www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Audible Anaphora

Here is an interesting article on the "Rorate Caeli" blog about the use of the audible Anaphora in the Orthodox Churches.

Orthodox Audible Anaphora article [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com]

Yes, and the experience there is what I have been arguing for: liberty for the Spirit to work.

Pope Benedict XVI (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote of how some liturgists were complaining about a "crisis" in the anaphora of the Roman Mass because it was said out loud. The point is that there is a difference between an anaphora that is prayed, and happens to be heard by the faithful (in the patriarch's case because it is caught by a microphone) and an anaphora that is proclaimed for hearing and teaching (as the post-Vatican II reformers and the Ruthenian reformers demand). When it is proclaimed for hearing and teaching it ceases to be prayer.

I've heard some of these liturgies. The patriarch prays the anaphora during the singing of the "Holy, Holy, Holy" and other parts of the Divine Liturgy. He prays these prayers, and when the singing is through one can often hear him via the microphone. He does not organize his prayer to serve a desire to proclaim or educate. He does not change the anaphora from a prayer of offering to a proclamation for education. And that is the difference. But few people seem to understand.

I've heard some of this type of Liturgy too, where you can hear the priest praying out loud while the choir is singing. I think that it was from online files from a Ukrainian church in Canada. I can't remember the name of it.

How can you tell, (when the Anaphora is taken aloud), if it's being "prayed" or if it's "for instructional purposes only?"

Erunda!

Capturing the celebrant praying the Anaphora via the use of a microphone in no way constitutes an audible Anaphora, despite the daydreams of liturgical reformists worldwide. Every Liturgy proclaims "Svtataya Sviatiem", Holy Things to the Holy. I believe I would walk out of a Liturgy with a true audible Anaphora, as it mocks God.

Alexandr

I suggest, Administrator John, you're splitting hairs inappropriately...

the intent of those ordering the prayers be done audibly is that people should be able to learn from the prayers of the priest. The priest himself need not have intent to teach.

You're judging the internal forum (the priest's mindset) by an external unrelated forum (the mindset of the rubricists).

If a priest were do do so on his own, against the rubrics of his church, then perhaps you might be right, but that would require his intent be solely educational, rather than the far more likely dual intents, to pray and to teach.

And the liturgy is our primary theological text.

"Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not." Isiah 6:9

Alexandr

Aramis,

I disagree. The Prayers of the Anaphora are not for our education by hearing but for our salvation by praying. The time of the Anaphora at the Liturgy is not a time for teaching by hearing but a time for praying into salvation. Read Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy". More education and understanding is taught by prayers prayed prayerfully - even if unheard - then by any form of education by hearing.

Remember that while things like studying the Holy Scriptures and the texts of the Liturgy are important, such study does not constitute the main method in which we obtain our primary knowledge of and personal relationship with Jesus. Our primary knowledge of and relationship with Jesus comes through prayer.

At any rate, the Ruthenian Revision does not allow the full anaphora out loud, only the favorite parts chosen by the Committee. So the reasons they offer for the mandate fall flat for they are not consistent, and only allow their favorite parts to be prayed out loud.

Further, the "crisis" in praying the anaphora out loud in the Roman Rite that Ratzinger speaks of is very real. It seems that in the Roman Rite the average worshiper tunes out the anaphora prayers, not unlike what happens when you stay up to watch the late news just to see the weather and then realize that you've missed it and they are well into the sports.

Liberty is the way for the Spirit to lead. A mandate suggests that the Spirit is incapable of leading, or that those who insist on mandates do not really think that the Spirit supports what they want.

John

I agree with John completely. However, I would add that I fear that the mandated Audible Anaphora may ultimately lead to variations of the Anaphora "to change things up". If I recall didn't that happen with the Latin Church?

OK--but after hearing the Anaphora prayed aloud at the Divine Liturgy, I can only wonder how prayfully the priest who takes it silently can be praying it. Take for instance, when the choir sings "And remember all your people." There is still a big chunk of the prayer left to be prayed. Yet immediately when the choir was done we heard the priest say "And grant that we, with one voice and one heart...etc." How could the priest have prayerfully prayed all the rest of the prayer? ...without zipping through it at warp speed.

