www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Our liturgical tradition- a response

Although the presbyteral prayers had become inaudible to the faithful, the rubrics direct the celebrant to speak the words and not just read them to himself. In my unenlightened opinion this practice seems to put undue importance upon words.

Just to underscore Fr David's response, both word and action are equally important. In the account of Creation from Genesis, the author points out this salient truth: "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said , "Let there be light," and there was light. (Gen 1:1-3 emphasis added) St John the Theologian reveals Christ as the Logos, the Word of God. As in the account of Creation, the Word is the agent of the action.

Turning our attention to St. Paul, he writes to the Church at Rome, So, it is not just any words, but words that are heard and understood. This is what prompts the action.

I am curious of to hear of your direct experience that might be informing this remark.

I am strong supporter of Fr David on this point taking the anaphora aloud. I have heard the liturgy celebrated this way in a Russian Catholic parish and by several OCA priests. It never once gave me the sense of anything imitative of the Latins; the prayers, especially when heard, are distinctively ours. And I think you seriously overestimate a problem in balance and flow. It was clear that there was a change, but I never felt an impact on flow (like the litanties of the faithful) or balance (what is the net precentage change after all). But I will say this: now, when participating in a liturgy without these prayers taken aloud, I strongly feel that something is missing, that these crucial moments are being hurried over, and that flow runs too fast.

I am not sure, but I will hazzard a guess that you would people who have substantial experience with the liturgy done this way are likely to be strong supporters of it. I would like to hear from our Orthodox friends who have experience on this matter how they view it.

Dear Father David,

Heavens, a compliment! Please accept my sincere thanks (and that is not meant to be sarcastic, for a reason which I propose to develop here and now). You write that you know that I am �capable of subtle argumentation.� Not only is that consoling in a world of sound bites and people who apparently think that a sledgehammer is the all-purpose tool, but in the specific area of liturgy (and, therefore, the discussion of liturgy) subtlety is indispensable. You yourself know this well, but allow me to explain for others who may not be quite so able to follow it.

Almost any Christian liturgy (and probably others, although I have insufficient knowledge to comment on non-Christian worship) is permeated with subtlety, and the interplay of these innumerable subtleties is crucial. To offer some simple examples, smell is the most subtle of the physical senses. The Divine Liturgy involves us with the fragrance of incense, the aroma of wine (which I suspect has something to do with the Zeon, although that is another discussion), the use of aromatic oil (especially on major feasts), the use of rose-water (for the consecration of churches, holy tables, and antependia with other option uses), the fragrance of fresh bread (especially in those Eastern Churches which require that the prosphora be baked on the same day as the Divine Liturgy) . . . the list could be continued, and each item could be developed in greater detail. But I�ll add an anecdote which shows that much depends on one�s viewpoint � I was taking some Latin friends to visit one of our historic churches on a week-day afternoon. The priest�s wife let us in, and one of my friends said �I can smell the incense!�. The priest�s wife responded at once: �oh, my husband�s clothes REEK of it!�.
Iconography: icons are amazingly subtle, but whole books have been written on this and the subject is nowhere near exhausted, so I won�t go on now!
Clothing � this includes actual liturgical vestments (and it is not unimportant that among us there is a fair amount of vestment-changing during certain services, as well as the solemn vesting of the hierarch � which so few hierarchs are willing to do! � and the association of the bestowal of each vestments to the newly ordained with the chanting of Axios), the traditional clergy garb (a friend who is a priest of the Antiochian Church once said to me that he always feels like a streaker when a traditionally garbed priest appears!), monastic attire, the white garments of the newly baptized, and the awareness of many people that one should dress appropriately to go to Church.
Music � it is not for nothing that the Byzantines (the real ones, that is � who use real Byzantine chant) describe their chant as �writing with musical notes�. Again, this can be developed at great (and interesting) length.
Movement � both of persons and of objects.
Lighting (which we use in varying degrees) and darkness.
Language � which operates on several levels as well as several functional varieties. We all know of concepts which are clear in one language and can hardly be explained, let alone expressed, in another language. But not everyone is aware of the tremendous potency in the choice of words. Nor is everyone aware of all the plays on words in many of our liturgical texts � particularly, of course, those texts which are actually poetic in Greek.
The ludic dimensions of liturgy � these are often controversial, because in some cultures there is an inherent distrust of anything ludic.

