Thanks for asking. Just perception on my part, and it comes from a 100% Western POV. (Although that may change soon.) Again, I merely stated it as on observation. You, of course, would know better about the Eastern orientation and whether you feel that’s most conducive to God-centered worship.
The Byzantines were not affected by the versus populum fad, but the Maronites and Syro-Malabars certainly have been.
The Chaldeans were affected as well, but to their credit, the Holy Synod reversed that a couple of years ago, and reverted to ad orientem. 
I asked about “people-centered”, since I was surprised about the way it came up in other discussions of the RDL. I think that the Byzantine liturgy clearly represents an act of worship. However this God whom we worship is a God who condescended to become man and who suffered and died for us. His sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of the liturgy, is supremely people-centered. We worship a God who loves people.
I’d like to see that. The Chaldean in my area share with a Roman Catholic parish. Although there have been parts of the Holy Qurbana that the priest is ad orientem, but its versus populum most of the time.The Byzantines were not affected by the versus populum fad, but the Maronites and Syro-Malabars certainly have been.
By “audibly” I mean in a loud voice that can be heard through the church, and by “subaudibly” I was borrowing a word others have used in this thread to mean in a normal voice that cannot usually be heard unless you’re close to the priest. I like that term rather than “inaudibly” because that indicates he’s whispering or otherwise saying it so quietly that no one could hear him. My parish is a small mission that rents an office space, so even when the priest speaks “subaudibly” we can usually hear him. For us however, he speaks the Anaphora “audibly”, i.e. in a loud voice.
Good for them! I frequently complain to my girlfriend when I attend mass with her that the priest appears to be praying to us, because he’s facing and looking at us while he’s doing it! I’m notoriously bad at answering prayers though, so I hope that’s not the caseThe Byzantines were not affected by the versus populum fad, but the Maronites and Syro-Malabars certainly have been.
Is the congregation quiet or is it chanting when the priest is speaking subaudibly?
We’re silent while he prays the Anaphora, except for the responses of “amen” that I mentioned previously. We’re forbidden to overlap or chant over him during that time. At other times earlier in the liturgy though we do chant over him, such as while he’s preparing the chalice before the Great Entrance. Does that make sense?
You’ve given me some food for thought. Will get back to you on this.
The many prompts to the celebrant are simply dropped.
That is a very interesting and I suspect very moving way of doing the anaphora.
In the new Melkite DL there are provisions for laity to chant the petitions.
Hmm… at one Melkite church I would go to Vespers at on Thursday nights we would skip the petitions in the absence of a priest, as is traditionally done.
Not quite sure what the hmming is about.
The Melkites in theory allow the subdeacon to take the 2 small litanies during the Antiphons. I say in theory because although it is allowed I have never met anyone who has seen this done. It is actually a very old Athonite custom that the church of Antioch both Orthodox and Catholic allow.
I don’t doubt it - I’m just surprised.
OK, I’m beginning to get a picture. Now for a follow-up question: what happens to the various diaconal admonitions that occur during some of the traditional “low voice” prayers (including within the Anaphora)? Are those dropped? And what happens to the congregational responses to those admonitions?
We had an assistant priest for awhile who’s since been assigned to a different mission, and I could hear him anticipating or responding to the priest’s prayers when the concelebrated, though I’m not sure exactly what he’s saying. None of the prayers that are in the text of the divine liturgy that you linked are ommited, and most of those said by the deacon are said by the priest.
This is all very interesting. I don’t normally comment on things Byzantine but, after reading through this thread, and keeping in mind things that I have seen and heard before, both in this forum and elsewhere, I will offer a comment this time around.
The research of Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. would argue otherwise. In a talk given by him entitled “Eucharistic Anaphora Aloud?” he argues that there is plenty of Patristic and Medieval evidence to suggest that “traditionally” among the Byzantines the Anaphora was offered in such a way as to be audible to all present. His claim is that it wasn’t necessarily a universal practice (although it may very well have been), but to dismiss it as “untraditional” or a “neo-Latinization” is to ignore the evidence. Metropolitan Kallistos and I believe Rt. Rev. Alexander Schmemann are/were very much in favor of the Anaphora being offered so as to be audible to all the faithful. This they do both on historical and theological grounds.
