broke....

Christos Voskrese! (old Slavic usage ;))

Ungcsertezs

Thanks for your info ByzKat.

I recall even many decades ago, we would sing through the responses without waiting for the intonation - just as scored, for example in Sokol. I have heard a similar effect in Orthodox churches (and not just in the US) with the priest and choir chanting simultaneously.

Does anyone know when, where, and why such practices arose?

UC: Did you do typical psalms rather than paschal antiphons in Windber?

On Pascha Sunday, the 1st and 2nd Antiphons, then Fr. Daniel takes the Paschal Tropar w/ verses for 3rd Antiphon, as in the Levkulic book.

I was referring more to the "suppressed" Archeparchial request not to sing the Paschal Tropar on the 2nd thru 6th Paschal Sundays. Thank God there are pastors who still insist on celebrating Pascha fully through the Feast of Ascension. It just isn't a Paschal Sunday if you don't sing "Christ is Risen" throughout the Divine Liturgy as is the Ruthenian Recension tradition.

Christos Voskrese! Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ungcsertezs

I see. But this is not just a "Greek" thing. I don't think you'll find this practice in the OCA, for example. Maybe this change to go back to a common, orthodox tradition. In any case, I too am glad for pastors with some pastoral sensitivity.

That's as may be. But there are two places in our translation of the the Divine Liturgy where my Orthodox friends consistently cringe, and one where they chuckle:

1. In the Creed, we say "of one substance with the Father", and quite a number of Orthodox theologians have SERIOUSLY questioned this phrase. Archbishop Raya and the Carpatho-Russians only half-translate the Latin and say "consubstantial"; OCA and old-Calendar Greeks say "one in essence" or "of one essence". Sure enough, the Creed being used at our seminary has "essence" rather than "substance".

2. My Orthodox friends also object to "Mother of God" for "Bohoroditsa" or "Theotokos", saying that "mother of" and "bearer of" are theologically distinct, and that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon called the Most Pure Virgin the "Bearer (or Birth-giver) of God". This was a major issue at the joint Stamford conference on translation, some years ago, where the concensus was to use "Theotokos" rather than the somewhat infelicitous "Birthgiver of God". Sure enough, in the new text - "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us!"

3. Finally, a practical matter - at my home parish in West Virginia, many families had siblings or cousins at the Carpatho-Russian parish across the river. Whenever people went back and forth, they'd lose track of whether to sing "God grant him/her/them many BLESSED years" (over there) or "God grant ... many HAPPY years." (over at our parish. I heard people switch in mid-word and wish some grandmother many "bleppy" years...) Sure enough, in the proposed translation, we wish "many blessed years!"

I would bet that, if they are promulgated, I will hear about all three of these as "giving in to the Orthodox", or "needless changes." I would not complain bitterly if the changes WEREN'T made. But I'd submit that all three of these are changes which bring us closer to the Orthodox tradition in English, and (at least in the first two places) remove long-standing Orthodox complaints.

I have also heard that there is catechetical material already in preparation, explaining the proposed changes, that will be promulgated along with any new text of the Divine Liturgy.

Yours in the risen Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

Djs,

Then maybe its a Greek/ Moscovite recension vs. Ruthenian recension.

I would rather stay with the translation approved by Rome back in the 1940's for use by the Byzantine Catholic Rusin Exarchate and the Byzantine Catholic-Ukrainian jurisdictions, sans filioque of coarse!

Ungcsertezs

Dear Jeff,

Another edition of the Liturgy, changing substance to essence would not cause any objection, that I can see and agree with.

I do object to translating english to greek into our Liturgy. How is this progress?

"Mother of God" is an acceptable english translation of Theotokos, at least according to Bishop Kallistos Ware, who knows more about greek and english than I ever will. What is an American visitor to our Church going to think? If we pray to and invoke the Mother of God, he will know exactly who we are praying to. If we introduce foreign words into an otherwise english sentence, people will think we're praying in code-words, that only the initiates know. Sounds gnostic to me. English is a fine language, and can express the faith completely. There is nothing inadequate about it. This is not an improvement.

It is only change, for change's sake. 'Substance' to 'essence' could be changed in future editions of the Liturgy without causing disruption. Making a chopped liver sandwich out of the first part of the liturgy is a great disruption. It is regretable and unjustifiable.

The Archbishop is our leader, and he is the one who is claiming that he has the authority to revise the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

He must take the lead here, and explain these changes in the Liturgy, and help us to understand why these changes are really necessary.

Nick

I will attempt to answer some of the questions although I am quite sure some will not like them.

I believe the abbreviations that occur, one verse antiphons and litanies not used or shortened are to accomodate the taking of the Anaphora aloud and keeping the Liturgy at the same length people are used to. And please I do not wish to argue about whether the Anaphora should be taken aloud or silent or whether it should be mandated or the choice of the priest.

Now there are dozens of objections that can be made, but the bottom line is this: The bihops are aware of the objections, they do read this forum on occasion, and have made their decision and Rome has approved it. The flip side to that is if a priest wants to take all the antiphons and litanies nothing is stopping him. A pew book is a pew book, it is not meant to be a Liturgicon, Epistle, Gospel, Octoechos, Menaion, Triodion, Pentecostarion, Irmilogion outlining every rubric or hymnodic possibilty.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Lance,

Thanks very much for suggesting what I've suspected, anyway. The people's (and deacon's) parts are being shortened, so that the priest's prayers can be taken aloud. A very pastoral approach to the liturgy, no doubt.

