www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Just My Thoughts

Actually, I have never once objected to a priest praying the Anaphora or any traditionally silent prayer out loud. If one reads my prior posts I have consistently said that it seems appropriate on special occasions. My objection has always been to mandating a change in tradition that no other Church has mandated. The quiet anaphora is to hearing what the icon screen is to seeing. There is no getting past this. The logical parallel to mandating that the previously quiet prayers be prayed out loud is to tear down the icon screen and turn around the holy table. There is no getting past this.

Father Deacon seems to suggest that a norm regarding the Anaphora is needed. We already had a perfectly good norm, one shared across all Byzantine Churches. The Liturgy is not broke and does not need to be fixed.

Admin

Tony,

Thanks for your post. I have some questions:

1) Who exactly was this Spanish language Liturgicon prepared for? I have heard of Melkite parishes in Spanish speaking countries and immediately thought of the possibility of this Spanish language Liturgicon being prepared for them. Still, does this not simply extend the known and accepted Melkite usage rather than mandate something different?

2) I had understood that the changes to the Trisagion among the Slovaks was disapproved by Rome and they were directed to return to the traditional usage. [Perhaps someone more familiar with that situation can provide a comprehensive explanation of the whole story with the Slovak Liturgicon?]

Item #1 seems to introduce a known and accepted custom into a new Church. Item #2 is unacceptable. But I would like more information on both.

Admin

Dear Administrator:

I have tried to separate issues of practice and regulation of practice. The former we know something about. The latter we know less about.

I have asked repeatedly for a clarification of the nature of this regulation. The response is the presupposition of a not particularly well-defined MANDATE. What exactly does this mean? And how exactly does this apply NOW to our Metropolia? AFAIK we, like the Orthodox do not have any MANDATE for the revised liturgy. Without this information, not given by anyone despite repeated requests on my part, it is impossible to discuss the point rationally. With something concrete to discuss, I am happy to move to that point - where I would certianly agree that some flexibility for pastoral senstivity is required. But I wish we could arrive at some consensus on the texts and translation issues without jumping to the separate discussion of MANDATES.

Since exactly no one has said this, I conclude that you are stipulating that the number of Revisionists is zero.

Well I suppose that some meaning can be attached to "just beginning" to make this sentence true, in particular in a way that distinguishes it from our time table.

No one has said this either. But to play the Latinization card with no more cogency than an unsupported "I believe it is" is a different matter. This seems, I regret to say like: because you "just disagree with their conclusions and recommendations", you will say anything - cogent or not, informed or not, true or not, inflammatory or not - to cultivate more disagreement with it. Ditto with all of the well-poisoning and special pleading. I hope that I am wrong in this impression, notwithstanding numerous examples in all of this discussion.

djs,

I submit for your consideration that mandating that certain prayers be taken out loud IS latinization. It is an imitation of what the Roman Catholics have done with their Mass. It is the hearing equivalent of removing the icon screen and turning around the holy table so that people can see. The Revisionists have offered no solid argument why there is a need to mandate these reforms to the Liturgy, let alone mandating them apart from parallel reforms together with the rest of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox).

I�m sorry, but charges of �well poisoning� are the resort of not having a valid argument to put forward.

You have accused me of lying (saying things whether they are true or not). Talk about flaming and poisoning the well! Please either provide a complete list of documented lies or withdraw your accusation.

Admin

I expressed regret and the hope of being under a misimpression. But:

is not true. Both in: "whole heartily" and ahead "by mandating them".

Not an argument. An observation.

Probably not what Orthodox proponents of taking the anaphora aloud - from Justinian to Scheemann to the present think. The weakness of this analogy - are thus evidenced. The accusation of "Latinization" notwithstanding this contrary evidence is poisoning the well. And highly inflammatory. Posters have asked - facing the people next? There is thus a good reason to avoid suggesting - without documentation but just by a mere analogy - that it is.

My statement is correct. I have spoken to more than a few priests who have participated in the training sessions for the Revised Liturgy. The justification that �the Orthodox are already doing this� was used numerous times and the distinct impression was given that we are only slightly ahead of them by mandating the revisions to the Liturgy. Father Deacon John (unintentionally) provides some support for this on the first page of this thread (in a post to you) when he states that people are criticizing our hierarchs for acting when even the APC and the GOA are having discussion about liturgical reform. Additionally, you wrote: �The same process, with the same ideas, and the same problems is being faced by the Orthodox. We are perhaps just a little ahead, or perhaps not� about the proposed mandates. I had concluded that you were just repeating something that had been told to you.

Wrong.

The existence or lack of rejection of a practice does not mean that it is wide spread or widely accepted - whole heartily. The point has been made, without challenge over and over that these practices are relatively rare in Orthodoxy. You have given no justification for attaching this clearly false idea of whole hearty approval to any actual statement.

It is true to say that Wicca is openly practiced in the US. It is fair to infer that this practice is not proscribed in the US. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that in making this statemetn I am claiming that it is a wide-spread practice, or that the US specifically endorses the practice in anyway let alone whole-heartily.