That will have to do for now, with a caveat � many of these subtleties are at their most powerful when they are subliminal. When that happens � and it happens most of the time � altering the mix can prove highly volatile. The calendar controversies are a case in point.

So I have good reason to appreciate your compliment; thank you again. And allow me to add that you are not lacking in the same ability!

You write that �a deacon's role may be summed up as incense and litanies, a presbyter�s role as prayers.� I�m quite uncomfortable with that, although I can understand why many people might see it that way. I would prefer to suggest that the deacon�s role is to link the assembly with the bishop and the presbyter(s). A striking example of this can be seen at the litany following the Great Entrance � the deacon intones this litany standing outside the closed curtain and Royal Doors. However, the litany and the incense are prayers in themselves and are in their setting at the Eucharist inextricably part of the Great Prayer.

What is going on is that the Divine Liturgy happens on several different levels simultaneously (which is why, incidentally, the practice of the bishop or presbyter quietly offering the same litany which the deacon is intoning is sheer madness and the notion that having the priest quietly offer a litany which nobody is intoning somehow makes up for the omission belongs in a loony bin). There are, of course, times when only one voice is heard and everyone else listens (such as when the deacon proclaims the Gospel or the bishop offers the commemorations at the Great Entrance) � and there are other times when several voices can be heard � not necessarily singing the same thing to the same music (this requires careful management if it is to happen properly, but good recordings are available) and still other times when the bishop or presbyter offers a prayer quietly, the people sing something else, and the deacon meanwhile does something or even says something quietly as well. Yet if done correctly the result is not cacophony and no one says �are these men not drunk?�.

Certainly words are important, and we most emphatically do not use mumbo-jumbo (there are a few examples to the contrary, but they are abuses and they do nothing much for anybody � with the single exception of nonsense syllables used in vocal exercises for chanters when practicing). I�m assuming, of course, that you are employing the term �mumbo-jumbo� to mean a form of �sacred� gibberish or incomprehensible language. �Mumbo-Jumbo� is originally the name of a pagan deity thought to have originated in Africa. But never mind.

Still, the difference that I mentioned between action and word is one of the classic issues of the Reformation; I did not invent it � nor was I implying that you are some sort of crypto-Protestant, any more than enjoying the hymn �A Mighty Fortress is our God� necessarily makes someone a Lutheran.

Nor is the notion that one can have what Vatican II calls Participatio Actuosa at a Liturgy in a language which one understands either little or not at all some sort of nonsense. Anyone who knows the Divine Liturgy even well enough to follow it in a printed text should have no drastic difficulty following it if for whatever reason he happens to be present at a celebration in some tongue unknown to himself (and I speak from experience). He can then enjoy a cultural blessing which is almost unique to our own tradition � discovering yet again how the same Liturgy incarnates itself in a multitude of cultures which do not necessarily have much else in common. This can only develop organically (as it did with our own tradition); it cannot successfully be wished into existence (which is why the attempts to provide �inculturation� for the Roman Rite are not howling successes, even though they may offer howling).

Two unusual but indicative examples: one friend of mine who is an immovable vernacularist nevertheless went to Chevetogne for a week or two some years ago. He came back again, having enjoyed the experience and profited by it � but he was most moved by the daily chanting of Pod Tvoiu Milost� in the darkened church at the end of Compline. The funny part of it is that he had no idea what the text was.