Interestingly, I was talking with someone this week (associated with the seminary in Pittsburgh) who told me that Rome does not approve of these changes to the Liturgy, in fact, Rome thinks that the abbreviations and revisions are very regretable. I take great comfort from this, and it gives me hope.

Nick

Nick,

"I went to Uniontown, and I heard the shortcuts. I used to go every year, but I haven't been the last couple of years. The reason I haven't gone for the last three years, is because they won't let me sing my antiphons. If they don't want me to sing, they don't want me either."

That is quite silly reasoning to deprive yourself of the spiritual benefit of the Otpust. You go to receive Christ and His blessings and would deny yourself that over a couple verses? They have taken away some of the deacon's litanies and shortened others, should I refuse to serve? How silly does that sound? I know change is hard, but we must move forward prayerfully.

Fr. Deacon Lance

You're right of course, and in many ways, I did miss the pilgrimage, especially last September for some reason.

The heart of the matter, is to really believe that this is a move "forward". What if it is not?

Nick

Nicholas,

I think one must keep in mind this is a compromise. There are some who want to use the official liturgicon front to back no omissions. There are others who use the blue pew book with every abbreviation allowed. Really those used to the blue book will be the most affected. Those used to a longer Liturgy will probably still get it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Those who abbreviate, will continue to do so, leaving out whatever they want, I'm sure. Those who want to sing the antiphons, will find they are not printed in the book. How is it that they will be "the most affected"?

Nicholas,

I would not be so quick to judge. I think there are many who follow the blue book because it is currently the official book and will use the new book because the bishops promulagte it. I am sure handouts will be made available in those parishes that want to sing all the verses.

Fr. Deacon Lance

To be honest, I wish the Liturgy was longer.

I think ByzKat's examples are interesting at a number of levels.

First, in previous discussion on this subject there was a sense by some of a VaticanII-like modernization impulse at work. But the examples of ByzKat show the obvious: that change is not necessarily "modernization".

Second, I can offer opinions on:

Substance/essence. This is a case of liturgists confusing words of vernacular English with theological jargon. :rolleyes:

Mother of God/Theotokos. God-bearer and perhaps Mother of God don't go far enough now - especially in our modern and Protestant culture. Is she a mere vessel - a surrogate-mother? A step-mother or nanny - a bearer like Christopher? There is a new phrase in English, which can express ideas so well, that I would give as a modest proposal: Biological-Mother of God.

Many happy/blessed years - How about "Many, many years", which conforms with other languages.

Finally, having offered my opinions I will hasten to add that I will accept the wisdom of Hierarchs; there is no reason offered by anyone to suggest that a lack of wisdom on their part.

"Interestingly, I was talking with someone this week (associated with the seminary in Pittsburgh) who told me that Rome does not approve of these changes to the Liturgy, in fact, Rome thinks that the abbreviations and revisions are very regretable. I take great comfort from this, and it gives me hope."

There are only so many of us "associated with the seminary in Pittsburgh," and I am going to go out on a limb here and say that none of them would claim something contrary to the truth. The revised Liturgy was, in fact, approved by Rome. Whoever told you otherwise is either completely mistaken and speaking in ignorance, or is telling an untruth. I sincerely hope it is the former.

I repeat: the new translation of the Liturgy was approved by Rome and sent back to the Council of Hierarchs.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Well, clearly, one of you is. I heard that the language of the letter was clearly one of "regret" (quoting the letter from Rome). Which is the opposite of "approval".

If Rome has approved of the revision of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and abbreviations in the Liturgicon (which I doubt), the obvious solution is to publish the letter, in which Rome approves of this abbreviated and revised Liturgy. That will certainly settle the matter.

Until then, one can't claim (as Deacon Lance has in this thread) that Rome has approved of it. That is merely hearsay.

If the past is prelude to the future, then this idea is most implausible.

There will always be folks who will pick up on one phrase or another to cling to their position and say: but here is what was really meant. Or just not accept what is not to their liking.

In any case, no "approval" (or condemnation for that matter) from Rome, has any force until the matter is published.

As Thomas said to Jesus, "Unless I see the wounds....'

Sometimes we just have to wait to find out the whole truth. I do believe that Rome had approved the revised Liturgy earlier this year.

Given the animosity regarding the changes, I can well see why the promulgation and usage timelines are moving so slowly. People tend to be wary of change. Life is about change.

just my insignificant observations of this topic.

Steve

From the CCEO:

It appears that any Roman review would be in the form of recommendations and not necessarily approval of liturgical texts and translations. Now given the expertise, compentancy, and qualifications of those in Rome who review the texts, the Metropolitan together with the Council of Hierarchs would certainly take the recommendations under close advisement, even though they would not be obligated to do so.

These discussions are going to be interesting to observe from my side of the street.

james

When Bishop Pataki came to Passaic he banned parishes from singing more than one verse of the antiphons. He also banned the litany before the Our Father and the one after Communion. So we�ve already had some of this dumb new liturgy for 7 or 8 years. Holy Week this year was the last straw. Good Friday was a disaster. The Vespers and Saint Basil Divine Liturgy and Resurrection Matins went nonstop for 3 � hours long last year so we didn�t even attempt going this year and went on Easter Sunday instead. Nobody wants to go to our church anymore even me. There has got to be something we can do to stop this distruction of our church. Who can we complain to? We talk about this every week at church. If we sent letters to Rome would Rome do anything? Can we get a special indult to keep the real liturgy like the Latin Mass people have? We have lost so many people since Bishop Pataki mandated the new liturgy. Why don�t the bishops care? Who do we call or write to? What can we do? I can�t believe that Rome is allowing this.

