Eastern Novus Ordo?

[malphono]

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.

So, according to that theory, there should be nothing in a “low voice”?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

So, according to that theory, there should be nothing in a “low voice”?

Not really, at least during the Anaphora and other Eucharistic prayers. If you’re really that interested then I encourage you to check out his presentation as well as the series by Met. Kallistos entitled “The Inner Meaning of the Eucharist”.

 

[malphono]

Not really, at least during the Anaphora and other Eucharistic prayers. If you’re really that interested then I encourage you to check out his presentation as well as the series by Met. Kallistos entitled “The Inner Meaning of the Eucharist”.

I think I’ll pass on the reading list, but thanks.

Now I think I get it, though. Sounds very much the same as the “evidence” proffered by Bugnini & Co. for exactly the same thing in the Roman Rite.

 

[suhail_khan11]

hi…
i am new to this forum and I heart the Chaldean Qurbana was reformed recently, I don’t know how much and to what extent. I also heard reforms by the Ruthenians. Some here attend Ruthenian parishes. i like to comment.

Vitamins for Skin & Hair

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think I’ll pass on the reading list, but thanks.

Now I think I get it, though. Sounds very much the same as the “evidence” proffered by Bugnini & Co. for exactly the same thing in the Roman Rite.

Well I can’t really say as I’ve never heard/read the “evidence” provided by Bugnini & Co. All I know is that Fr. Taft is the most highly respected scholar on the Byzantine Rite, even among the Orthodox. In his lectures that I recommended to you he gives some extensive quotes from Patristic and Medieval sources that do not support his claim, but rather cause him to make the claim to begin with. He does not attempt to read our current situation back into the past, but rather looks to the past to shed light on today. Again he also does not claim that an audible Anaphora was the universal tradition, but he does definitively demonstrate that calling an audible Anaphora “untraditional” or “erroneous” would be a grave mistake.

 

[malphono]

Well I can’t really say as I’ve never heard/read the “evidence” provided by Bugnini & Co. All I know is that Fr. Taft is the most highly respected scholar on the Byzantine Rite, even among the Orthodox. In his lectures that I recommended to you he gives some extensive quotes from Patristic and Medieval sources that do not support his claim, but rather cause him to make the claim to begin with. He does not attempt to read our current situation back into the past, but rather looks to the past to shed light on today. Again he also does not claim that an audible Anaphora was the universal tradition, but he does definitively demonstrate that calling an audible Anaphora “untraditional” or “erroneous” would be a grave mistake.

That’s pretty much what the Novus Ordo people did: they claim to “look to the past” and then, of course, they pick and choose what suits their agenda. And often times, if they can’t find what they want, they contrive something to suit. Taken together, it’s merely antiquarianism run amok.

That said, I don’t know Taft personally (a close friend of mine does but I will refrain from hearsay), so I cannot impugn his claims, but I will say that I give him credit for at least making the disclaimer that an audible Anaphora was the universal tradition. Considering the fact that Byzantine liturgy has it’s roots in the Syriac, I have to say that an Anaphora that lacks at least some “low voice” priestly prayers would be bizarre.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s pretty much what the Novus Ordo people did: they claim to “look to the past” and then, of course, they pick and choose what suits their agenda. And often times, if they can’t find what they want, they contrive something to suit. Taken together, it’s merely antiquarianism run amok.

That said, I don’t know Taft personally (a close friend of mine does but I will refrain from hearsay), so I cannot impugn his claims, but I will say that I give him credit for at least making the disclaimer that an audible Anaphora was the universal tradition. Considering the fact that Byzantine liturgy has it’s roots in the Syriac, I have to say that an Anaphora that lacks at least some “low voice” priestly prayers would be bizarre.

Well who knows. I do know Fr. Taft personally and I know that he’s an honest scholar and a good man. He is quite blunt and to the point, which gives him the appearance of being arrogant, but he is a good man who is passionate about the truth and will not tolerate false claims. (I also happen to respect him because I know he keeps my two-year old daughter in his prayers).

