'Mystikos' prayers - said aloud or inaudibly at the liturgy?

[M.C. Steenberg]

The question of the audibility of various prayers (not simply those at the heart of the anaphora) raises many other connected issues.

Does a prayer offered by one person on behalf of another, have to be heard by the other in order to be effective?

A priest's prayers different from other types?

Is there something in the mystery of not hearing each word of the divine services, as if it were a scripted play, part of the experience of entering into its full expression?

Is there something 'lost' by not hearing audibly the 'mystikos' prayers of the priest?

There are varying traditions of practice built around such questions. In both the Greek and the Russian customs, the standard is for the mystikos prayers to be read quietly by the priest, while the people are in fact saying other prayers - there is, as it were, a 'concert' of multilpe voices, multiple prayers, being offered up in symphony. But this standard is not a uniform practice - and there are places and occasions when the overlap of prayers is disconnected, made linear, and all are said audibly to all present.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,

I have transferred here the specific discussion on the prayers said out loud (or not) at the Liturgy.

On my post to the Russian Orthodoxy thread I wrote:



Within the Russian church (and churches influenced by them) I have seen many different practices.

At the minimum after the choir's Holy, holy, holy... we should next hear the priest exclaiming, "Take eat, this is My Body..."; then, "Drink of it, all of you...".

Then follows, "Thine Own of Thine Own, we offer unto Thee, in behalf of all and for all."

It is after the choir singing "We praise Thee, we bless Thee" (during which the epiclesis occurs) that the priest exclaims "especially for our most holy, most blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos, and Ever-Virgin Mary."

It is true that established Russian practice does encourage not having the prayers at Liturgy said out loud. Analogous to this one also finds the doors (plus at times the curtains) closed through much of the Liturgy. I have also seen other practices, as Andreas refers to, used.

Foremost we need to keep in mind that when priests and deacons serve they do so in obedience to and at the trust of their ruling bishop. This is not to say that no variety from parish to parish is found within any one diocese. It is. But we need to keep in mind that the Liturgy we witness is partly the result of individual priests and deacons following the general instructions of their bishop. Along with this follows a general sense of obedience to the way their diocese and church serves. This is extremely important so that self-will and huge variations from parish to parish do not affect liturgical practice.

Apart from this I perhaps can share my own experiences since I have been a priest in jurisdictions where the prayers were said out loud and in other jurisdictions where they have not.

My own feelings are that all the prayers said out loud can be very distracting from the prayerful sense of the Liturgy. Often this is justified from describing the Liturgy as 'the work of the people'. But yet this is not what the word Liturgy meant nor more to the point does it I think relate to what the heart of the Liturgy actually is.

The word Liturgy does not refer to ancient etymology which means 'work of the people' but rather to the Hellenic & Roman world where a liturgy was a public event hosted by a benefactor for the community. Following from this understanding at some early point in the Church's history the word liturgy was used to describe the public worship of the Church as distinct from its personal/private prayer.

That the entire Church was called to pray at such public services is evident. But there is little evidence that such prayer was thought of as participatory in the sense we often think of this nowadays. Rather each had his/her own place within the Church and each prayed in the way called to within this. Thus from the times of the early Church we see the rapid arising of categories such as hearers, penitents, virgins, widows, etc. Along with these we know of bishops, presbyters and deacons. Each of these, in terms of their distinct categories, represented distinct ways of approaching the prayer of the Church. But each was drawn together through the service to form the common prayer of the Church.

I think it still very important to keep these distinctions in mind when speaking of the common prayer of the Church. The public expression of the prayer of the Church is not meant as one undifferentiated thing. This does not constitute its spirit. Rather the public prayer of the Church is meant to represent the cosmic, universal prayer of the Church, offered up unrestricted through time and place, as that choir of distinct members of the Church. Thus each prays in their own proper and guided manner within the larger gathering. And we see this even on the practical level of the service where there are readers, cantors, the faithful and the clergy with their unique roles all praying together.

Thus whatever we do should be with the above in mind. Personally I think that if we consider reading the prayers out loud then each prayer should be considered as to its context and message within the larger Liturgy. To just say, 'in the ancient Church the prayers were said out loud', doesn't take into account the actual prayers we have now. Some of these prayers do seem to be 'spoken by the Church' as it were. But others seem to be very personal prayers of the priest for the faithful. This doesn't prove anything one way or another concerning prayers out loud. But the intent of each distinct part and role within the service does need to be kept in mind.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

I understand that Patriarch Alexei has said that each priest is free to say the Eucharistic prayers (the only prayers I have in mind in this discussion) aloud or 'secretly' as he chooses but most, from custom, choose the latter way.