Yes, the report that the Oriental Congregation �regrets� the liturgical abbreviations and revisions is simply false. I do not have the right to release the text, but the only regret of the Congregation is that there cannot be one common English text. This would certainly be the ideal, as all would agree, but to demand it would delay any progress indefinitely. Yes, I emphasize this, the new text is progress. It is in conformity with the Byzantine tradition, and when promulgated by the Metropolitan, will officially finally end the long period of liturgical reluctance to return to our �ancestral traditions� in most of our parishes. This was the goal of the late Archbishop Judson, and it is a worthy goal. It could not be accomplished by the promulgation of the 1965 text, which I will explain shortly. Though I, as an individual person, do not have the right to release the text of the March 31, 2001 approval of the new Liturgy translation (not a new Liturgy), I will quote one sentence, �Those who submitted this text, prepared with great care and in proper form, are to be warmly commended for such a superb piece of work.�
I know on this forum there are many who are fighting this with tooth and nail. However, much of the problem is, like the Vatican II Council, not with what the new translation has accomplished, but with the way it is implemented on the grass roots level. Not everything that happens everywhere can be controlled.
The 1965 translation needed correction. Just a few examples:
1) in the rite of preparation, the Great Martyr George was translated as �Gregory� and the Holy Martyr Theodore the Recruit was translated as �Theodore of Tyre.�
2) the deacon began the Liturgy, �It is time to sacrifice to the Lord..� This is simply wrong, the deacon�s invitation is from Psalm 118:126, �It is time for the Lord to act.�
3) �Ecumenical� is an honorific that applies only to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope is the �holy Father, the Pope of Rome.�
4) People often made fun of the petition for �seasonable weather.� Are we praying for blizzards in winter and heat waves in summer. The Greek word means �favorable,� or �mild.�
5) �Peace be with you,� was corrected to �Peace be to you.� The older translators were probably influenced by the Latin, �Dominus vobiscum.�
6) The second part of the Cherubic Hymn was corrected, �That we may welcome ... � actually means �That we mat receive ...� The Greek word for �receive� in Communion is used here.
7) The response �The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise,� was corrected to �Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.� For a detailed explanation, read: Robert Taft, �Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradtiion,�, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983), 340-365.
There are others I can think of, but this is enough for now. Most of the revisions wre purely stylistic, and affected only the priest's prayers. Do we need another translation? I think, yes, until we get it right.
Many complaints revolve around the Antiphons. The impression given on the Forum is that everywhere in the American Greek Catholic world the �full� antiphons are being sung, and the bishops are ruthlessly reducing them to one verse (well, one verse plus the �Glory to the Father ... �) This is simply false. Almost all parishes reduced it to one verse in the course of the last two or three generations. Nor are we the only Church to reduce the antiphons, the Greek Orthodox often just sing the refrains, and I�ve seen (or heard!) this done in Russian churches also. The reality is that the great majority of parishes in the Pittsburgh archeparchy will have to restore the Third Antiphon. Most of the parishes in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic follow almost exactly the �new translation� already. I�m not for chopping the Liturgy, but I will defend what the bishops mandated as a pastoral decision for the here and now. As I�ve said before, the real reality is that the antiphons were chopped many centuries ago from the full psalm to three verses, probably when processions from church to church were no longer made. I will say personally that if someone can come up with a reasonable solution for singing the �full� ( = 3 verses + Glory) Antiphons without sacrificing other parts of the Liturgy, I would support it. I have become aware that even some places that claim to sing the full antiphons, don�t, and as I�ve pointed out, revisions and abbreviations of the antiphons are absolutely rife in the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox world. I don�t say this in justification of any system, but only to point out that, in fact, the antiphons are perceived by many as a liturgical problem.
To conclude, the �new translation� is a giant step forward, and I can probably imagine (though I�ll be dead by then) the Byzantine Forum in 2045 defending it against yet another revision.

I believe it would be wrong if Rome would allow
seperate "sui juris" churches to create numerous translations of the Divine Liturgy when they are
of the same Particular Church liturgical tradition. I could see a slight difference in rubrics from the Ruthenian recension vs. the Great Russian, Melkite, Romanian recension, I could live with that reality. To fractionalize a particular church recension/translation is just as sad as having duplicate, overlapping ethnic jurisdictions.

Should not the liturgical translation be done at a higher level, such as by the entire Eastern Catholic Heirarchs in America and done along the lines of each liturgical tradition (one for the Ruthenian/Ukrainian recension, one for Melkite recension, etc.)?

It is sad that Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches can't have common translations, but to have multiple "sui juris" Byzantine Catholic translations is even more ridiculous!

Ungcsertezs

It appears that any Roman review would be in the form of recommendations and not necessarily approval of liturgical texts and translations. Now given the expertise, compentancy, and qualifications of those in Rome who review the texts, the Metropolitan together with the Council of Hierarchs would certainly take the recommendations under close advisement, even though they would not be obligated to do so. [/QUOTE]

Dear Father Deacon John,

Right on! You make the point perfectly. It is pointless to say that Rome "approved" the new liturgy, because they read this law and followed it. Rome was not asked for, and did not give "approval". So it cannot be justified or commended by saying "It has Rome's approval". It does not, and saying that is misleading.

It is only on the authority of the Metropolitan Archbishop, that this revised Liturgy will be authorized.

Nick

Father Deacon John�s quote of canon law included a reference to:

The changes to the Byzantine Liturgy (the suppression of antiphon verses, litanies, and the mandate that the most of the quiet prayers and the Eucharistic Prayer be prayed aloud and the CHANGES to the text) are not an �accurate observance� of the Byzantine Rite. They are innovations.