Byzantine liturgy may have roots in the Syriac, but it also has roots in Constantinople. Remember, Byzantine liturgy is no the product of one culture, but of many. I do believe, however, that there is evidence in the writings of John Chrysostom that he offered the Anaphora audibly (Chrysostom being, as you well know, a Syrian from Antioch). You have me curious now. I’m going to have to go back and re-listen to Fr. Taft’s talk. I know he is not in the business of “antiquarianism” or “contriving something” to suit his own agenda. Fr. Taft doesn’t really have an agenda except to spread love for the authentic (i.e. non-Latinized) Byzantine tradition within the Catholic Church.

 

[malphono]

You have me curious now. I’m going to have to go back and re-listen to Fr. Taft’s talk. I know he is not in the business of “antiquarianism” or “contriving something” to suit his own agenda. Fr. Taft doesn’t really have an agenda except to spread love for the authentic (i.e. non-Latinized) Byzantine tradition within the Catholic Church.

Primarily audibly? Perhaps (and most likely) so. Totally audibly? I would, as I said earlier, find that very bizarre.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Primarily audibly? Perhaps (and most likely) so. Totally audibly? I would, as I said earlier, find that very bizarre.

Come to think of it, you are right, I was mixing up Anaphora and Epiclesis. Even among the Byzantines who offer the Anaphora audibly, it isn’t entirely audibly, at least not to my knowledge. Hmmm. I’m going to have to dig a little deeper with this one.

 

[dcointin]

In the case of Antiochian Orthodox practice, I’m not sure you could call it a neo-latinization since the impetuous for the practice hasn’t come from a desire to emulate the west to my knowledge, though I honestly don’t know anything about the history of the practice.

 

[dcointin]

I found this about the history of saying prayers loudly vs quietly:

"The earliest sources, from the fourth century, indicate that the anaphora was a central part of the liturgy.

But the advent of large cathedral churches – especially ones with patriarchal and imperial retinues – necessarily changed/shaped liturgical practices. According to St. Maximos the Confessor, the anaphora was recited “mystikos” (silently/quietly, i.e. not chanted aloud) during his time. Obviously, in a huge church like Hagia Sophia with thousands of clamoring bodies, simply reading something in the altar would not be audible to the hoi polloi. So, from at least the sixth century, the anaphora was “silent.” The earliest “rubrics” we have, from the ninth century, also call for “silent” prayers. Eventually, this produced a whole theology of “mystery,” complemented by a high iconostasis, closing the Beautiful Gates and extended chanting, so as to fill the silence. Such was the case in most locales for many centuries (except maybe in churches built by the Venetians). That’s how they do it on Mt. Athos and every parish I’ve been to in Greece, Ukraine, Bulgaria & Romania.

With the advent of modern liturgical scholarship in the 50s and 60s, and the discovery of this history, some parishes have started to read everything aloud, for all to hear. In North America, SVS has been the main force behind the movement, which usually goes hand-and-hand with Schmemannite Eucharistic theology."

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25617.0.html

 

[malphono]

In the case of Antiochian Orthodox practice, I’m not sure you could call it a neo-latinization since the impetuous for the practice hasn’t come from a desire to emulate the west to my knowledge, though I honestly don’t know anything about the history of the practice.

That’s why I made a parenthetical note about the Orthodox in my earlier post: it’s not really a desire to emulate the West. (Most Orthodox would rather eat e-coli tainted meat than do that! ) Rather, it’s a mindset, which happens to coincide with that of the Novus Ordo. It’s similar for the Episcopalians and Lutherans.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s why I made a parenthetical note about the Orthodox in my earlier post: it’s not really a desire to emulate the West. (Most Orthodox would rather eat e-coli tainted meat than do that! ) Rather, it’s a mindset, which happens to coincide with that of the Novus Ordo. It’s similar for the Episcopalians and Lutherans.

And you should recognize that the movements came first in the East; and you might allow, at the very least, that that mindset also informs some EC practice - rather than leaping to the neo-Latinization epithet.

