www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The New Liturgy

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Dear friends,

In my (admittedly limited) experience with Orthodox parishes, even if the majority of the anaphora was prayed silently, the epiclesis was talen aloud. I was under the impression that this was the norm in Orthodoxy. Am I mistaken?

Right now most of our anaphora is taken silently in most Ruthenian parishes, but the words of institution ("this is my body," etc.) are loud and clear and often surrounded by some fanfare. The epiclesis is, of course, silent. The end result is that MOST of our parishioners are led to believe that the words of institution are THE MOMENT of consecration. According to our Byzantine theology, the epiclesis is every bit as important as the words of institution. By continuing to recite the epiclesis silently, don't we contribute to this misperception?

Again, in my limited experience with Orthodox parishes I have typically witnessed the epiclesis taken aloud, and surrounded by some fanfare. Among the Orthodox parishioners there was no mistaking that the epiclesis was a very important moment. For us Ruthenians, even if the anaphora were to remain silent wouldn't it make sense to take the epiclesis aloud in order to restore a balance?

I am looking forward to your thoughts on this... especially the thoughts of Fr. Elias and the Admin.

Thanks,
Anthony

P.S. Just for the record, at my parish the entire anaphora is prayed aloud.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

It seems important to make some statements of fact here to dispell the ad hominem arguments, innuendo, and mistatements that have plagued this thread.

"There are many serious flaws in the Liturgy that has been sent to me for comment," writes Fr. Elias O' Brien.

First of all, what was sent to Fr. Elias was NOT the text of the Divine Liturgy of our father among the saints John Chrysostom. He was sent, and I quote from the cover letter,

"Enclosed please find a transcription for the prostopinije for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy of our father among the saints John Chrysostom. Each section of the Liturgy has a foreward, explaining changes (if any) in the "Cantus Receptus" of the Metropolitan Province, as well as dtailing sources in Slavonic for each piece of the chant."

In other words, Fr. Elias (and many others) were being circularized about the musical transcriptions which were sent--in the hopes that feedback from the priests, monastics, and cantors from throughout the four eparchies of the Metropolia would be immensely helpful. Only small sections of the text of the DL were included, so that the musical selections would have a context.

I was not on the IELC when the translation of the DL was made. As in every work, there are things that were done--either by the committee or by the revision of the committee's work by the Council of Hierarchs--with which I do not agree. This is human nature. However, I stand behind the work of the Inter-Eparchial Commission on the Sacred Liturgy and Music and on the verdict on that work from the Sacred Oriental Congregation in Rome.

It is evident from reading all of the comments on this list that not one of the commenters has actually seen a complete text of the Divine Liturgy. It is also painfully obvious that comments are being made about methodology and scholarship and "political correctness" without any apparent effort to discern the absolute veracity of the texts commented upon.

No matter how one views anything on this subject, not one of us is free from the Gospel imperative to find out truth, to speak that truth in love, and to dialogue directly with the individual or individuals in question, rather than pursue polemics in a public forum.

It is also patently obvious to me that the mulitiplicity of ORTHODOX (i.e., the jurisdictions of Orthodoxy) praxis in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is not a situation that many posters seem to be aware of (or, at least, willing to acknowledge).

The lack of charity---which includes not putting the best construction on everything when any individual does not specifically know why something was done or who said it---is yet another way that non-Byzantine Catholics can look at us and say in irony, "See how these Christians love one another."

I felt the necessity to post this because it was from my office that the document which is being misquoted and misused came.

Sincerely in Christ's holy name,
(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson

Anthony,
This is how it is done in the Melkite Church (at least the Melkite Church in Gates, NY), the anaphora and epiclesis taken silently, well actually the epiclesis is not silent to those of us acting as altar servers, if we pay close attention we can hear it.

David

Professor Michael Thompson,

So what you are saying is that the music version was sent for study and comments without the official text of the liturgy. Why? Are they different?

Joe

Since the liturgy is the prayerful property of the entire Church - people, deacons, priests, bishops and monastics - it is highly understandable that each of us wants to protect that which we love and keep it from being revised. Those of us who are Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic have only begun to recover and discover the wonder and beauty of our Byzantine patrimony are especially protective. Given the shortening and other rubrical changes in the Divine Liturgy in past generations this is certainly understandable.