[Nina]

The question of the audibility of various prayers (not simply those at the heart of the anaphora) raises many other connected issues.

Does a prayer offered by one person on behalf of another, have to be heard by the other in order to be effective?

A priest's prayers different from other types?

Is there something in the mystery of not hearing each word of the divine services, as if it were a scripted play, part of the experience of entering into its full expression?

Is there something 'lost' by not hearing audibly the 'mystikos' prayers of the priest?

There are varying traditions of practice built around such questions. In both the Greek and the Russian customs, the standard is for the mystikos prayers to be read quietly by the priest, while the people are in fact saying other prayers - there is, as it were, a 'concert' of multilpe voices, multiple prayers, being offered up in symphony. But this standard is not a uniform practice - and there are places and occasions when the overlap of prayers is disconnected, made linear, and all are said audibly to all present.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Wow, and thank you Father Deacon Matthew for the 'concert' analogy! It is so beautiful. Also this is such a balanced approach.

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren,

As our church here is being renovated at the time we mainly have our services in the lower church which is smaller and a bit like an early church in the catacombs. Here according to the acoustic differences we are actually to hear most of the prayers the priest does in the sanctuary, which we normally can't hear when we are in the upper church. But as in our books and also recommended by our bishop, we all should know about the prayers the priest makes in the sanctuary. The prayers he makes are a dialogue with the congregation in fact.
And it isn't really hidden, not just that loud as the rest of the Liturgy, because here the priest interfere on our behalf with the heavens!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear Effie,

In one sense, yes, the Divine Liturgy is the same everywhere save for some variation in the prayers sometimes included or omitted. But the manner of celebration can vary. The normal case in Russia, in both parish churches and monasteries (in my experience), is that after 'Holy, Holy Holy, Lord of Sabaoth' nothing can be heard from the sanctuary until, 'Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos'. The choir meanwhile sing some hymn so that anything that could be heard is not, so the Anaphora cannot be appreciated at all. This is not Greek practice in which (in my experience) everything can be heard. Yet, it seems that making the Epiclisis audible is not actually forbidden - there are one or two churches in Moscow where the priest does make these prayers audible, and many people go to these churches exactly for that reason. My own feeling is that the faithful are, in the normal Russian practice within Russia, deprived of that sense of sublimity, even the very purpose, of the Divine Liturgy. That feeling is shared by my wife and members of her family. I'd be interested to know if there are sound reasons for the practice.

As for not seeing what the clergy do, that was not the case in the early Church. In Sami, on the Greek island of Kefalonia, the village church was rebuilt after an earthquake and the design of the iconostasis and sanctuary appear to have been modelled on designs from the early Church (there is a reconstruction in the Byzantine Museum in Athens). There are marble stands for the icons and just a low marble ballustrade marking off the sanctuary so everything in there can be seen.

Here in Greece we do hear everything, mainly because each priest has his own microphone, even when in the sanctuary. I am curious about how early churches were designed. I tried to find a photo of the reconstruction on Google images but was unsuccesful. It is described as being on the 1st floor of the museum but no pictures are available. Thanks for telling me about this. Does anyone know if the frescoes on the walls of churches were also a part of the early churches?

Effoe

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

In the prayers the priest says the congregation is included with the word 'we'. And he speaks it for all the flock gathered in the church, so they speak all with one mouth!
And as already mentioned it isn't that important to say it out loud but it is important to know and to join in although we may not hear it with ears, we can hear it with the hearts.

Basically it is to say that in the early church the service had a different build-up as today although, thanks to heaven, most of the liturgy is authentic.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Olga]

For what it's worth, my experience is that the "inaudible" prayers only became audible in the churches I am familiar with once microphones began to be installed in the altars of these churches, particularly the Greek ones, about 25-30 years ago. At least one church has a microphone on a small stand actually on the Holy Table itself! (ouch...) This has led to the cacophonous situation of "competing microphones" - those of the choir or kliros, and those of the altar. Truly horrible.

Perhaps far more attention should be paid in designing churches with decent acoustics so that there is no need for microphones at all. There is a gorgeous Russian church near where I live, built in the Novgorodian style of the 11th-14th centuries, which has no need of microphones at all. Bliss.

[Olga]

Below is an article (translated from the original Greek) from my archive, which, while not directly addressing the audibility or otherwise of priestly prayers, does have some food for thought.






Acute Microphonitis in the Psaltic Arts

A plea to every authority for the preservation of the art of chanting on our island: With this missive of mine, I would like to publicise a great problem: great, as I’m told, because it acutely affects many others.