The bishops have abandoned their duty �to see most carefully to the faithful protection� of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Recension.

Forced change is never organic. Those who love our Ruthenian Church must find the courage to oppose them.

I urge every member of the Ruthenian Church to write a letter of complaint to:

Patriarch Cardinal Ignace Moussa I (Basile) Daoud
Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus
Palazzo del Bramante,
Via della Conciliazione, 34
00193 Roma, Italy
Telephone: 06.69.88.42.82
Fax: 06.69.88.43.00

Most Reverend Gabriel Montalvo Higuera
Vatican Apostolic Nuncio
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036

After all of this meandering Nick, I repeat my earlier remark that for some there is really nothing, apart from their own way (whatever informs it), that would settle the matter.

ps what do you make of "after prior review of the Apostolic See"?

JD writes:

Prove it, please.

Dear Father David,

First thanks for pointing out the difference between "full" and full. Presumably those who are certain of just what is authentic and what is an innovation know these things. But I write in response to your challenge.

First, have you actually clocked the duration of an antiphon verse? At the tempo I use ~15 sec. Cutting out six verses (two of each antiphon) saves exactly 1.5 min + zero overhead ("start-up" time) since the first verses are taken anyway. If I devolve to a painfully slow tempo I can stretch the time to 2.5 min. I think that in the scheme of 1hr +, the time savings here are utterly trivial. I assume this point had been discussed by the liturgical commission, and I am curious why it was conceived that any other part of the liturgy would have to be sacrificed.

But if a "sacrifice" were to made, then I propose:
leave the privae antiphon prayers private (like everyone else) and made the antiphons more or less contiguous by chanting straight throught the little litanies with simultaneous chanting by the priest and singers - a common custom (whose history I would like to know better). Better adherence to common practice on the litanies and, I expect, a net time savings, for those counting.

ps
If you are going with: "Mercy , peace, ...", then I hope you had the good sense to invert the syntax of the priests intonation to match the poetic syntax of the Slavonic and Greek (Object/Subject/Verb i.e., the holy anaphora we offer). With this change, the response, which recapitualtes and elaborates the Object, and thus completes the Priest's sentence in the dialogue in normal word order (Subject/Verb/Object). Without it, the response doesn't make a great deal of sense. (Or just add : "we offer" before Mercy, ...)

Nick,

the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, the Roman Pontiff, promulgated the CCEO. As I understand so he has no problem with a Metropolitan's competence to approve liturgical books and their translations for use in the Metropolitan Church sui juris, why do you?

Dear DJS,

I'm not sure I follow your comment above. I for one have never heard the Prayers of the Antiphons taken aloud. To what private antiphon prayers do you refer?

IIRC a change of this sort was part of the working text posted here by Deacon Lance on the last go round. If I recall incorrectly, (IIRI?), then I would just propose the compression, as above, of the little litanies.

Can anyone here, rich or poor, laymen, priest, bishop or patriarch, anyone at all define exactly what this "sacrificing" means? Is time the only commodity and consideration in our already rather short time before the Holy Mysteries? Has the stopwatch taken over received tradition and is now the sole guide of "pastoral sensitivity"? I am seriously asking in sincerity, not as a rhetorical commentary on the subject of this thread.

Subdeacon Randolph,

One of the goals was to keep the Liturgy at around an hour. I don't think it was the only consideration, but it certainly has to be taken into account, for if one does not people start leaving at the hour point anyways. Perhaps we should be glad people are willing to give any hour when many others give nothing at all or opt for the Latin parish down the street where they only have to give 45 minutes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I appreciate your candor of response. I would say that still doesn't get at the heart of the meaning of "sacrificing other parts of the Liturgy".

Your answer seems to beg additional questions. Why is "one hour" a magic goal, especially if apparently some may not really want to be there anyway? Are the considerations completely quantitative (i.e. numbers in the pews)?

Father Lance, Christ is Risen!
May I respectfully note that in the Orthodox Church (ubiquitously in the Old World, and in traditional parishes in the New World), and, I suspect, in Byzantine Catholic Churches in the Old World, the Holy Liturgy is rather longer and follows some other service, the Third and Sixth Hours (North Slavic practice, as well as in Monasteries every where) or Matins (everywhere else), and the people come at a time commensurate with their piety. The service on Sunday morning lasts from two and a half to six hours, but no one leaves early; rather, few people are there at the beginning. This, methinks, is received Byzantine tradition and no one complains about the length of the service.

Photius, Reader

Dear Photius,

You remind me of the time I visited a Russian Orthodox parish for the ordination of my friend (whom I helped bring to Orthodoxy - don't ask . . .).

I was very impressed by the piety of the people who kept buying beeswax candles and bringing them and bringing them etc.

People stood in one spot without moving and one dared not invade another's space!

The Orthodox Bishop gave a sermon and gently chastised the people for keeping to the back.

He turned and pointed to near the Iconostasis - "That is where your place is - not so far to the back!"

And then afterwards people moved slowly forward . . .

I was late, but the service still lasted for over three hours.

After a while, one learns to stand in one spot, feet flattened out etc.

And you are right, length should be no issue.

That is why everyone should daily recite St Seraphim's Rule to the Theotokos in addition to their other prayers.

Don't you think so?

Alex

Alex,
I didn't really care for the rosary until I learned the Byzantine wording, "Rejoice, O Virgin Mother of God, Mary full of Grace."
Also, I think the length of the Byzantine Liturgy keeps it a more reverent experience. Wolfgang

Dear Wolfgang,

What you say is very true - somehow, the word "Rejoice" has a much more meaningful connotation than "Hail."