I must side with Fr. Elias in support of his comments. While I am sure that Professor Thompson is correct in that what he has provided for review and comment is not the complete text or rubrics of the revised liturgy, it does appear that there is enough content to have upset Fr. Elias and at least several others who have seen this new text and the settings of the Divine Liturgy Professor Thompson has distributed. I, myself, have reviewed the new texts of the Divine Liturgy and troparia and have previously submitted musical arrangements to the liturgical commission to certain portions of the Divine Liturgy at their request. Given the rubrics and texts I have seen, I have grave reservations about them. I have not seen the comments from Rome or the final format but I have been assured that there has been little change. I, for one, have certainly not questioned the dedication of those on the liturgical commission and I do not think that any of the posts on the two threads dealing with this topic are ad hominem. I am good friends with several of these talented men and discuss this issue with them with the same gusto as others and I have discussed it here. None of them consider such a discussion lacking in Christian charity. Needless to say, I do strongly disagree with any changes to the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy, with the exception a requirement of the removal of the filioque. Ironically, the official 1965 edition of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom published by our Church is considered to be one of the best American English translations and is commonly used in many Orthodox Churches - especially those in the Johnstown Carpatho-Russian Diocese - as well as in other Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Certainly, no one can argue that the rubrical changes have not been made public when they have already been made mandatory in at least Passaic and Van Nuys and were celebrated this week in Pittsburgh and Parma. Professor Thompson's distribution and request for comments on the changes he is recommending to our music would, of course, be a flashpoint for any such discussion and I am sure this was considered by the bishops before they authorized him distribute it. Also, almost of the comments I have made to the text posted by Lance are valid given the rubrics used this past week at the celebrations.

Regarding the praxis of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the various Orthodox jurisdictions, I have had the privilege of visiting at least 75 Orthodox parishes in the last ten years for the celebration of a Sunday or feast day liturgy (yes, I travel waaaay to much on business!). There are certainly local differences, most of which can be categorized by ethnic jurisdiction. But all of the Orthodox jurisdictions share the same basic original Slavonic, Greek or Arabic text and none have mandated rubrics which greatly distinguishes one from another. What differs is the way the liturgy might be abbreviated in each jurisdiction. The Greeks almost always leave out the psalm verses to the antiphons, taking only the troparion refrains. The Russians sing the typical psalms. You get the picture. In each jurisdiction, the freedom of a local priest to take a particular prayer (of the anaphora, for example) aloud one week and silent the next is respected.

It has long been my suggestion to the bishops and members of the liturgical commission that we should make no further changes in our liturgical texts until there can at least be an agreed upon English translation by all Byzantine Catholics - Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, Italo-Greek and Russian - and preferably one prepared with all the Byzantine Churches of Orthodoxy. My recommendation is to create an International Commission on English in the Byzantine Liturgy with Bishop Kallistos and Archimandrite Taft as the chairmen and representatives of any and all canonical Byzantine jurisdictions (Catholic and Orthodox) to work together to prepare common texts. If there were already a complete set of liturgical texts published in American English by a Byzantine Orthodox jurisdiction I would be recommending that we simply adopt it. If we were only now beginning to celebrate the liturgy in English I would even recommend using the Elizabethan English used in much of the rest of Orthodoxy for the sake of uniformity.

Since Professor Thompson is a member of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission I invite him to discuss each of the changes that have been proposed (or already instituted) along with the criteria behind these changes, why they are necessary, how they are expected to either improve the liturgy or benefit the Church and how they follow the Vatican directives to match our liturgical rubrics and texts to the of the equivalent Byzantine Orthodox Church(es).

Dear Professor Thompson,

Welcome to the "forum". It is wonderful to see you here, and I am thankful for your clarifications.

Forgive any "ad hominem" argument I may have made. I am not critizing any one. But I do criticize the work. As a teacher yourself, you know that it is necessary to correct the work of students. They may take it personally, but we fail if we do not point out the mistakes and errors on papers given to us.

There are many serious flaws in the Liturgy which has been sent out for comment. I will repeat this statement, and defend it, given the time to do so.

