www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Nature of the Anaphora

The freedom of the priest to pray the traditional liturgy or the take the anaphora quietly or aloud is well within the larger inheritance of our Byzantine liturgical tradition. The practices you mentioned are all abuses of our Byzantine inheritance. You cannot pretend the customs prevalent in the traditional liturgy (which are normative across Byzantine Orthodoxy) are abuses.

Bishops certainly have the right and obligation to safeguard the liturgy from abuse. Individual bishops or even local Particular Churches do not have the right to revise the liturgy on their own.

They're gonna do what they're gonna do. But the division between liturgical abuse and liturgical options is often blurred. I have always admitted that our liturgy is accordian-style. We have added to it over the centuries only to abbreviate later. We are liturgical pack-rats. Then problems about how much to abbreviate or what to take silently in order to quicken the liturgy comes about. I agree with Fr. Taft when he states how the good parts are often chosen to be overshadowed by more pious practices. I would also say that the "soft spots" often get more limelight than the "core parts." Unfortunately, we silence the core parts in the name of mystery and spirituality; we give fanfare to the soft spots in the name of maintaining timeless tradition. Patriarch Eutychius (552-565) was a critic of such emphasis when he stated in his Paschal Sermon that, "They act stupidly ..." Nobody listened to him either. The Great Entrance, that which is seen, got center stage. In turn, the Anaphora grew silent. Private prayer got taken aloud; corporate prayer got taken silently. At least we have maintained the tradition of being consistently inconsistent. The logic of chaos.

And I would not use the Orthodox as the old standard to measure progress by. The Old Believers had something to say about reforms too. But here we witnessed one such Orthodox church that did reform its liturgy on its own (i.e., Nikonian Reforms). Peter Moghila also comes to mind. The problem with the pan-Eastern-Catholic-Orthodox liturgical reform you are waiting for is that it will never happen. If reform at such a scale does happen, it often gets tied up with ruthless policing action. That is why piecemeal reforms are better. Education must come first before anything is introduced. Looking for the miraculous day when all our parishes will be celebrating Matins and Vespers is wishful thinking. The silent Anaphora is still another leftover innovation in itself. History will decide if corporate prayers, especially those that lie at the center of the Eucharistic Liturgy will finally see the light of day, and if private prayers will retreat to where they belong: in privacy.

The fact that many presbyters have taken it upon themselves to get educated about what the Byzantine rite is all about, and then, in turn, educate their sheep demonstrates two things: (1) that many innovations and inorganic developments have crept into our liturgical praxis over the years, most of them introduced by priests doing their own thing, and (2) that proper education and understanding comes first before our clergy begins the task of re-introducing that which has become lost. This also involves liturgical instructions for cantors, not some untitled, undated, unsigned mandate with no explanation at the eleventh hour before Holy Week!

At one time, the Filioque and the praxis of excommunicating fully initiated infants - followed up by a delayed First Communion - were not considered innovations. We were Catholic and we had to prove it. Many priests used their poorly formed reasoning to implement their own reforms, revisions, and innovations. Nothing will change in the future no matter how successful a pan-Eastern liturgical reform will be. Priests will still do what they want to do. And money talks.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Okay, time for the moderator to step in. This seems to have become a dialog between our esteemed Administrator and Joe. Might I suggest that, while this topic is of interest to some, the level of interaction between you two is distracting from the basic question: should the Anaphora be out loud or silent.

Regardless of one's opinion, it is clear that the normative posture has been for the anaphora to be silent (with certain exceptions). Rubrics permit the priest to pray the Anaphora out loud, and some do.

I cannot speak to the Ruthentian practice with anything other than observations on those occasions where I have attended or served at a Ruthenian liturgy.

My own opinion is that when the Anaphora can be prayed aloud it should be. Not only is it the central prayer of our liturgy, it is marveleous catechesis all by itself. Is this a liturgical justification? No!

Edward, deacon, sinner and moderator.

Fr. Deacon Ed,

Thank you for your opinion. I wish to comment on it, if I may.

Why do you consider the central prayer of the liturgy and its marvelous catechetical value as not a justification for taking the Anaphora out loud? Your statement leads me to ponder about us Eastern Christians. My quote about Patriarch Eutychius (552-565) was in regard to those who considered the symbolic interpretation of the liturgy as more important than the liturgy itself. He was stressed out over those who lay more emphasis on the multitude of symbolic interpretations about the liturgy than what was really happening. More fanfare was given to the Great Entrance than the Eucharistic Prayer. We can still see this lopsided emphasis in our current prayer postures. People will stand and face the celebrant as he makes the Great Entrance and bow and make the sign of the Cross as he passes by with the chalice and diskos containing UNCONSECRATED wine and bread, but sit on their duffs during Communion when Christ is present. The Patriarch can only call them "stupid." People, not the church or the Holy Spirit, will get out from the liturgy what they want out of it. We are, indeed, in need of reform.