Alex

Dear Alex, Christ is Risen!
How does this differ from your parish? I had understood that you observe Orthodox customs.
I think it a pious thing to do, but certainly I would not say "should". Personally, I have a prayer rule given to me by my spiritual father, and adding St. Seraphim's Rule to the Theotokos would necessitate my dropping something else from my prayer rule, which I would need a blessing to do.

Photius

Dear DJS, Christ is Risen!
As for reciting the Eucharistic prayer audibly, please mote that this has not been done in the Rite of Constantinople since the early sixth century, long before the conversion of the Slavs; therefore, no Slav, at least until post Vatican II times, ever heard the Eucharistic prayer outside the altar. Thousands of saints have celebrated the Holy Liturgy with the Eucharistic prayer said silently, and we have no record of any of them saying that it should be otherwise! What scant commentary we do have on the matter shows approval, such as St. Symeon of Thessalonika saying that this is done thus because the priest speaks to God face to face, and there is no reason that the people need to hear those prayers.
If you wish to go back to what was done when the Eucharistic Prayer was sung aloud, then methinks that for consistency
s sake, the iconostasis show be torn down and replaced with a railing and curtains that entirely hide the Holy Table and altar, and the Cherubic Hymn and Great Entrance, which are slightly newer than the audible praying of the Anaphora, should be deleted, and the table of oblation removed, and the Gifts prepared on the Holy Table. And, the Liturgy of Saint Basil should be the usual Sunday Liturgy, as it was until nearly the end of the Byzantine Empire, with the priest free to chose from among several other Liturgies. Or, while you're at it, go back another couple centuries, and eliminate everything before the Little Entrance, and restore it to being literally an entrance, with the clergy entering the Temple for the Liturgy from outside with lights, incense, fans, and the Holy Gospels, and begin the Liturgy with "Wisdom! Arise!".
And, if you do go back to archaic practice, it would be consistent to bring back the general piety of the times, and not allow those under penance to listen to the Liturgy of the Faithful ... and to observe the ancient customs of imposing public penances for all manner of sins; because, it was when these ceased to be used, that such practices as taking communion in one's own hands and reciting the Anaphora out loud were done away with.
But, if you do choose to select, cafeteria style, from this century and that, and this Liturgy or that, then realize that this has nothing to do with tradition and your rite is only "Byzantine" because it devolved from the Byzantine Rite; you may still call your rite "Byzantine", just as some evangelical Christians list themselves in the yellow pages as "Orthodox Christians", but as I ridicule the former, so shall I ridicule you. And, if ever you should claim to celebrate the same rite as the Orthodox Church, I will call you a liar, because it is not my rite. (Yes, there has been some experimentation with this by a certain circle in the Orthodox Church, but few know of it, and it is generally looked askance upon, and it won't last, because it is so controversial and contrary to tradition; and, more to the point, no one would ever mandate it, because it is just some experiment.) As the Holy Canons say, "We have no such custom, neither do the Holy Churches of God."
And, whenever someone says that Byzantine Rite Catholics are an impediment to union, please understand that this is because you have shown that you are not only unable to preserve the Liturgy, but even while attempting to return to lost traditions, you feel the need to create a cafeteria-style Liturgy that goes against the grain of Orthodox spirituality and love of tradition.

Photius, Reader

Dear Deacon John,

Yes!, that is the point precisely. The law clearly says that the Archbishop has the authority to approve of, and issue Liturgical books.

But Fr. Lance (and others) say I should accept the revisions because Rome has approved of them. "Rome approves, so it is o.k."

Well, I don't believe that Rome approves of these changes. It goes against everything Rome has ever said to us about the Eastern Liturgy in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In fact, Rome was not asked for approval. Rome did not give approval (It wouldn't approve, if it were asked.) And those who suggest that Rome has approved of this revised Liturgy are mistaken.

The law puts the responsibility for this revision of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom on the sholdiers of the Metropolitan and he (with his council of bishops) is the only one whose approval is needed.

The Archbishop is the one who has to approve (or disapprove), and then accept responsibility for his decision. He has to explain why we are leaving the "Ruthenian Recension" Churches, and revising the Liturgy that has united us with other Churches until now.

This is, of course, just a matter of translation; and, "Rejoice" seems to be a much closer translation of "Khere" than "Hail."

Photius

Nicholas,

I did not state you had to accept the changes because Rome approved them I said that was the bottom line whether one likes them or not. As far as approval goes I think we are getting into semantics. If Rome's approval, opinion, review, what have you had no say in the matter we would not have to send our draft over for them to read. If you doubt this ask someone involved in the codification of our particular law which was sent to Rome for review before being promulgated by Metropolitan Judson.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nicholas,

"Well, I don't believe that Rome approves of these changes. It goes against everything Rome has ever said to us about the Eastern Liturgy in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In fact, Rome was not asked for approval. Rome did not give approval (It wouldn't approve, if it were asked.) And those who suggest that Rome has approved of this revised Liturgy are mistaken."


Three clerics (two intimately involved in this process) who have no reason to lie have told you Rome approved the revisions. If you choose to believe your mysterious informant becasue his views coincide with yours that is your choice.

