Eastern Novus Ordo?

[malphono]

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.

Thanks. That was helpful. What escaped me earlier was that they prayers in question were in the Anaphora.

angelic06;7365049:

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.

I’ll assume the reference was to the last prayer in the dyptychs. If that’s the case, I’ll add a brief comment: it’s a minor abuse. That particular prayer is often shifted around and said by the deacon or, more likely, a lay cantor, but should not be. I know several priests, though, who won’t allow the abuse in the first place. In one case which comes to mind just now, a lay cantor was singing the intercessions. The priest anticipated what was to come, and took that last intercession himself, raising his voice to drown out the cantor. The cantor got the message and stopped in mid-word.

angelic06;7365049:

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.

Well, it’s not the place I thought. It is, however, an abuse, and not a minor one. That prayer (sometimes called the Second Prayer of Thanksgiving) is said over bowed heads and actually involves a blessing; it should never be said by a deacon. The previous prayer, though, (the Prayer of Thanksgiving itself) is often given to the deacon (never to a lay cantor). That’s also an abuse, but of far lesser magnitude.

 

[malphono]

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. …

I am tired of uninformed opinions being offered on the liturgical practices in my church. …

While I’ve no idea what that entire rant is about, I still have to say that I find the last paragraph in particular to be rather insulting. But never mind that. Makes no difference to me.

If one actually looks at what I posted, in sequence, it should be fairly clear that I was not specifically addressing your Ruthenian RDL. Rather, I asked a series of questions and made a general observation on one particular point, that being the total absence of “low voice” priestly prayers. As I said in a previous post, I’m aware that that subject is a matter of some controversy and discussion among various Byzantines, but I was unaware that it was forbidden for a non-Byzantine to offer an observation on it.

 

[dvdjs]

While I’ve no idea what that entire rant is about, I still have to say that I find the last paragraph in particular to be rather insulting. But never mind that. Makes no difference to me.

If one actually looks at what I posted, in sequence, it should be fairly clear that I was not specifically addressing your Ruthenian RDL. Rather, I asked a series of questions and made a general observation on one particular point, that being the total absence of “low voice” priestly prayers. As I said in a previous post, I’m aware that that subject is a matter of some controversy and discussion among various Byzantines, but I was unaware that it was forbidden for a non-Byzantine to offer an observation on it.

I am eager to apologize if you took insult. I suppose that I may have misunderstood the generality of what you were saying, whose practices you were addressing, and what questions were and were not settled as you made your later posts.

 

[angelic06]

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.

This is for the Season of Pentecost (for Sunday, Memorial of the Lord’s Resurrection), not the Season of the Glorious Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And you may be right—this prayer may be that of the deacon, said sometime after the people receive Holy Communion. It is said in English at our church…I don’t know the Syriac or Arabic, so I can’t help you there.

 

[malphono]

This is for the Season of Pentecost (for Sunday, Memorial of the Lord’s Resurrection). And you may be right—this prayer may be that of the deacon. It is said in English at our church.

If you haven’t already, please take a look at post 118.

 

[angelic06]

If you haven’t already, please take a look at post 118.

Post #118 just now read and noted.

 

[malphono]

I am eager to apologize if you took insult. I suppose that I may have misunderstood the generality of what you were saying, whose practices you were addressing, and what questions were and were not settled as you made your later posts.

Thank you. As you can now see, I was (and am) very simply trying to determine what the business of “taking the Anaphora aloud” actually means in practice in the various Byzantine disciplines. What does it mean for the priest’s part? What does it mean for the deacon’s part? What does it mean for the congregation’s part?

I call 'em as I see 'em, and the upshot comment was that the elimination (and even the minimalization, depending on exactly what was eliminated and what was maintained, and its affect on the deacon and congregation) of those “low voice” prayers smacks of the post-conciliar Novus Ordo mentality and its insistence on the “horizontal” as opposed to the traditional “vertical” view of liturgy. Hence, in my view, it’s a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, and that irrespective of whether it concerns the EC or the EO.

