Eastern Novus Ordo?

[dcointin]

I haven’t heard the issues with the music. The two I hear the most about the RDL are the publication of the pew books with the abbreviated Divine Liturgy, that is missing the Second and Third Litanies and the change to vocal prayers for what used to be sub-vocal, especially the Anaphora.

These two seem, to me, to be neo-latinizations. One to shorten the liturgies, the other to resemble what is done in the West.

But I must say, I have been to a DL at a UGCC and I swear that the Anaphora was taken out loud there too.

And as a person in the pews (yes sorry we still have pews) I do not notice that much difference between the RDL and what we do at my home parish which is Melkite. I think most of the differences are either noticed by those searching for them (kind of like a lot of little abuses which are only found by those explicitly looking for them) or by those who are really studying the service books before and after the changes.

There is some difference on this matter in the Orthodox Church as well. In my parish, which is Antiochian Orthodox, the priest recites the Anaphora audibly, and the people respond with “amen, amen, amen”. I’ve visitied a Russian Orthodox parish where the Anaphora is recited subaudibly, and there is no congregational response. I remember reading a thread on an Orthodox forum about this, and it seemed to be a contentious issue. So in my experience, this is not just a Catholic issue.

 

[malphono]

There is some difference on this matter in the Orthodox Church as well. In my parish, which is Antiochian Orthodox, the priest recites the Anaphora audibly, and the people respond with “amen, amen, amen”. I’ve visitied a Russian Orthodox parish where the Anaphora is recited subaudibly, and there is no congregational response. I remember reading a thread on an Orthodox forum about this, and it seemed to be a contentious issue. So in my experience, this is not just a Catholic issue.

I’m curious about something, and ask that you please bear with me while I pose a question. This may, on the surface, seem to be naive, but there is a method to my madness (so-to-speak).

Just for the sake of convenience, let’s look at the Anaphora here (if you have a better link, by all means we’ll use that). When you say the priest takes the Anaphora “audibly” or “subaudibly,” exactly what does that mean?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m curious about something, and ask that you please bear with me while I pose a question. This may, on the surface, seem to be naive, but there is a method to my madness (so-to-speak).

Just for the sake of convenience, let’s look at the Anaphora here (if you have a better link, by all means we’ll use that). When you say the priest takes the Anaphora “audibly” or “subaudibly,” exactly what does that mean?

You link shows it. It says “Priest (in a low voice)”.

 

[malphono]

You link shows it. It says “Priest (in a low voice)”.

OK, that’s what I expected to hear. It seems to me that there are only two places (the first parts of the Institution Narrative and the Epiklesis) where I would consider the “low voice” a little odd (and I say that in reference to Syriac liturgy, where both are done in full voice). The rest of the “low voice” prayers, though, I find to be perfectly normal. If the rest are taken aloud, it would seem to mean either that (a) the concurrent diaconal prayers are suppressed or (b) both are done which would lengthen the liturgy and actually create an unnatural break in the flow of the liturgy.

Can you enlighten me on what is done in practice?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

OK, that’s what I expected to hear. It seems to me that there are only two places (the first parts of the Institution Narrative and the Epiklesis) where I would consider the “low voice” a little odd (and I say that in reference to Syriac liturgy, where both are done in full voice). The rest of the “low voice” prayers, though, I find to be perfectly normal. If the rest are taken aloud, it would seem to mean either that (a) the concurrent diaconal prayers are suppressed or (b) both are done which would lengthen the liturgy and actually create an unnatural break in the flow of the liturgy.

Can you enlighten me on what is done in practice?

I can’t as we currently do not have a deacon at my parish. But it does appear that the priest finishes his prayers then goes on with the deacons parts as he must.

Hopefully someone here can give a clearer answer.

 

[malphono]

I can’t as we currently do not have a deacon at my parish. But it does appear that the priest finishes his prayers then goes on with the deacons parts as he must.

Hopefully someone here can give a clearer answer.

Thanks. This is becoming curiouser and curiouser. I would have thought that, in the absence of a real deacon, the bulk of the deacon’s prayers (all but the Gospel, and certainly all that comes within the Anaphora) would be assumed by a lay cantor.