But please don't make statements about things which you simply do not have reliable information about.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nick,

Then how is this scenario:

The liturgical books that the Metropolitan has the authority to approve and publish with the consent of the Council of Hierarchs were first sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) for review (not approval)("prior review" as the the canon states) As Father David has stated in an earlier post, the Apostolic See, which delegates this particular responsibility to the liturgical experts of Oriental Congregation, with no less than Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, among them, did in fact review the translation. Father David in the current thread quoted from that review the following:

Given the above quote, your statement: "Well, I don't believe that Rome approves of these changes. It goes against everything Rome has ever said to us about the Eastern Liturgy in the Eastern Catholic Churches" conflicts with the review.

So do you doubt Father David's veracity or the competency of the Apostlic See to issue a favorable review or that the Apostolic See even reviewed the translation?

I accept them at their word, and I believe Rome "reviewed" (not approved of) the translation. But I don't know if it was favorable.

Quoting one sentence is not enough. That sentence could be an initial sentence, followed by "but, ...". It could be a quote out of context?

How long was the letter? Who signed it? When was it dated? What else did it say?

I don't believe it was favorable. But if I am wrong, I will stand corrected, and apologize to you and others.

The only solution is to publish the letter in full, and then there will be no question.

But we've already concluded, that if Rome approved or disapproved, it doesn't really matter, because the Archbishop can choose to disregard it.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius,
By the grace of God I was blessed to enjoy a radiant Pascha, and I pray with confidence that you did the same.
May I claim the privilege of associating myself with the excellent posting you have just given on this thread? With my congratulations and thanks in advance,

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

In Truth He is Risen!
Dearest of all Incogniti,
With joy do I receive the news of your radiant Pascha, and likewise was it with me and my family. Glory to God for all thing!
I am honored that you wish to be associated with my posting, which I feared might have been received as a rant, so please feel free to answer or re-use it as your own.

This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad therein!
Photius

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius,
In the Risen Lord, in Whom neither miles nor kilometers nor political boundaries count for anything and Who, we pray, will wipe away every tear, we may rejoice in the love of close brothers though in this life we may never one another - that will make the joy of meeting in the Heavenly Kingdom, should our sins not prevent us from so doing (and in this Bright Week we may trust in that). Please accept my inexpressible thanks.

Who is so great a god as our God? Thou art the God Who alone dost wonders!

Incognitus

Dear Photius,

I for one did not consider your post a rant. A rehash, but not a rant. In fact, we discussed the same issues you raised in your post about three years ago on this forum. As Qoheleth, the King of Jerusalem, says, "Nothing is new under the sun."

I have heard the arguement before that if one is seeking to have the celebrant pray the anaphora audibly, then one should devolve to a more primitive form of liturgy. Quite honestly, I do not see the analogy. In my unlearned opinion the anaphora is not just the prayer of the priest. It is the prayer of the faithful (why else do we give our assent, "Amen") The silent anaphora is clericalism of the worst kind. That the anaphora was last heard audibly in the sixth century is correct and the Emperor Justinian consider that (the inaudible prayer) an innovation and an abuse. The following quotation is from Hugh Wybrew's The Orthodox Liturgy: the Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996, pp 86-7)

Perhaps, there was some overwhelming pastoral situation that moved the bishops and priests to consign the anaphora to silence, but in my own limited understanding I have not discovered it. Was this an organic development? Given Wybrew's research it does not appear to be. Perhaps in the minds of the celebrants the faithful in those years did not possess the education to grasp the sublime truths of the anaphora, but that is not our experience today. The days are gone when the priest was the most (or only) educated person in the parish. Today's faithful have a desire and a thirst to learn about the mighty acts of God as they are revealed in the Divine Liturgy.

You mention Saint Basil's Liturgy, if the anaphora is prayed secretly, do the faithful truly experience the difference from Saint John Chrysostom's Liturgy?

I do not see the anaphora prayed aloud as a mark of cafeteria-style liturgy. As Saint Paul noted, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 11:14,17).

If history tells us anything about the silent anaphora it is that yesterday's innovation is today's venerable tradition.

Father David wrote:

Nor are we the only Church to reduce the antiphons, the Greek Orthodox often just sing the refrains, and I�ve seen (or heard!) this done in Russian churches also. The reality is that the great majority of parishes in the Pittsburgh archeparchy will have to restore the Third Antiphon. Most of the parishes in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic follow almost exactly the �new translation� already. I�m not for chopping the Liturgy, but I will defend what the bishops mandated as a pastoral decision for the here and now. As I�ve said before, the real reality is that the antiphons were chopped many centuries ago from the full psalm to three verses, probably when processions from church to church were no longer made. I will say personally that if someone can come up with a reasonable solution for singing the �full� ( = 3 verses + Glory) Antiphons without sacrificing other parts of the Liturgy, I would support it.

So, the suppression of these antiphons (and other parts of the Liturgy) is tied to not "sacrificing the other parts of the Liturgy"? I take that to refer to taking prayers aloud that were previously taken silently.

A little perspective is in order:

Byzantine Catholic practice has long been minimalistic. It starts at the prothesis service. Unknown in Orthodoxy, we have "simplified" the service using pre-cut pieces of bread. Perhaps the particles come from the same loaf. Perhaps they don't. If you go to the Orthodox "Prosphora page,"

http://www.prosphora.org/

you'll see this link:

On the Abuse of Pre-Cut Prosphora [cin.org]

warning Orthodox of our practice.