 

[dvdjs]

As you can now see, I was (and am) very simply trying to determine what the business of “taking the Anaphora aloud” actually means in practice in the various Byzantine disciplines. What does it mean for the priest’s part? What does it mean for the deacon’s part? What does it mean for the congregation’s part?

I agree that this is very tricky, without direct observation. It is not just a matter of who is "quiet’ but also who else is chanting and how loud. On aspect not at all clear to me from the writings: when the anaphora began to go “quiet” were the people silent, having finshing their singing, or were the quiet prayers said during the people’s singing - as happens now.

I call 'em as I see 'em, and the upshot comment was that the elimination (and even the minimalization, depending on exactly what was eliminated and what was maintained, and its affect on the deacon and congregation) of those “low voice” prayers smacks of the post-conciliar Novus Ordo mentality and its insistence on the “horizontal” as opposed to the traditional “vertical” view of liturgy. Hence, in my view, it’s a Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, and that irrespective of whether it concerns the EC or the EO.

Sure you do, but how is your vision? There was much non-Latin pre Novous Ordo impetus for this restoration that you either don’t see or for some other reason don’t give much weight. Your charge - Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization - is so toxic that it probably should only be used when you are very certain that you are seeing the whole picture clearly. At least that’s how I see it.

 

[malphono]

I agree that this is very tricky, without direct observation. It is not just a matter of who is "quiet’ but also who else is chanting and how loud.

Yes, that’s what I mean.

On aspect not at all clear to me from the writings: when the anaphora began to go “quiet” were the people silent, having finshing their singing, or were the quiet prayers said during the people’s singing - as happens now.

From I gather, it tends to the latter. Which is what seems to make the most sense anyway.

Sure you do, but how is your vision?

Not too bad, actually.

There was much non-Latin pre Novous Ordo impetus for this restoration that you either don’t see or for some other reason don’t give much weight.

Yeah, I’ve heard about that. And please don’t tell me that it was “just coincidence” that it all began to be done in the post-conciliar wake of the Novus Ordo. I very honestly do not buy into coincidences of that sort.

Your charge - Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization - is so toxic that it probably should only be used when you are very certain that you are seeing the whole picture clearly. At least that’s how I see it.

It’s toxic because it’s toxic. But as I said earlier, the toxicity depends, in part at least, to the degree that the “low voice” prayers are eliminated and its effect on the deaconal and congregational parts.

 

[Cecilianus]

Yeah, I’ve heard about that. And please don’t tell me that it was “just coincidence” that it all began to be done in the post-conciliar wake of the Novus Ordo. I very honestly do not buy into coincidences of that sort.

Malphono,

although I’m usually on the same page as you regarding the Novus Ordo and whatever “neo-latinizations” it may have brought into the Eastern Church (which fortunately the Byzantines are usually pretty good about being free from - except when we have biritual priests from the Roman Rite say the Liturgy), I’m not sure that it’s “just coincidence” either that the epiclesis in the Byzantine Liturgy (which, granted, is by no means the whole Anaphora!) is whispered in two Byzantine Catholic churches locally here (one Ruthenian, one Ukrainian) both of which have “proto-Latinizations” from the Tridentine use (“Mother of God” rather than “Theotokos” from the old, pre-RDL Liturgy in the former church, confessionals in the sanctuary in the latter case, and kneelers in both). These “proto-Latinizations” are present because both churches are very ethnic, filled with immigrants from the Old World where such Latinizations are common (the Ruthenian parish has a Belarussian priest, and the Ukrainian parish has Liturgy in Ukrainian rather than English).

My point is - while I certainly prefer the “proto-Latinizations” to the “neo-Latinizations”, my choice would be to have neither, and since either whispering or not whispering can be correlated to Latinizations of one sort or the other, does this actually tell us anything at all about what the “authentic” Byzantine practice is?

Again, only the epiklesis is whispered rather than the whole Anaphora, and I am only speaking of Byzantine churches - but I think the Eastern Churches have been so Latinized before and after Vatican II that all one can really determine from the “coincidence” you mentioned is that we are still following the state of the Latin Church. It doesn’t follow that the previous practice was necessarily more authentically Eastern, except insofar as the old Roman Rite was more reverent and a more whole expression of the right glory of the Faith, and consequently any imitation of it is going to be more orthodox and therefore more Eastern than imitation of the new Roman use.