The other happened to me at the Russicum one Saturday evening 20-some years ago. I was meeting a Latin friend from the other side of the world for dinner, and told him that I planned to be at the Russicum for Vigil, and that if he arrived between 7:30 and 8:00 PM the service would be finishing and we would go in search of dinner. I was startled, and even annoyed, that my friend arrived just after 6 PM, when the Vigil was beginning, but I was not about to leave until the service was over. Well, when the service ended I apologized to my friend with the explanation that I would only be in Rome on that trip this one particular Saturday evening and the Vigil at the Russicum was a treat I did not care to miss. My friend reassured me; he had come early on purpose to see the service, and found it to be just what he needed at the end of a difficult work day in Rome. This was a man who knew no Church-Slavonic and nothing of the structure of the Vigil. And he did not say this to make me feel good; as we were eating our dinner his comments on the service were quite perceptive. Good Liturgy is not opaque. On the other hand, if the celebrating priest had read all the prayers of Vespers and Utrenia aloud, I rather doubt that my friend would have been pleased (or that anyone else would have been pleased, for that matter).

Your comment that Archbishop Nicholas Elko would have been appalled at several of the specific features of the latest proposed Liturgy are, I have no doubt, accurate. My comment that making innovations at one�s own whim is reminiscent of Elko�s approach to Liturgy and complete refusal to implement the official Liturgy is also accurate and well taken. You and Nicholas seem to be in agreement on a fundamental point: he was unwilling and you appear to be unwilling to give any serious consideration to tolerating the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the official text and rubrics. You and Nicholas clearly do not agree on what should be done instead of the official text and rubrics. Fair enough?

You object that I do not �explain why we should not follow what the Oriental Congregation has promulgated for the Presanctified or for the Trebnik�. But I am not aware of having said anything to that effect. I have already stated, in this present thread, that I refrain from comment on the Presanctified because I am not sufficiently familiar with any of the versions used in the Pittsburgh Metropolia to have an informed opinion. As to the Trebnik, my principal complaint is the failure to publish a complete translation of the two volumes currently available according to the �Ruthenian Recension� (these are the Abridged Trebnik itself and the Book of Molebens). No one at all has published an English translation of the Book of Molebens, and the only English translation of the Abridged Trebnik is that published privately 20 years ago by Father Joseph Shary � it is long out of print. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are confusing me with someone else.

As to my view that it is ludicrous to claim that the Administrator knows very few Greek-Catholics, I have given my opinion. I will add only that on the issues (which are infinitely more important than the personalities) it would be well to take a scientific survey, conducted by some experienced organization with no particular view on the liturgical questions under discussion and consideration.

By the way, I must apologize for what the e-mail program did to my Greek quotes. Next time I shall not attempt to include the accent marks.

Nobody is denying that there is a variety of liturgical practice observable in Eastern Orthodoxy � the Divine Liturgy is not the Tridentine Mass. But I do deny standing your argument on its head (your phrase). Here is what I wrote:

�Father David writes that he � would advocate nothing that is not actually being done in many Orthodox churches�. Well, that depends on one�s definition of �many�. I could find a great many Orthodox churches, and not a few Greek-Catholic churches, where a priest who would serve according to what seems to be Father David�s preferred form would be seeking other employment quite soon.�

That is a simple and easily verifiable statement of fact.

But now to turn my attention to other comments in your posting not directly addressed to myself.

You observe, correctly and indisputably, that �There are probably many subjective reasons why many are opposed to the new translation.� But what appears to be a fundamental issue is that there are also OBJECTIVE reasons for opposition to the new translation.

Sine Nomine�s post saddened you. You first affirm that no priest has been silenced (presumably because of opposition to the new translation, or even questions about it). Well, it can be verified that specific priests who in fact are in the opposition have been subjected to serious attempts to intimidate them.