It seems to me that the business of raising the voice for what are traditionally “low tone” prayers does amount to a latinization, but one in principle rather than one in practice. To me, at least, it reflects some of the same post-conciliar mentality displayed in the Novus Ordo: in this case that “low voice” (or “whispered” or “silent” or whatever) prayers of the priest are unwelcome.

You go reeling off the track here. You can download a pdf of the BCC RDL Liturgikon from the website of Patronage parish in Baltimore. I linked to the Melkite liturgy yesterday. Please read them. You will find the call for prayers of the priest to be taken quietly many, many times. There is no case whatsoever for quiet prayers being “unwelcome”. Just not there.

It’s no wonder that there’s controversy and, from the sounds of things, at least some resistance to the trend.

To a hammer all problems look like a nail?

In this case, the only real controversy that I have heard of in the EO churshes is the issue of the people taking the Deacon’s Amen at the epiclesis. That, and the grumbling of a parishioner, that “we could get out of here in an hour if he didn’t take these aloud”. In the case of the BCC RDL this issue had some traction among those who wanted to complain about everything.

There are plenty of articles and scholarly works on this issue. Articles by Taft and others, even Wybrew’s book is on line. Worth having a look at really.

 

[angelic06]

Our priest prays all the Deacon parts when there is no Deacon. Actually we do not have a Deacon but there is one in our Eparchy and if he’s in town on business, he’ll be at the Cathedral where I go.

The low-tone parts are still low-toned.

edit: curious though that during concelebration with the Bishop, I don’t remember one of the priests taking the role of the deacon. Is that normal? I know in the RC if the Bishop is celebrating, if there is no deacon then the concelebrant priest (or one of the, if many) will assume the role of deacon during Mass.

Hmmm…here at my Maronite church, a lay reader reads the deacon’s parts (identified as such in the liturgical books) even when we do have our deacon (who is incardinated in the Roman archdiocese and serves a territorial parish thereof).

And for that matter, the Latin auxiliary bishop was allowed to proclaim the Gospel last week at our 85th anniversary DL instead of the deacon (I don’t know whether allowing a cleric other than a deacon to proclaim the Gospel when one is available is proper form in the East----no need to discuss it here, so as to keep the thread on topic). Another cleric (can’t tell whether he was a presbyter or a deacon since he had the stole draped over his shoulder instead of around the neck like a presbyter or as a sash like a deacon) started to proclaim but then handed the proclamation duty to Bishop Cantu, who restarted the Gospel introductory greetings to the people (“Let us be attentive to the life and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded by…”).

 

[malphono]

And you should recognize that the movements came first in the East; and you might allow, at the very least, that that mindset also informs some EC practice - rather than leaping to the neo-Latinization epithet.

You go reeling off the track here.

Whoa! Excuse **me??? **

You can download a pdf of the BCC RDL Liturgikon from the website of Patronage parish in Baltimore. I linked to the Melkite liturgy yesterday. Please read them. You will find the call for prayers of the priest to be taken quietly many, many times. There is no case whatsoever for quiet prayers being “unwelcome”. Just not there.

Well, I guess that’s a matter of opinion.

To a hammer all problems look like a nail?

And what is that supposed to mean?

In this case, the only real controversy that I have heard of in the EO churshes is the issue of the people taking the Deacon’s Amen at the epiclesis. That, and the grumbling of a parishioner, that “we could get out of here in an hour if he didn’t take these aloud”. In the case of the BCC RDL this issue had some traction among those who wanted to complain about everything.

Yep … them folks who complain ‘bout everythin’ …How typcial

 

[malphono]

Hmmm…here at my Maronite church, a lay reader reads the deacon’s parts (identified as such in the liturgical books) even when we do have our deacon (who is incardinated in the Roman archdiocese and serves a territorial parish thereof).

No, ifs, and, or buts … that is a liturgical abuse. Unfortunately, it’s a very common one among the Maronites, particularly in the western Eparchy. If a layman assumes the deacon’s role when a deacon is present, what purpose does the deacon serve?