 

[Aramis]

Malphono: the parts spoken aloud in the Ruthenian liturgy are the same ones spoken aloud by the OCA parishes nearby. Except that the OCA priests are saying them in Slavonic.

Characterizing it as a Neolatinization is wrong; it’s documented to be ancient Kyivan praxis to say them audibly when the people are not singing prayers at the same time. One that some Ruthenian priests started using before V II. (I’ve seen documentation of this in print predating VII.)

If anything, the Roman OF is an Easternization in many ways.

 

[dvdjs]

Yeah, I’ve heard about that. And please don’t tell me that it was “just coincidence” that it all began to be done in the post-conciliar wake of the Novus Ordo. I very honestly do not buy into coincidences of that sort.

I am not the least bit not interesting in selling anything. In particular, I have not suggested any “coincidence”. Instead, I think that there were common currents, which transcend Latinism, that were at work from beginning of the last century, or even a bit earlier. These currents were a common cause of similar effects that followed in various quarters. While I don’t expect you to “buy” this perspective, it accommodates all the facts far better than your NO-inspired neo-Latinization theory, which simply has no chance of explaining calls for returning to the audible anaphora in pre-Soviet Russia.

It’s toxic because it’s toxic.

Given the history of the ECC’s the charge itself is toxic and should not be made, IMO, without compelling evidence.

 

[dvdjs]

the epiclesis in the Byzantine Liturgy (which, granted, is by no means the whole Anaphora!) is whispered in two Byzantine Catholic churches locally here (one Ruthenian, one Ukrainian)

Whispered? Really whispered?

My point is - while I certainly prefer the “proto-Latinizations” to the “neo-Latinizations”, my choice would be to have neither, and since either whispering or not whispering can be correlated to Latinizations of one sort or the other, does this actually tell us anything at all about what the “authentic” Byzantine practice is?

This is too much. Justinian’s criticism of the inaudible anaphora was a full millenium before the Tridentine mass. But what the heck, if a pre-Soviet Russian Synod could espouse NO-inspired Latinisms, why couldn’t the Greek Church of Justinian’s time espouse Tridentine-inspired Latinisms?

insofar as the old Roman Rite was more reverent and a more whole expression of the right glory of the Faith, and consequently any imitation of it is going to be more orthodox and therefore more Eastern than imitation of the new Roman use.

Fascinating.

 

[Cecilianus]

Whispered? Really whispered?

If I didn’t know from having been to Liturgies at other churches that it was there, I wouldn’t have even known about it. So yes, really whispered.

 

[malphono]

Malphono: the parts spoken aloud in the Ruthenian liturgy are the same ones spoken aloud by the OCA parishes nearby. Except that the OCA priests are saying them in Slavonic.

Characterizing it as a Neolatinization is wrong; it’s documented to be ancient Kyivan praxis to say them audibly when the people are not singing prayers at the same time. One that some Ruthenian priests started using before V II. (I’ve seen documentation of this in print predating VII.)

Whether it’s “wrong” to characterize it as a neo-latinization depends on exactly what is changed or, more precisely, dropped. Are you referring merely to the Epiklesis? Or is it a reference to the elimination of all (or even most of ) the “low voice” prayers of the priest? What is the impact of same on the deaconal admonitions and on the congregational parts? The funny thing is I don’t seem to be getting clear answers on just what that is.

If anything, the Roman OF is an Easternization in many ways.

Yeah, I’ve heard that “theory” around these fora for several years. If anyone is in the market for that, I’ve also got a bridge for sale (cheap!) that’ll knock your socks off.

 

[malphono]

I am not the least bit not interesting in selling anything. In particular, I have not suggested any “coincidence”. Instead, I think that there were common currents, which transcend Latinism, that were at work from beginning of the last century, or even a bit earlier. These currents were a common cause of similar effects that followed in various quarters. While I don’t expect you to “buy” this perspective, it accommodates all the facts far better than your NO-inspired neo-Latinization theory, which simply has no chance of explaining calls for returning to the audible anaphora in pre-Soviet Russia.