Then you imply that Sine Nomine is trying to silence you, either because you favor the new translation or because you worked on (or possibly both). If he is trying to do that, he is seeking a false remedy. There is no reason to attempt to silence those who favor the new translation, and there are good reasons to encourage those who worked on it to be much more forthcoming about the specifics of what is being done and the principles underlying the project. It is sensible to realize that those who have produced a particular project usually have a strong personal commitment to that project � but that does not deprive them of the right to speak, although it makes it more important that those who think differently should also be encouraged to articulate their misgivings.

You object that �This forum is not the whole Byzantine Catholic Church. There are many people who support me, though few may post on the forum.� Of course this forum is not the whole Byzantine Catholic Church. But it IS the only place where these matters can be freely discussed, which heightens the importance of the forum. I shall not speculate what motivates the newspapers of the Pittsburgh Metropolia to strive to suppress any discussion at all, but the fact is undeniable.

Related to that point is your observation to Sine Nomine that �Your comments on secrecy can be a two-edged sword. � I would be hard put to it to think of any reason at all which could justify the strenuous efforts to impose secrecy in liturgical matters � beginning with the Oriental Congregation, which has yet to make the documents of the nineteen-thirties available to researchers. The question �what are they afraid of?� becomes unavoidable. [The same Oriental Congregation also refuses to make the documentation around the imposition of presbyteral celibacy available to researchers, even to researchers who support their own position.]

Sorry to make this post so long, but I haven�t time at the moment (it's gone midnight) to edit it.

Incognitus

Fr.Deacon John Montalvo

I don't understand what these bible verses have to do with the Priestly prayers being said out loud. St. Paul is saying that if Christ is not heard then people won't believe and if they don't believe they won't be saved. If this verse has something to do with the priestly prayers, then, if the priestly prayers are not out loud then the people won't know what they are saying 'amen' to, and they won't know what they are believing. If they don't believe then there souls are being jeopardized. Since the Church, both east and west, has a longstanding tradition of the priestly prayers being done silently (at least for the last 200 to 300 years, but probably more like 1500 years), then all the people�s souls who attended these liturgies where endangered. However, this is absurd. Therefore, St. Paul�s instructions to have people hear the good news has nothing to do with priestly prayers be done out loud. The priestly prayers are effective whether they are out loud or silently.

To all:

Since the liturgy is valid whether the priestly prayers are out loud or not, then a different reason would have to be given to justify the changes to the priestly prayers in the revised liturgy. It seems one reason would be the development of doctrine. If changes are justified by development of doctrine, then it seems that it would have to be something that is with in the tradition of the Church, helps the Church give glory to God, and helps the Church grow closer to God. Some people in this forum have stated that there was a time in the early Church when priestly prayers where done out loud. If this is true then it would seem that priestly prayers being done out loud is something that is permitted. However, just because something was done in the early Church does not justify it being done today, if it does not help the Church glorify God and help the Church come closer to God. St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught that one should receive the Eucharist in the hand and that the precious blood should be marked on the sense organs; and Christians in the early church worshiped in their own homes. Should these practices be added to the Liturgy too? The Church develops her doctrine and changes, but these changes have to come about naturally as a person changes and grows naturally. Just because I wore diapers when I was 2 years old does not mean that I should go back to wearing diapers now. I am not completely sure when the priestly prayers became silent, but I do know that the most recent tradition is to have the prayers silent. So, it seems that to change the tradition, even to one that was in the early church, it would need to be something that comes about due to the natural growth of the Church, that helps the Church glorify God, and that brings people to closer God. Thus, I would like to see an argument as to how these changes help the Church glorify God and bring people to God.

Jesse Venner

"You and Nicholas seem to be in agreement on a fundamental point: he was unwilling and you appear to be unwilling to give any serious consideration to tolerating the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the official text and rubrics. You and Nicholas clearly do not agree on what should be done instead of the official text and rubrics. Fair enough?"