If you're unfamiliar with the way that Orthodox do the prothesis service, you can see a video here:

Proskomide Service from a Greek Orthodox Parish [stgeorgegreenville.org]

Our beloved John Paul, of blessed memory, wrote of the Eastern liturgy in Orientale Lumen. He wrote this in section 11:

As John Paul noted, lengthy services and repeated invocations are an integral part of our tradition. As has been noted, there has been some variation in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Generally speaking, churches of the Slavic tradition celebrate a longer liturgy than Byzantine Catholics have been accustomed to. Just as we've simplified the prothesis service, we've abbreviated antiphons and omitted litanies (such as the "Little Litany" and others). Father David mentions current Greek practice. For those interested, it can be seen here:

Divine Liturgy as celebrated in the Greek Orthodox Church [goarch.org]

Greek Antiphons are different from what are taken in Slavic Churches and even if they are shorter (the site above says "the designated verses from the Psalms are sung with the hymn") they are all followed with the Little Litany:

Priest: In peace let us again pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Priest: Help us, save us, have mercy upon us, and protect us, O God, by Your grace.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Priest: Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God.

People: To You, O Lord.

This is sung twice between the First Antiphon and the Small Entrance. When was the last time you heard the Little Litany sung in a Byzantine Catholic parish?

Again, Orthodox churches following the Slavic tradition almost always have a much longer liturgy than Byzantine Catholics. True, there's some variation in practice which omits a litany here and there but nothing like what Byzantine Catholics have become accustomed to.

I've been to Byzantine Catholic parishes which had longer Antiphons, had added the Beatitudes, had the Little Litany, and some of the other litanies. It was still pared down from most Orthodox services of Slavic heritage but much closer in spirit to what John Paul referred to: "repeated invocation, lengthy duration."

Father Deacon Lance has indicated that one goal of the Liturgy revision is to get it down to one hour. To do this, are we mandating the omission of litanies so we can have prayers taken aloud? Where people have been catechized to expect repeated invocations and a more lengthy liturgy, can they have both? Or are we going to permanently remove these litanies from the Liturgy?

Why not publish a new translation and require certain things as a minimum? And allow those parishes which are or will be catechized in the Byzantine tradition ("repeated invocations," etc.) the freedom to celebrate a fuller Liturgy?

Or is the only solution to have a one hour liturgy with the prayers now taken aloud and reduced and omitted antiphons and litanies?

Nec

Christ is Risen!
Not quite: In Greek usage, the psalm verses are intoned quickly, often overlapping the louder refrains; they are never omitted.
Having attended a Russian seminary and having been active in a Russian parish most of my life, and having attended Liturgies in many, many Russian Churches in several countries, please note that I have never known of the psalm verses to be omitted in Russian usage! However, the Russian typicon calls for the Typika and beatitudes to be sung ordinarilly on Sundays, and the Typikal psalms are often abridged, and the troparia on the Beatitudes are often omitted in parishes. If true, that is outrageous and scandalous!

Photiuys, Reader

�The changes to the Byzantine Liturgy (the suppression of antiphon verses, litanies, and the mandate that the most of the quiet prayers and the Eucharistic Prayer be prayed aloud and the CHANGES to the text) are not an �accurate observance� of the Byzantine Rite. They are innovations.�

John�s quote of �changes� in the Liturgy is, unfortunately, very misleading. Whether or not the antiphons should be sung with three verses or whether all the litanies should be said certainly fall under the rubric of �organic progress.� That is, the bishops are simply recognizing a reality that has come to pass in the last 75 years, in many Orthodox as well as Eastern Catholic Churches. One can certainly debate whether this is actually organic �progress.� I myself would be loathe to say that reducing the Liturgy is �good.� On the other hand, it is understandable that one might wish to reduce elements of the Liturgy that once accompanied processions that no longer exist. So, certainly, whether these �new practices� are good or bad can be debated, but they are certainly not �latinizations.� The Liturgy has changed in the past because of cultural pressures, which is not �bad� if the changes result in the Liturgy being more meaningful for the people attending. One reality that we are facing is that the Liturgy is now in the vernacular. I believe this is the ultimate reason for the perception that the prayers of the Liturgy should be said aloud. It is, after all, the prayers that convey the central theology of the Liturgy that it is identified with the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his resurrection. It is this to which the people say �Amen.� I believe we are here on the cusp of a true liturgical reawakening. The saying of the Eucharistic Prayer aloud, of course, is not an innovation at all. It has become a common practice - and I will say a very bad common practice - but there is not now, nor has there ever been a rubric to say them silently. In this case, Rome and our bishops are defending the authentic Byzantine tradition. That the silent recitation of the prayers was the norm after the sixth century is simply not true. Justinian�s Code is a witness that the process was beginning. I think probably because the language was changing and the prayers were more difficult to understand. However, there is clear evidence that the saying of the prayers was an open question as late as the 11th century, when Nicholas of Andidum in his commentary says that to know the liturgy without the presbyteral prayers is like trying to know a garment by touching its fringes! [Protheoria, chapter 38, unfortunately no English edition of this] As late as the eighteenth century, there were calls on Mt. Athos for the public recitation of the prayers. Though these people were a minority, it shows that there has always been some sort of consciousness that the silent recitation of the prayers was somehow wrong. Finally, there are no changes to the text. There are changes to the translation, but this in no way whatsoever touches the text of the Liturgy.

Whether or not the antiphons should be sung with three verses or whether all the litanies should be said certainly fall under the rubric of �organic progress.� That is, the bishops are simply recognizing a reality that has come to pass in the last 75 years, in many Orthodox as well as Eastern Catholic Churches.

Father, bless!

I can't think of any Orthodox parishes of Slavic heritage that I've visited that omit litanies and abbreviate antiphons the way many Byzantine Catholic parishes do. Perhaps some ACROD parishes inherited the similar abbreviations? I haven't visited any of these.