Well, let’s see if another of our Byzantine brethren can fill in the gaps.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thanks. This is becoming curiouser and curiouser. I would have thought that, in the absence of a real deacon, the bulk of the deacon’s prayers (all but the Gospel, and certainly all that comes within the Anaphora) would be assumed by a lay cantor.

Well, let’s see if another of our Byzantine brethren can fill in the gaps.

Every where I have been (yes not really that many places) when there is no deacon the priest assumes the deacons prayers, such as the Litanies and such.

So when the priest’s prayers are in a “low voice” there is a period of silence where he finished them or he just skipped them to continue the flow.

 

[Cecilianus]

exceptions in the east would be the ethiopians, italo-albanians and the malabarese who didn’t understand the words of their service–Cyril Korolevsky, Living Languages in Catholic Worship.

Incidentally, the reason why many of the Italo-Albanian monasteries were suppressed (long before Vatican II) was because of the refusal of the monks to learn Greek (see David Paul Hester, Italo-Greek Monastic Spirituality).

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

 

[Cecilianus]

Nice post.

This is why I balk at the idea of a “sacred” language.

Philosophically speaking language only means what we as a society agrees that it means. There is no “sacred” meaning, that is there is no defined meaning to any language or words by God. God has not defined any language for us to use. Actually, if you read the Holy Scriptures, all languages were created by God in the story of the Tower of Babel. All languages have developed from earlier languages and if one believes in the truth of the story of the Tower of Babel then every language has its roots in something created by God.

Traditionally the idea was that Latin, Greek, and “Hebrew” were sanctified by their presence on the Cross on which Christ was crucified, and therefore are the most suited for use in the Mass/Divine Liturgy. (This may be the “Trilingual Heresy” somebody mentioned earlier - I haven’t heard that term - though I would ask him on what grounds and by what authority he can call this a “heresy”. As a Catholic, I believe in spiritual freedom under the guidance of the Magisterium rather than regarding every private opinion one may happen to have as a dogma.)

Nonetheless, it was the standing practice of the Roman Church to encourage the Liturgy to be said in the formal or classical version of the spoken language. In the West at the time of the Council of Trent Latin was still the language of scholarship, and had been the sole language in which intellectual life (philosophy, theology, and the rudiments of modern science) had been carried out in since the Dark Ages. Rome gave Sts. Cyril and Methodius permission to translate the Divine Liturgy into Slavonic, which was already archaic at the time as already mentioned, and later at the Council of Trent mandated the translation of the Tridentine Mass into Classical Chinese (an interesting project which unfortunately didn’t take root). The same kind of thinking was present behind the “Indian Rites” controversy which involved (among many more controversial practices) the translation of the Mass into Sanskrit. One can easily view the “Anglican Use” coming into practice as another example of the same sort of thing.

And I wouldn’t make too strong an identification of the “Eastern” viewpoint with an embrace of the vernacular. The Old Believers have clung to Slavonic with tenacity, and I’ve certainly heard plenty of Slavonic (not as much as I may like to) in Ruthenian churches. At least some of the Ukrainians used nothing but Slavonic until about ten years ago.

 

[malphono]

Every where I have been (yes not really that many places) when there is no deacon the priest assumes the deacons prayers, such as the Litanies and such.

So when the priest’s prayers are in a “low voice” there is a period of silence where he finished them or he just skipped them to continue the flow.

Interesting. Within the Anaphora, I guess it’s mainly the dyptychs, but even so, that could serve to lengthen the liturgy exhaustingly.

Of course that still leaves the question about which traditionally “low voice” prayers are being done aloud? The corollary question, of course, is why?

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting. Within the Anaphora, I guess it’s mainly the dyptychs, but even so, that could serve to lengthen the liturgy exhaustingly.

Of course that still leaves the question about which traditionally “low voice” prayers are being done aloud? The corollary question, of course, is why?

Without stating some cause-and-effect here, it seems that there is a high correlation between the decibel level of the prayers, the amount of vernacular, the people-centered focus of the liturgy, and the ad populum posture. This opinion is based strictly on personal experience, and not on actual statistics, if any are actually available on this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

I have never seen this in the OF Mass with a bishop and concelebrants.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have never seen this in the OF Mass with a bishop and concelebrants.