And for that matter, the Latin auxiliary bishop was allowed to proclaim the Gospel last week at our 85th anniversary DL instead of the deacon (I don’t know whether allowing a cleric other than a deacon to proclaim the Gospel when one is available is proper form in the East----no need to discuss it here, so as to keep the thread on topic).

That’s not a problem.

 

[angelic06]

Well, I should have also added that the deacon (during a Sunday DL, though not our 85th anniversary one) reads parts which are assigned to the celebrant (as identified in the books), namely near the end of the intercessions, and also after the reception of Holy Communion (“O Christ, divine Bread, who desired to become our unperishable food, at your second coming, do not allow us to become food for the unquenchable fire”).

 

[malphono]

Well, I should have also added that the deacon (during a Sunday DL, though not our 85th anniversary one) reads parts which are assigned to the celebrant (as identified in the books), namely near the end of the intercessions

Not surprising, I suppose, all things (including he Eparchy), considered. Nonetheless, what is identified in the “books” as belonging to the celebrant should be done by the celebrant, not the deacon. By the same token, what is identified in the “books” as belonging to the deacon should be done by the deacon, (when a deacon is present), and not a lay cantor.

and also after the reception of Holy Communion (“O Christ, divine Bread, who desired to become our unperishable food, at your second coming, do not allow us to become food for the unquenchable fire”).

It may well be I’m just having a mental block at the moment, but I’m having a problem identifying that particular prayer. (It could be just the “translation” – the first words in Syriac, or even in Arabic, would help stir my memory.) But, if it’s what I think it is, I believe that prayer is traditionally supposed to belong to the deacon.

 

[Vico]

Not surprising, I suppose, all things (including he Eparchy), considered. Nonetheless, what is identified in the “books” as belonging to the celebrant should be done by the celebrant, not the deacon. By the same token, what is identified in the “books” as belonging to the deacon should be done by the deacon, (when a deacon is present), and not a lay cantor.

It may well be I’m just having a mental block at the moment, but I’m having a problem identifying that particular prayer. (It could be just the “translation” – the first words in Syriac, or even in Arabic, would help stir my memory.) But, if it’s what I think it is, I believe that prayer is traditionally supposed to belong to the deacon.

From Vico: It is here in the Blessing and Dismissal:

vineyardofthelord.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=91

Also the intercessions (before communion) are given.

 

[dvdjs]

Whoa! Excuse **me??? **
Well, I guess that’s a matter of opinion.

I of course don’t know what you mean by “unwelcome”, but if a practice is retained, for the better part, while obviously not being compelled, it would be strange to call it unwelcome. If we agree on that point, then what we need is to take the time to find the facts and stick to them. I welcome you to count the number of times a priest is called to offer a prayer quietly in the RDL versus another other edition of your choice. I am happy to do the same so that we can check numbers. I am certain that you will find that in the majority of cases the quiet prayer is conserved.

Yep … them folks who complain ‘bout everythin’ …How typcial

That remark is rather unfair. There was an abundance of writings and discussion on the RDL. I participated in much of it and have a terrific memory for the details. Among the major changes in the the RDL, the practice of the audible anaphora triggered the least of objections. (More virtual ink was spilled on the return to the standard antiphon chant). It was only the list of those who had the most expansive lists, and those lists did include just about everything. I’ll make a tentative correction here, probably the bottom of the list, was complaint that the music commission was lead by a non-nash; actually it was probably a toss-up between those two items. (Indeed the audible anaphora was not on the list of those who claimed that “ever and forever” vs “ages of ages” was the mark of ignorant bigots). So let me assure you that “everything” was not used idly.

I am tired of uninformed opinions being offered on the liturgical practices in my church. If someone takes the time to read it or experience it, I am all ears. But without seeking out the basic facts, what is point? A well-known net Catholic writer - a history professor - had been writing nonsense about the RDL over the internet for some years. Nonsense that could have been easily dispelled by reading the liturgikon or going to the liturgy. Still can’t figure it out.