You correctly point out:
First of all, what was sent to Fr. Elias was NOT the text of the Divine Liturgy of our father among the saints John Chrysostom. He was sent, and I quote from the cover letter,

"Enclosed please find a transcription for the prostopinije for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy of our father among the saints John Chrysostom. Each section of the Liturgy has a foreward, explaining changes (if any) in the "Cantus Receptus" of the Metropolitan Province, as well as dtailing sources in Slavonic for each piece of the chant."


However, after the opening letter which is clear, the document which follows is clearly titled the "Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom", so I'm sure you can understand the confusion. You are right of course, to say that the Liturgy is not complete.

You correctly state "I was not on the IELC when the translation of the DL was made." I hope you did not feel that any of my criticisms of the text were directed at you personally. I know well that you were not part of the translation committee. In fact, I have raised many of these points with you before, and you know how strongly I feel about it. You also know that I do not in any way fault you, with the philosophical problems I have with the committee. I think, and still think, that the translation must be revisited, in light of the new instruction on the translation of texts. It is clear that the translation violates a number of the clear directives there.

This is not an "ad hominem" argument at all! This is a discussion about objective points concerned with the translation of the Liturgy, and Liturgical translation, which violates the spirit of "Liturgicam Authenticam" and becomes unjustified interpretation and adaptation. This is criticized by the instruction, and I think those criticisms are applicable here. It is not about personalities and individuals at all. It is about liturgical scholarship, and the patrimony of our Liturgy.

You affirm, "However, I stand behind the work of the Inter-Eparchial Commission on the Sacred Liturgy and Music and on the verdict on that work from the Sacred Oriental Congregation in Rome."

I do not. I think it contains errors and serious mistakes, and I think we need to think again. Were all the recommendations for improvement taken "on board" by the committee, and incorporated into the translation. We must accept the comments from Rome in their entirety, and not selectively.

"It is evident from reading all of the comments on this list that not one of the commenters has actually seen a complete text of the Divine Liturgy." You have made a very fair point. In fact you know that the Liturgical revision has been kept strictly "under wraps", and was in use only at the seminary. It was also "partly" used at the Liturgy celebrated by the late Metropolitan. So many of us have seen it in part, but not entire. But this has been a serious problem. There has been no opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Now we hear that a final version is prepared, and it, together with the music will be "awaiting approbation". I find this frightening.

You say : "It is also painfully obvious that comments are being made about methodology and scholarship and "political correctness" without any apparent effort to discern the absolute veracity of the texts commented upon."

You are absolutely right. This is a very fair criticism, and I wholly agree. The methodology and scholarship must be scrutinized and must be able to defend itself. However, I hope you will agree that the committee has not so far done that. You are the first member of the committee to circulate the text and music (at least in part), and ask for comments and suggestions. This is long overdue.

"No matter how one views anything on this subject, not one of us is free from the Gospel imperative to find out truth, to speak that truth in love, and to dialogue directly with the individual or individuals in question, rather than pursue polemics in a public forum."

Is accademic debate always polemical? Perhaps. But I think educated persons, and even interested persons should be able to discuss ideas and issues. Just because we disagree, does not mean that there is a lack of love. I love many people I disagree with. I think this is a very important discussion, and I do not see what is wrong with discussing issues in a public forum. Journals, papers, magazines, have done this for centuries. This forum is continuing in that tradition. And to cry "silence for love's sake", does not answer my serious concern in this matter.

"The lack of charity---which includes not putting the best construction on everything when any individual does not specifically know why something was done or who said it---is yet another way that non-Byzantine Catholics can look at us and say in irony, "See how these Christians love one another."

I am sorry, but I do not feel uncharitable, and my conscience is clear in this matter. I do not criticize anyone personally, but I do disagree with the work of the committee. In fact, in one post, I impuned the best motives to those responsible. Yet, I still disagree, and have problems with the many errors in the text.

I do not see how discussing these very important questions publicly attacks anyone, or shows a lack of love at all? I simply do not follow this logic.

Because I love you all, does that mean that I should not criticize the work of the committee when I disagree with it? That is not how things work in the accademic world. Many of us have been challenged, defended ourself as we can, and also been willing to be changed when the criticisms were valid. In this way, scholarship always benefits.

I beg you not to take any personal offense, because I have entered into the debate going on in this thread of the forum. I think the discussion is a very important one. I hope it will be taken up, by yourself, and others more informed than I am.

Elias