Similarly you attach "mandates" to my statement - even though I was very explcitly talking about practice not mandates - a point that I have made over and over again on this thread, and made clear in the context of the quote by reference to the fact the OCA (with no mandates) is ahead of us on the audible anaphora.

Justinian lived a long time ago. It is rather unfair to think that liturgical developments since then were not guided by the Spirit and ought to be abandoned.

Several participants on this Forum who knew Father Schmemann have testified that he spoke to the possibility of praying the Anaphora out loud several times a year. [Perhaps the original posters will post again in this thread?]

I disagree that the accusation of �latiniztion� is poisoning the well. �Latinization� is an imitation of the customs of the Latin Church. Mandating that many of the traditionally quiet prayers be prayed out loud is an imitation of the custom of the Latin Church. The description fits.

I also strongly disagree with your suggestion that to make analogies between hearing and seeing (audible prayers vs removing the icon screen and facing the people so they could see) are improper. The analogy is perfectly legitimate.

Might I suggest that it would be better for you to put forth an argument supporting the imperative need for these revisions in our Church rather than simply resorting to accusations of �well poisoning� and flaming.

Not wrong. Quite correct, in fact.

I have been consistently speaking about the wrongness of mandates. I have also consistently supported allowing the individual priest to pray all of the quiet prayers out loud if he so chooses. I have been clear in stating that perhaps the Spirit will lead the Church in this direction in the future, but if so, we ought not to mandate it but simply wait and see what happens. Then, if in a hundred years everyone is praying these prayers out loud we can update the liturgicon to reflect this custom. Your responses to my arguments against mandates have pretty much repeated your argument that all these customs already exist in Orthodoxy.

Administator,

The Spanish Language liturgikon does not bear any jurisdictional designation other than Rome and the Congregation. The rubrics, both in text and in the footnotes, use terms such as "in some places" and "in some countries." The usage offers options that are mixed Slav and Melkite. However, I have repeatedly questioned Antiochians about the Melkite manner of distributing Communion. They are unaware of this practice in their Church and its continuing use seems to be in conflict with the notion that GC practice is to mirror EO practice. This is in no way any criticism of that but an observation that by further rubricising this practice the "standard text" has been changed. To say "seems to introduce a known and accepted custom into a new Church" is certainly fine if you accept the same thing for the changes in rubrics that are reportedly being proposed at this time here for your church.

Perhaps someone more familiar can indeed comment. On several occasions starting in the '90s I was the guest of a Slovak GC priest, I was his guest in his home and in his church. I witnessed the liturgy, talked to him about it and brought back the new book. The last time I was there was the summer of 2000. Perhaps since then things have changed. At that time he told me Rome approved this usage. Anyone more familiar?

Tony

I agree. But my point was simply that one cannot take a call for taking the the anaphora aloud as a call for facing the people. While the analogy is neat as far as analogies go, it proves nothing. And the counter evidence of the people in Orthoodoxy who have spoken for the audible anaphora without also advocating facing the people makes that point.

But it not required. Other descriptions also fit - e.g., the same liturgical reform impulse within Orthodoxy. Such an inflammatory description ought to be used only when motivation is certain - not just because it may "fit" some of the facts.

Not improper, just not probative. It is analogy not logic.

Suggestion taken in part. I am happy to be disabused of the notion that misrepresntation of arguments is deliberate. I have already said, however, that I think the "imperative need" criterion is a total red herring. And that I will accept the decision of the Hierarchs - whether they implement by decree, implement with options, or chuck the whole thing, or even go back to Slavonic. I have limited knowledge of a limited number of parishes in the Metropolia; I couldn't possibly begin to assess the Archeparchy-wide need or desirablility of these revisions.

Yes I am aware of that and don't disagree. But that it not what I was talking about, and thus it is inappropraite to attach it to my remark.

Tony,

Thank you for your post. This is very interesting. I am very glad to know that at least the rubrics are �in some places� rather than �you must�. I was unaware that this custom was entirely unknown among the AO.

If scholarship shows that this custom is not a continuance of some older custom the AO have forgotten about, my thought would be that it should be discontinued. Pastoral prudence suggests that this might take one or more generations. First, the liturgical books could be updated to reflect the correct custom (with a note that the custom in use is not appropriate to the tradition) whenever they are printed again. Then, the younger clergy can be trained and the people can be catechized years before the more authentic custom is introduced. Eventually the custom can be introduced and become the standard over several decades.

I, too, would welcome more information on the Slovak GC Litrugicon. My sources are not infallible on this topic, but it is my understanding that Rome directed the Slovaks too restore the Liturgicon back to the traditional usage. It really bothers me that each individual country within the Ruthenian recension seems to be revising the Liturgy in a different manner. Unity in Liturgy with our fellow BC�s and with all of Byzantine Orthodoxy should be important to us.

Admin