Very unfair Fr. I. First of all Fr. David was not the sole input on the NT. Second Fr. David is not in a position to mandate changes or be intolerant of the official text and rubrics. I tire of everyone here making Fr. David the fall guy for the NT when he only had an consultative role.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Jesse,

Have you ever heard the prayers aloud? Most people in my experience, once having heard them, prefer Liturgy with them said aloud. The prayers are masterpieces and kergymatic. They are statements of praise and faith. If they are done silently, if they are not proclaimed, there is no kergyma. They may be effective silent or aloud, but something is lost when they are done silently in my and many others opinion.

I do not accept the suggestion that reading along silently out of a book is acceptable. Prayers like the Gosepl were meant to be heard, proclaimed, not read.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,
You write that my comparison of Father David's approach to that of Archbishop Nicholas is unfair: "First of all Fr. David was not the sole input on the NT. Second Fr. David is not in a position to mandate changes or be intolerant of the official text and rubrics. I tire of everyone here making Fr. David the fall guy for the NT when he only had an consultative role."

I do not know - and I have no way of knowing - what precise role Father David had in compiling the new translation/edition. I was responding to what he has written in defense and commendation of that version. However, it would not be difficult to find people in a position to testify that he is indeed "intolerant of the official text and rubrics", unfortunately. That intolerance is the characteristic which he shares with Archbishop Nicholas.
I will gladly add that unlike Archbishop Nicholas, Father David is willing to explain himself and the translation/edition which he is defending.

Incognitus

Fr. I,

Intolerant is a pretty strong word. It would imply that a person refuses to use a given text or rubric. I have seen Fr. David use the current texts without problem when he has filled in at my parish.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,
Glad to hear it. Does he permit a celebration of the complete Divine Liturgy with strict adherence to the Ordo Celebrationis in the seminary chapel, in the presence of the students?

Incognitus

Dear Fr. David:

You wrote:
which was in response to my posting of:
No, I don't know how you came up with the idea that you should be silenced. I was merely pointing out that those clergy who had strong reservations about the ANT (abridged new translation), are conspicuously absent from the form. Coincidence, I don't think so. I do enjoy your posts, you are the only insight we have into the whole process which has been kept secret.

I'd like to thank Alice for revising my post, taking out about a quarter of what I had to say. I was rather critical of our bishops, and rightly so. Did it take them to task for their conduct? You bet. They, for the most part, are out of touch with their flock. Nice enough to talk with, in a chit-chat sort of way, but nothing of real substance after that, no vision, no plan.

Yes, I did propose a specific remedy to get the attention of our bishops, the only one which they seem to really care about, money. Maybe the Administrator would like to view my un-edited post?

Sine Nomine

Dear Administrator:

My record of opposition to latinizations is well known. The audible recitation of presbyteral prayers is not a latinization, but has been espoused by some Orthodox theologians since the 50's before the Vatican Council, before the Romans were even thinking of it. As I've explained elsewhere, it is an organic development out of the movement to the vernacular. However, I know I will just get the same objections back over and over and over again. As I've stated elsewhere, there is no common ground on liturgical practice between us.
Your statement that one has the same access whether the prayers are audible or silent defies common sense and logic. It is a possible theological position that even if the prayers are silent, the people have sufficient access to them, but it is not the same access. To say that the prayers are "valid" even if said silently - which I don't deny - seems to be to be more Western legalism than my posiition.
Likewise, your statement on the Presanctified Antiphons confuses "stability" and "variability." In the Presanctified there are variables - different stichera, prokeimena (even in the Levkulic reductionism of the same two every week), readings. Antiphons are variable in the Divine Liturgy - two per week, Sunday and weekdays, plus antiphons for Pascha, Palm Sunday, Pentecost, Christmas, Theophany, Transfiguration, the Exaltation of the Cross, and attendant Sundays), not to mention Troparia, Kontakia, Theotokia, various irmosi during the anaphora and Communion Hymns. Of course, I can already hear your objections rising up - but all of those are "stable variety" which the people are used to, but the Presanctified antiphons are an innovation according to the personal whim of Fr. David (as if the reduction of the antiphons to a few verses wasn't the personal whim of Msgr. Levkulic!!!!! - a man, by the way, whom I admire and was my friend). I still think the Parma (not my personal) solution is better, it is less minimalistic, and does "give acces" to the whole kathisma, and that the average person can handle one variation per week. The other solution is to chant the whole kathisma every Presanctified. So go on- rant and rave all you want, I still think the newer solution is better.
It is my personal feeling that your problem with the "Passaic Presanctified" involves certain emotions, and that it would be disedifying and pointless to continue this discussion. It has prompted me to prepare a commentary on the Presanctified texts, which I hope can be presented in a more objective manner.