Yes, I am well aware that the trend toward antiquarianism in certain quarters that began in the late 19th or early 20th century was not restricted to the Latin Church. And I am also well aware that the implementation that began in earnest in the post-conciliar Novus Ordo years was not restricted to the Latin Church. That is not to say that the Latin Church had a direct hand in what was (and is being) done in the East and, to a far greater extent, the Orient. Far from it, actually. Perhaps “monkey-see, monkey-do” is less distasteful to you than Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization? Call it “an appliance” or call it whatever: it amounts to the same thing.

Given the history of the ECC’s the charge itself is toxic and should not be made, IMO, without compelling evidence.

As I’ve said before, the matter is not restricted to the ECCs or OCCs. In any case, I do not see the charge itself as being toxic: what I consider to be highly toxic is the mindset behind such things.

Of course, what’s happening in this thread is that we’re going around in circles. As I said in a previous [post=7369742]post[/post], clear answers as to what goes on (ECC and OCC) in practice do not seem to be forthcoming.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Malphono,

It seems to me that within this thread there have been links to and recommendations of plenty of sources that would help you to formulate a clear answer in re the current practices of the Byzantine Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. Someone posted a link to the current translation of the Divine Liturgy as used by the Melkites, check it out. It will denote clearly for you which prayers during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (including the Anaphora) are said audibly by the priest and which ones are prayed silently. I assure you that none of the prayers have been dropped, it’s simply a matter of what is now audible to the congregation and what isn’t. I’ve also recommended video/audio lectures that you could listen to if you were really interested in understanding the history and theology behind offering said prayers audibly. You want more sources?

Byzantine
Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom - Alexander Schmemman
For the Life of the World - Alexander Schmemman
Introduction to Liturgical Theology - Alexander Schmemman

A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Vol. 5 and 6 - Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.

Wellspring of Worship - Jean Corbon

Roman
Mass of the Roman Rite - Joseph Jungman
Liturgical Worship - Joseph Jungman
Feast of Faith - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Spirit of the Liturgy - Joseph Ratzinger
The Holy Mass - Dom Prosper Gueranger

These sources should give you enough reading material to help you better understand not only what was changed, but why it was changed in both the Byzantine and Roman Rites. Please educate yourself before making what are probably completely unfounded blanket accusations of “Novus Ordo inspired neo-Latinizations”.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

After having reviewed two Orthodox Liturgica, the official English translation for the Melkites, two Ukrainian Greek Catholic translations, the Raya translation, and the Fordham University “Russian Institute’s” translation the only conclusion that I can come to with regards to the audible anaphora is that there is not sufficient evidence in the rubrics to judge whether the Anaphora as a whole ought to be prayed in silence/secret, or ought to be audible to the congregation.

The Russian Institute’s translation along with the Orthodox “Hapgood” translation both call for a completely silent/secret anaphora.

The Liturgikon primarily used among the Antiochian Orthodox, as well as the official Melkite Liturgikon, are both vague. The priest is advised to pray all the prayers of the anaphora aloud. Whether that means that the prayer is audible to the congregation or just to the concelebrants is not clear. For the Melkites it seems the at least the Epiclesis ought to be audible to the congregation because they are to respond “Amen” along with the deacon at each invocation of the Holy Spirit, including the triple “Amen”. I’ve also seen this done at the OCA Cathedral here in D.C. while Metropolitan Jonah was celebrating. It was indeed a very moving moment to see the entire congregation prostrate themselves along with the celebrants at the Epiclesis.

In the Melkite translation there is only one spot where any audible dialogue would be impossible because the priest is praying something (I don’t recall offhand what) while the congregation is singing something.

The Ukrainian translations are also fairly vague on this, although they seem to lean more in the direction of the audible Anaphora in its entirety. Would that I could read Church Slavonic so that I could see what Metropolitan Peter Mohila’s Liturgikon recommends.