Later historical innovations began to silence the Anaphora just as mandatory celibacy was gradually, and sometimes, forcefully adopted. I remember how Protestants used the argument that the Catholics were preventing the people/laity from hearing the Scriptures. Can we say the same about another lit candle that often gets smothered by the bushel-basket? In his Formula Missae of 1523, Luther (my grand-pappy) felt that the Institution Narrative was only necessary. The Latins also silenced everything in their Canon except for the all-important, all-consecratory I. N. Are we just as guilty?

Nobody has answered how the silencing of the Lamb ... err, the central prayer of the church/Liturgy is considered a tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not the public recital of a private prayer/devotion. Do we do justice to the nature of the Anaphora?

When I speak of nature I speak of the genre or literary type of prayer-form. Nobody can say in their right mind that a prayer that includes several responses by the people in some dialogue form a private prayer. My goodness! Just read the text!

Our current practice(S) are not consistent on how to handle the nature or the proper execution of anaphoric prayer. On a lesser note, we still have many approaches how to handle antiphonic singing. In some parishes, ALL the people sing the refrain AND Psalm verses with the cantor. Some parishes have the cantor 'read' the antiphons set to no tone. The same for singing the prokeimena. One refrain, no Psalm verse. Here, we allowed local custom (read: ignorance and improper training) to supersede the nature of the prayers, hymns and their proper execution.

The Anaphora is a public prayer than had most of its catechesis silenced by later innovations. Our widespread praxis of inconsistency only demonstrates that we don't really know what we are doing and are quite happy with the status quo.

But accepting liturgical reform is a bitter pill for some. It is like the fundamentalist admitting that his/her rigid literalism is at stake. The Bible would not be the same without fundamentalism! Maybe that is good because we'd finally start becoming more 'biblical.'

Let us not worship a liturgical text as others worship a biblical text. Let us open both up and let Jesus be PROCLAIMED. Proclamation doesn't have to be a rare commodity. Evangelization doesn't have to be a rare commodity.

We might also have to rid of our own personal spiritualities and misplaced notions of mystery.

Enough said. This is my last post on the subject. Thank you.

Joe

Joe,

Let me clarify a little. When I said that the anaphora makes great catechesis but that, alone, is not a liturgical justification I had some very specific ideas in mind.

First, the Liturgy itself has a rhythm, a life of its own that is independent of the community, the priest, deacon, or even the bishop. When we gather to celebrate the Liturgy we are joining in with the heavenly worship that is constantly on going -- it doesn't start or stop.

Using a musical analogy, our liturgy is designed to be chanted in counterpoint. It is not a dialog but a "trialog": God, His people and His minister. But there is a "lead" in each part: the priest, the deacon and the people wend their way through the score, listening to the rhythm and joining voice at the right time.

To alter this rhythm so that one part can stand out does not make good liturgical sense regardless of how much sense it makes catachetically.

In my Melkite parish we do it this way: the priest prays silently if the people are still singing. When their singing stops, the priest prays from that point on audibly. This does not interrupt the flow the liturgy, and allows most of the anaphora to be heard.

If the liturgy is the heart-beat of our life as Christians (and I believe it is), then I don't want an irregular heart beat, I want (and need) that rhythm that is inherent in the liturgy. To attempt to recover some historical past in the Liturgy may be well and good, but we have to make sure it "works"...

Edward, deacon and sinner

Father Deacon writes that �in one aspect [I am] correct, children will understand the profound truths by their parents speaking aloud to them. So in a manner of speaking this is "childish".� With apologies to Father Deacon, he has confused two ideas. English distinguishes between what is �childish�, in the sense of simple-minded or puerile and having characteristics such as fretful impatience or undeveloped taste and mentality � which are appropriate to children but deplorable in adults, and what is �child-like�, in the sense of such admirable qualities as innocence, straightforwardness, ingenuousness and trust. It is in this latter sense of �child-like� that we understand Our Lord�s words in the Gospel �unless you become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.�
It is thought that the elaborate chants caused the silent reading of the Anaphora rather than vice versa, but if there is evidence to the contrary, that would be of considerable interest.
Incognitus

Dear incognitus,

you are certainly correct. This was an (rather feeble and apparently awkward) attempt of a pun. I am quite aware of the difference between "childish" and "childlike". As the father of six children, ranging in age from 16 to 2, I am quite familiar with teens and pre-teens acting "childish" at times.