Fr. David

Dear "Sine nomine"
My reference was to your suggestion that since I am too close to the translation - having worked on it and knowing something about it - would bias me, and that therefore my opinions should be discounted. That would actually be a rather "counter-productive" silencing, and others have defended me on this position. Thank you for your clarification,

Fr. David

Dear Incognitus,

Your accusation that some priests have been "intimidated" in regard to their opposition to the new translation is quite serious. I repeat that I know of no one who has been "silenced." I gave workshops on the Liturgy in Parma, Pittsburgh and Albuquerque and certainly did not feel that my audience was "intimidated!" However, please note - you claim that this is "easily verificable," but actually it is not. You probably feel to give names, times, circumstances might jeopardize these people further - but the result is obvious, vague accusations are made, without actual verification, in a cloak of secrecy, even in regard to the identity of the accuser. On the other hand, a bishop does have the right to interpret liturgical laws and traditions, and the right to demand liturgical obedience from his clergy, wthe latter of which our bishops obviously rarely do, and if the cleric feels that the bishop has himself violated the rules and traditions of the church, he has the right to appeal.
At any rate, I do know who you are - and you know how upsetting an identification of me with Archbishop Elko on liturgical points - he was an inveterate latinizer - would hurt me. Although, to his credit, he did champion the use of the vernacular. I see this as an attempt to shame me into supporting your position. However, anyone who knows me knows the vast difference in both style and opinion between Archbishop Elko and myself. Your attempt at humiliation before an audience that has many members who would like to see me humbled is pretty useless. Those who know me know that I am not an intolerant person - when I visit Fr. O'Brien in Aliquippa, I con-celebrate the Liturgy as he does. You, however, seem to equate toleration with positive support. Again, I guess that when all else fails, an ad hominem argument can always be carted out,

Without personal ill will and in the humility of the Great Fast,

Fr. David

Dear Father David,

I look forward to reading your commentary on the texts for the Presanctified Liturgy. Thank you for offering to do this.

I am saddened by the idea that there is "no common ground" between you and the Administrator in these liturgical questions.

To my mind, there is a simple and obvious solution to this problem of a lack of "common ground".

There is only one thing that could (and should) unite us all. And that is a good, complete, unabbreviated, accurate, careful translation of the texts of our Liturgy. This text being issued without changes to the rubrics, editing, reorganization, bias, contrived gender-neutral language, or any other personal agenda.

Only a complete accurate text without changes to order or rubrics, and without introducing any other agenda will be acceptable. Anything else will be divisive and will end in tears.

We can easily find a common ground. It is the text of our Liturgy.

The proposed revision (with abbreviations, editing, reorganization and gender neutral nonsense) is out in left field, and must be rejected.

Nick

Father David,

I think my question on prosphora traditions was missed in the weightier discussions between you and the Administrator and Incognitus and others. I think it is germaine to the discussion as I think it is part of "our liturgical tradition," so I hope you don't mind if I ask it again.

Is there any consideration being given to restoring traditional prosphora traditions (loaves being cut up at the proskomedia and antidoron being distributed at the end of Liturgy) for the Ruthenian Church instead of using pre-cut pieces? Thanks!