The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
SeekingTruth, friendly_pilgrim, BigBadger, Carthaginian, lemkat
5,860 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 64 guests, and 49 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,187
Posts415,085
Members5,860
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
Back in the 1970's in the what is now OCA it became common for the Words of the Consecration invoking the Holy Spirit to be said aloud by the priest with the people responding with "Amen" three times. This seemed to be a good change however recently one OCA parish got a new priest, recently from Russia,and these prayers are again being said silently while the choir sings. Doesn't the BC have the words of the invocation of the Holy Spirit said aloud also?

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Here we go again. An audible Anaphora is an aberration and an innovation and has been such for the past 1600 years. The Russian priest is correct in abolishing this abhorrent practice, despite what the reformers would have you believe.

There has been much written about this subject in the RDL thread if you want to read up on it.

Alexandr

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
Member
OP Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
So is your answer then that the RDL has this practice?

Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
This is interesting. When we went to Saint Sergius on Broadview the priest did not take any of the prayers out loud. It was nice. Just like ours used to be a long time ago. My wife took a little prayer book with the liturgy in Slavonic and English from her BC Church growing up (it even had Elizabethan English). The translations were a little different but overall it was almost identical. It was nice.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by Slavipodvizhnik
Here we go again. An audible Anaphora is an aberration and an innovation and has been such for the past 1600 years. The Russian priest is correct in abolishing this abhorrent practice, despite what the reformers would have you believe.

There has been much written about this subject in the RDL thread if you want to read up on it.

Alexandr

Abhorrent practice? There's really no need for you to say this. You certainly don't have to agree with it or like it, but there's no need to call it abhorrent, as there's nothing abhorrent about. With an audible anaphora, the bread and wine still become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would not dare call abhorrent that by which (enabled by the action of the Holy Spirit, of course) bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of our Lord, even if were not done exactly in the manner I prefer. Furthermore, were those priests of the ancient Church, more than 1600 years ago, who used an audible anaphora engaging in an abhorrent practice?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
The audible reading of the appropriate anaphora prayers (not all are meant to be chanted aloud) is normative, as shown by the various novellae of Justinian, which have the same effect in both canon and civil law. Silent reading of the anaphora prayers is an abuse which effectively removes from the laity their ability to hear the prayers whose offering they affirm and validate through the "Amen". It's like asking someone to sign a blank check--you wouldn't do that, but you would confirm a prayer you did not hear?

Add to that the catechetical value of the anaphora prayers (that of Basil the Great being a Summa Theologica in its own right), and one can see how restoration of the normative practice is an essential to recovery of the patristic understanding of liturgy--no matter how long the abuse has been ongoing, it is not sanctioned by time.

That said, it would be best if compulsion were not used to enforce this reform, but rather patient and steady education and spiritual formation. After all, including the anaphora prayers, the little litanies, and the antiphon verses would add barely fifteen minutes to the length of the Divine Liturgy, and given that the Divine Liturgy is all the exposure to the faith most people get, the fuller the experience the better.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
It's always interesting that Russians fulminate the most about what they consider to be deviations from Tradition, even though the Russian Church has deviated more than most--to the point where it considers its own deviations to be normative, and the authentic practice to be an "innovation". Is OUTRAGE!

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
So let me understand: this is a hot button, front burner issue for you, is it? Trumps utter lack of vocations, widespread ignorance of the fait and lax morality? How I envy you!

Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by StuartK
The audible reading of the appropriate anaphora prayers (not all are meant to be chanted aloud) is normative, as shown by the various novellae of Justinian, which have the same effect in both canon and civil law. Silent reading of the anaphora prayers is an abuse which effectively removes from the laity their ability to hear the prayers whose offering they affirm and validate through the "Amen". It's like asking someone to sign a blank check--you wouldn't do that, but you would confirm a prayer you did not hear?

Add to that the catechetical value of the anaphora prayers (that of Basil the Great being a Summa Theologica in its own right), and one can see how restoration of the normative practice is an essential to recovery of the patristic understanding of liturgy--no matter how long the abuse has been ongoing, it is not sanctioned by time.
This is the same argument that Bishop Kudrick and some of his priests use. You people seem oblivious to the fact that all your ideas of reform have chased all the people away.

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
I'm sure that Bishop Moskal and his team would no doubt agree with this for the UGCC here. When the DL books say that the priest "prays silently" they should literally mean it, and the congregation should not hear any of it, yet it should be said among those by the altar.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by 8IronBob
I'm sure that Bishop Moskal and his team would no doubt agree with this for the UGCC here. When the DL books say that the priest "prays silently" they should literally mean it, and the congregation should not hear any of it, yet it should be said among those by the altar.

Please tell me a good theological or scriptural reason why the people should not hear the prayers of the Holy Eucharist. And I'm not talking about the prayers the priest says on his own behalf, I'm talking about starting from the point of what in the West is called the sursum corda all the way to the point of the actual communion. What is wrong with the faithful hearing those prayers, except for any prayers the priest says on his own behalf? I particularly see no good reason why either the institution narrative or the epiclesis is are prayers the people should not hear, considering that that they are at the very center of our faith.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by Joe in Slavland
Originally Posted by StuartK
The audible reading of the appropriate anaphora prayers (not all are meant to be chanted aloud) is normative, as shown by the various novellae of Justinian, which have the same effect in both canon and civil law. Silent reading of the anaphora prayers is an abuse which effectively removes from the laity their ability to hear the prayers whose offering they affirm and validate through the "Amen". It's like asking someone to sign a blank check--you wouldn't do that, but you would confirm a prayer you did not hear?

Add to that the catechetical value of the anaphora prayers (that of Basil the Great being a Summa Theologica in its own right), and one can see how restoration of the normative practice is an essential to recovery of the patristic understanding of liturgy--no matter how long the abuse has been ongoing, it is not sanctioned by time.
This is the same argument that Bishop Kudrick and some of his priests use. You people seem oblivious to the fact that all your ideas of reform have chased all the people away.

Since you are so new to this Forum, you ought to know that Stuart is not a proponent of the Revised DL; in fact, he has forcefully opposed it. Also, my experience suggests to me that an audible anaphora is generally not an aspect of the Revised DL that has driven people away.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Traditionalism vs. Tradition.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 1
Quote
This is the same argument that Bishop Kudrick and some of his priests use. You people seem oblivious to the fact that all your ideas of reform have chased all the people away.

Should not have read this while drinking hot tea.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Administrator, Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5