The last one I attended was so. I don’t mean to say it happens all the time. I was just curious because in the Byzantine Rite the deacon leads many of the prayers and it would have made sense if one of the priests would have assumed this role. But I’m not familiar yet what can or cannot be done by the priests concelebrating.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m curious about something, and ask that you please bear with me while I pose a question. This may, on the surface, seem to be naive, but there is a method to my madness (so-to-speak).

Just for the sake of convenience, let’s look at the Anaphora here (if you have a better link, by all means we’ll use that). When you say the priest takes the Anaphora “audibly” or “subaudibly,” exactly what does that mean?

Just catching up:
What "takes the Anaphora ‘audibly’ " means, in my experience (BCC and OCA), is that some or all of the prayers marked “in a low voice” are taken sequentially, as written - ie, not while the people are chanting the previous response - and out loud, either recited or chanted.

In the OCA parish that I frequent the original practice was to take everything aloud to the axion estin, as is done in the BCC RDL. However, the current practice is to stop after the words of institution. The controversy, as I understand it, within Orthodoxy is about the people giving the Deacon’s Amen. Bishop Tikhon, emeritus bishop of the OCADOW, considered this practice to be an abuse.

Your comments on about the rhythm of the liturgy have also been made by others - eg on the long threads on the RDL at bycath. FWIW, my experience is that one gets used to this practice very fast; quickly, liturgies in which these prayers are not heard seem to be odd.

What is the thinking behind restoring these prayers to audibility? I cannot speak for the bishops or the liturgy commission, but again FWIW here are some thoughts that I have heard in other discussions.

The practice of taking these prayers inaudibly was originally seen as an abuse, which nevertheless could not be suppressed. This practice was also thought to be reinforced as liturgical language diverged from the vernacular; restoration of these prayers is thought to be a proper accompaniment to the return to the vernacular.

Personally, I think it is very good, in an era of secularization, to hear the high Christology of these prayers. However some people oppose any rationale made on the basis of catechetical value, reasoning that the prayers are for worship only.

Taking the epiclesis aloud in the BCC is probably thought of as being part of de-Latinization giving greater emphasis to the epiclesis ; indeed in the RDL the amen at the words of institution have been shortened from the formerly long melismatic form.

Some in the BCC feel that the audible anaphora is too similar to the Latin practice and ipso facto should be avoided. Obviously that is not an issue in EOCs.

That’s all I remember at the moment.

 

[dvdjs]

Without stating some cause-and-effect here, it seems that there is a high correlation between the decibel level of the prayers, the amount of vernacular, the people-centered focus of the liturgy, and the ad populum posture. This opinion is based strictly on personal experience, and not on actual statistics, if any are actually available on this.

You may be right about the decibel level and vernacular. But, are you talking about the Latin church for ad populum posture? The BCC RDL included no change in orientation.

I am curious about what you mean, in detail, by the people-centered focus of the liturgy?

 

[dvdjs]

The low-tone parts are still low-toned.

Are they taken during the people’s chanting or separately?

 

[dvdjs]

I would have thought that, in the absence of a real deacon, the bulk of the deacon’s prayers (all but the Gospel, and certainly all that comes within the Anaphora) would be assumed by a lay cantor.

I never heard of such a thing, going back over fifty years in the BCC. Litanies are taken by the priest.

Also in the OCA, in DL’s without a deacon present. Subdeacons will do readers parts: prokimenon, epistle; but the priest does the deacon’s parts, and four petitions in the litany of the faithful that are taken only when the deacon is present are omitted in his absence.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are they taken during the people’s chanting or separately?

I’m still figuring out lots of parts but I would guess that they are during the chants because there’s no lull time during the Liturgy. Its either the priest/deacon very audible, or the people very audible.

 

[malphono]

I never heard of such a thing, going back over fifty years in the BCC. Litanies are taken by the priest.

Also in the OCA, in DL’s without a deacon present. Subdeacons will do readers parts: prokimenon, epistle; but the priest does the deacon’s parts, and four petitions in the litany of the faithful that are taken only when the deacon is present are omitted in his absence.

I probably should have qualified that by saying that’s generally the way it goes in the Syriac Churches. In the absence of a deacon, if a subdeacon is present he will normally assume the bulk of the deacon’s part, otherwise the job generally falls to a lay cantor(s).