Looking at the Ruthenian RDL it again seems to me sufficiently vague to interpret it one way or another. The priest is commanded to pray “aloud”. Whether that means he must be audible to the congregation or only to the other celebrants I suppose is a matter of one’s interpretation.

The only conclusion that I can fathom is that an Anaphora which is audible to the congregation or a silent/secret Anaphora is a matter of local “small-t” tradition. This doesn’t seem to depend upon the jurisdiction, but can vary from parish to parish within one jurisdiction. This is very characteristic of Byzantine Liturgy, where the rubrics are most often vague enough to allow a certain amount of variation from parish to parish, but “precise” enough to keep abuse in check.

Again, there is plenty of Patristic and other historical evidence in support an audible Anaphora, just as there is plenty of evidence to argue against it. It’s not so much a matter of “Novus Ordo inspired neo-Latinization”, but of organic liturgical development. At one point in history the Church may very well have seen fit to offer the Anaphora completely silently across all Ritual traditions (I have not seen sufficient evidence of this, however). Such is not the case today. The Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, has dug deeply within its history and theology, and deemed it appropriate to making an audible Anaphora more widely available. If you don’t like it, then there are plenty of parishes out there that still don’t do it. Attend one of those. But understand the history and theology of an audible Anaphora before making a blanket condemnation.

 

[malphono]

I assure you that none of the prayers have been dropped, it’s simply a matter of what is now audible to the congregation and what isn’t. …

These sources should give you enough reading material to help you better understand not only what was changed, but why it was changed in both the Byzantine and Roman Rites. Please educate yourself before making what are probably completely unfounded blanket accusations of “Novus Ordo inspired neo-Latinizations”.

Philip, I am quite well aware of what went on in the Latin Church, and I am even more so aware of what went on (and continues to go on) in the Maronite Church. That said, I quite frankly, do not appreciate the rather disparaging, yeah, even insulting, tone in the final paragraph of your post. My experience in this goes far beyond what you might think. For a variety of reasons, I am unable to be more specific in that regard, so I’m leaving it at that.

From what I have seen, heard, and read, both in this miserable thread and elsewhere, and despite all the sources bandied about, there appears to be nothing definitive and little, if any commonality in the practice at hand among (and even within) the various Byzantine groups. One can read that lack of commonality, plus the fact that the matter still appears to remain rather controversial, in a variety of ways.

My question here was simply about Byzantines. I probably should have gone with my gut feeling not to waste my time. Experience in this forum tells me it’s never a good idea to get involved with anything Byzantine.

And with that, I withdraw from any further discussion of this matter.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Malphono,

I would like to apologize for the harsh tone of my comments. Although they were not meant to be insulting, I can certainly see how they would inevitably be interpreted as such. It’s my fault. I hesitated before posting because I realized the harsh tone, and yet I posted anyhow. Mea culpa and please forgive me.

I respect your experience and would certainly like to know more just so that I could better appreciate where you’re coming from.

As far as we Byzantines and our liturgical texts are concerned, as you’ve already noticed we like to keep things vague. As I mentioned before, liturgical practice not only varies between Greek and Slav usage, but within one usage it may, and usually does, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And even within jurisdiction it may, and usually does, vary from parish to parish. This goes not only for the rubrics and how the liturgies themselves are executed, but even with something as simple as the way in which we chant. Even among the Melkites, although we have all of our official liturgical books, you will find parishes that hardly use the official Eparchial texts for, say, the Menaion or Lenten Triodion, and will use instead an Orthodox translation, or a number of other translations. We don’t view all of this as being a form of disunity, but rather an expression of the richness of our liturgical tradition.

Anyhow, my only point here has been that, due to the vagueness of the Byzantine liturgical texts and rubrics, an Anaphora which is audible to the congregation is every bit as possible, traditional, and theologically correct/acceptable as an Anaphora which is in-audible to the congregation. It seems that the only thing which could constitute any form of Latinization among the Byzantines would be a completely silent Anaphora as advised in Fordham University’s Russian Institute’s edition. Traditionally among the Byzantines no prayers are said silently, it’s simply a matter of how loudly the priest prays them.

Again, I apologize for the harsh tones of my comments. I am completely at fault.