Is it necessary to mandate abbreviations and shortened antiphons? Why not just mandate what is required as a minimum and let those parishes which wish do a fuller Liturgy?

Nec

Dear Father David,

Six deacon's litanies are missing, or seriously mangled. That is not my idea of a translation. The liturgy was not only translated, it was edited.

Rubrics which formerly and deliberately said "silently" now say "aloud". That is definitely a change.

It was a minority on Athos that suggested taking the prayers aloud, and it is a minority here, who are advocating a change that the majority of the clergy and people do not want.

But the Archbishop does not need Rome's approval, or the approval of his flock either. He can just do it.

Nick

"It was a minority on Athos that suggested taking the prayers aloud, and it is a minority here, who are advocating a change that the majority of the clergy and people do not want."

Could someone cite when an actual legitimate survey was done of all clergy and people of the Metropolia that shows that it is a "change that the majority of the clergy and the people do not want."

There seem to be a lot of very broad strokes with some very broad brushes used when discussing this topic.

-----------

Metropolitan Basil - Just do it! I've looked and looked and I can't find anywhere where the good Metropolitan has requested and or received the necessary rights and permissions from Nike to use their slogan - hope it doesn't get him in trouble!

Father David, Christ is Risen!

What ?!?!?!? I have before me now, as I type, priests' service books in both Greek and Slavonic, both contemporary editions from reputable sources, published with ecclesiastical blessings from the hierarchy of Orthodox Churches (of Greece and Moscow), which clearly state. "The priest prays silently (mystiko; tajno)" !!! How can you possibly write what you wrote? I'd certainly like an explanation of how you came to state such a blatant, easily disproved falsehood! And, it casts doubt on the truth of any other assertion you have made or will make!

When, may I ask, did we not have the Liturgy in the vernacular (albeit a stylized version of the vernacular)?
One of the fights that caused the Great Schism was over Pope Nicholas I opposing use of the vernacular while St. Photius' contended that "Any language used to preach the Gospel is thereby a holy language", and the latter's blessing of his friend and colleague in the world, St. Cyril, together with the latter's brother, St. Methodius, to commence translation of the Scriptures and divine services into Ancient Slavonic.

That does not follow. I, too, contend that one needs to know the priestly prayers to understand the Liturgy, but I do not advocate saying the prayers aloud; and my opinion is typical of educated Orthodox Christians.

That is possible (although, as I stated above, I feel no reason to believe anything you write), BUT, if true, I strongly suspect this minority was looked askance upon and it would not in the least surprise me if they were expelled from Athos. In my year on Athos, I heard lots of stories about sundry movements, but never heard of these people, which makes me think that they, if they existed, were a fringe, nut case group.

Photius, Reader
(and erstwhile translator)

Was this associated with the Kolyvades movement?

I've been told that St. John of Kronstadt used to say the Anaphora audibly; can anyone confirm or deny this?

Praying the Anaphora (and some other prayers) audibly is common in certain parts of the OCA. I've heard the now-retired Metropolitan Theodosius do this on a number of occasions; Metropolitan Herman, on the other hand, does not do this.

Dave

Reader Photius:

May I suggest (most strongly) that you need to tone down the rhetoric. Your accusations against Fr. David are unseemly. I'm certain that there are ways to disagree without resorting to ad hominems in the process.

Fr. Deacon Edward,
Moderator

Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! As to dubious utterances, it is well to trust our brothers - but, as Gorbachov famously put it, it is also well to verify the content! (this is a free translation of three words in Russian).
As to the praying of the Anaphora aloud, which seems to be de rigeur in some circles these days: a bit of moderation might do no harm. Once in a while, by way of exception, such a form of praying the Anaphora can be edifying, especially when the Anaphora is that of Saint Basil the Great (otherwise the pressure is on the bishop or priest to rush through the Anaphora at breakneck speed, whilst the singers are dragging the responses unbearably). However, this truly should be an exception. No less a luminary than Pope Benedict XVI has remarked that almost nobody could reasonably be expected to read the text of the Anaphora aloud on a frequent basis intelligibly.
Moreover, I seriously question whether the Anaphora should be READ aloud. If it is to be done aloud at all, surely it should be chanted, not just read. That could lead us into a worth-while discussion of what sort of chanting would be appropriate.
The silent reading is not without its virtues, particularly if there has been thorough catechesis about the content of the Anaphora, what is taking place, and how we should all be prayerfully and profoundly involved. Such a silent prayer has a powerful potential not to be sneezed at (not that I know anybody who makes a point of sneezing during the Anaphora).
Father David is a serious scholar; unfortunately he seems to find it hard to grasp that disagreeing with him on this or that point is not necessarily a rejection of him on a personal level.

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

Father Ed, Christ is Risen!
Forgive me, but what Father David wrote is readily contradicted by opening any copy that I've ever seen, including the copies that I own, of the priest's service book! Methinks he should explain how he came to write something that is so easily shown to be false.

Less importantly, I fail to see how this is an ad hominem attack ... I am not stating that the thesis is wrong because of the person who stated the thesis; rather, I am stating that something given as fact is erroneous, and easily shown to be erroneous; while I did say that that casts doubt on the veracity, in my eyes, of any other statement he makes, I am in no way contending that anything he says should be assumed to be false, or anything can be proved false by virtue of the fact he said it, which is what an ad hominem fallacy would consist in.

If someone makes a statement on this forum that can easily be shown to be false, I expect to be able to call that person to account for that statement. If this is against the rules, then I have no desire to remain a member of this forum.

Photius