Obviously the prayers are "prayed" for God's glory and our salvation, but there IS an element of teaching and instruction that is intrinsically lost if the congregation can't hear it. That is my major issue with old RC Mass. The priest was up there doing this own thing (including what the choir/people should be saying), even if it was FOR the people and the people heard the choir singing, if there was one, or otherwise, maybe prayed their own prayers, said their rosary, or just plain drifted off into space. And we say now, that after 40 years of praying the Eucharistic prayers aloud, people are disconnected, drift off, or tune out?

There are times when even I think that it is ok to say it silently, like on days such as Pascha when the Liturgy is very long. Overall though, it's not a bad thing, different then many were used to, but how can saying a prayer aloud be bad? Silently or aloud, you can't convince me that the Anaphora or any prayer isn't primarily being prayed.

Were they having microphones in 19th century Russia? No, they were not!

However, I believe that, if microphones had been available in 6th century Byzantium, they would have used them. The Church made use of every available trick of Greco-Roman technology to make the Liturgy an awe-inspiring experience, and if electronic amplification had been around, they would have applied that in the same way. After all, they used other acoustic techniques, many of which we no longer appreciate.

Our ancestors made their own soap, but if they could have bought it, they would have.

I am with Administrator John, that there should be no requirement to chant (not say) the anaphora aloud, but neither should it be prohibited. It's a fact that the prayers of the anaphora, with the exception of the prayers said by the priest on his own behalf, were chanted aloud. By the 6th century, this was passing out of practice, for a variety of reasons ranging from increased clericalization to simply wanting to preserve one's voice (no microphones, remember?). Justinian issued a novella that (a) indicates silent prayers were an innovation; and (b) that it should cease. Evidence from other Churches indicates audible anaphorae continued (though gradually declining) for another century or two.

Schmemman thought that the prayers ought to be chanted aloud. They are, after all, said on behalf of the people, and the people have to give their assent to what is prayed. As most people do not know what is being said, they basically respond blindly to the ecphonesis. Moreover, the prayers of the anaphora have an intrinsic catechetical value (the Anaphora of Basil is a summa theologica in miniature) and are the patrimony of the entire Church, which the people should know and have a right to know.

My own opinion, then, is the prayers ought to be heard. I object, though, to someone dictating that they must be heard.

Stuart:

Perhaps the Eschaton is upon us! Not only have you and Fr. Ambrose agreed on something today, but you and I are in agreement on something.

Ryan

Exactly, while I agree that the Eucharistic prayer should not deviate from its purpose of being prayed, the fact of the matter remains - we should be aware of what we are praying, or what's being prayed for us.

Nevertheless, for those who still insist on the Eucharistic prayer as a tool to educate and proclaim, here's a thought: Get a Missal or a Liturgy book and read it in your own time. While not highly encouraged, you can follow the book during the Divine Liturgy itself.

Bottomline, if prayer is for these purposes, get a book.

In fact, this is one of the many problems I have with the RDL implementation. The anaphora, or at least the favorite parts, are needed to be taken aloud due to ?, yet they are not important enough to be included in the people's Liturgy book for use if individuals would like to study or meditate on the prayer. So it is not even possible to follow during the Liturgy using the Teal Terror because the text is not provided.

Well, firstly, the priest prays his prayers quietly, not silently. The term given in the liturgical books is "in mystica".

Secondly, there are plenty of priests who follow the requirment that these prayers be prayed aloud and speed pray them so fast that you could be standing next to him with a text in hand and not keep up.

The solution in both cases is for him to pray the prayers in a quiet but fairly normal voice and to concentrate on praying them and not proclaiming them.

There are huge differences between the Byzantine Liturgy and the old Roman Rite Mass. But even then, if one studies the old Roman Mass one can see the parts that would be taken aloud (but really were mumbled) and the parts that were meant to be prayed quietly (like the Canon).

I realize that not everone can be convinced. Pope Benedict XVI has noted that there is an issue here. He says that the fact that the prayers of the Canon fell quiet was not an accident and the praying of them aloud has caused a crisis. I would not be so dismissive of him and others that see an issue.

But in any case, the way forward is liberty. And those who prepared and promulgated the Revised Divine Liurgy obviously do not trust the Spirit to lead but, rather, claim that the Holy Spirit is only with them, and that everyone else is wrong.