For years, I have been searching for a church to attend, not to go through the motions, but to feel compunction, to participate in the services, rejoicing in mind and heart. In other words, a spiritual haven.

So what’s required? A simple, pious, humble priest, and a chanter who can distinguish between “I chant” and “I sing”. And fortunately, there do exist priests who have the requisite spirituality and authority, respected and loved by the people. There are good chanters as well, few that they are.

So what is happening today at the chanter’s box? Not only do most chanters have bad voices – though, on the other hand, they can’t all have melodious voices – but they also have no idea how to chant properly. In addition, many are illiterate, though we can turn a blind eye to these, as they are headed for extinction.

Of bum notes and garbled words, “plenteous are Thy mercies”. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. In the last twenty years, the microphone has become the centre of sacred worship.

This incursion is widespread, in large and small churches, tiny chapels, and even in monasteries. An incredible, unbearable nuisance, a real torture, as all the chanters, with the exception of a scant few shining examples, shout – no, bellow would be more accurate, while seemingly swallowing the microphones which have been installed by God-knows what sort of “technicians”.This situation extends to priests as well.

The microphone reigns in all church services. During festal services, the whole retinue of clergy revolves around it, some even move it around. The ill-designed installation of sound systems with their high output volume, combined with the terrible voices of the majority of chanters have transformed Byzantine music from an art “drawing us to God” to an art “driving us out of church”.

This acute microphonitis is unfortunately also offensive to those mellifluous and well-trained masters of the psaltic arts, where you would have wished you had a thousand ears with which to enjoy listening to them. Today, all is sacrificed to the barbarian Moloch of the decibel.

Dare I mention the conceit of singing hymns of contrition such as the Cherubic Hymn, or the mournful troparia of Holy Week with insensitivity or affectation? You’d think there was a party on! If we add to all this the “musical creations” of these self-styled “masters” (who are in their element particularly on Holy Tuesday, rendering the Troparion of Kassiane unrecognisable), we complete the unspeakable mess which passes for chanting in many churches.

Yet it seems there’s no-one around to do something about it. What does our clergy say? What are those in authority doing? We, the congregation? I won’t say “we, the faithful”, because the very stones will rise up and strike us. Indignant, we grumble about it amongst ourselves, we sometimes have a word to the priest if we feel he could understand, and things go on as before.

And yet. I have found myself in little village churches, with unschooled clergy, and choirs which do not use microphones, unless perhaps occasionally to give a little boost when the church is full. I have also been to Kapnikarea in Athens. Unforgettable atmosphere, a sense of the sacred, compunction. What gratitude I have felt for such priests and chanters in both instances! I felt like shaking their hands and thanking them in gratitude for chanting so simply, without recklessness or histrionic display, and, by respecting the ears of the congregation, created an atmosphere of prayer and participation. Unfortunately, I refrained from doing so, lest I would be seen to be overreacting!

It is inexcusable for Chios, which also maintains a School of Byzantine Music, for there not to exist a choir worthy of the name which sings daily at any church, as is the case in neighbouring Mytilene, at most churches.

Forgive me, dear readers, for the sharpness of my criticism. I am trying not to be judgemental, but I simply grieve and suffer with you. Zero visibility. Our tolerance, or, more correctly, our indifference to the situation, amounts to contempt for Byzantine music.

I am at the service of any person in authority who believes in the worth of Byzantine music, who respects and loves it, to work together to confront and solve this problem.

Eleftheria Lykopantis
Choirmistress, Chios Choir.

29/10/2003 “I ALITHEIA” daily newspaper of Chios



For those who can read Greek, here is the link to the original article:

http://www.alithia.gr/newspaper/2003/29102003/29102003,2089.html

[Andreas Moran]

I entirely agree about microphones. In many churches here, the priest wears a roving mike and the speakers are half way down the nave. Any idea of the sanctuary being one place (heaven) and the nave another (earth) is quite lost. The aural dynamic of the divine Liturgy is destroyed.

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

The use of microphones is an antagonism. Often it is almost a need to use them, at the big feast where there are thousands in and outside the church trying to attend the liturgy. But at the main services it is better not to use them. The atmosphere is so much more intimate then.
At the akathistos praying we do here, it is in winter the use not to turn the electric light on every time we are gathered. I can tell all of you that it is so marvellous to stand in the lower church with nothing but the light of numerous candles and participate in the akathistos praying!!

Of course we sing the akatistos loud and beautiful!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Nina]

Thank you dear Olga for the text and your thoughts. Yes, architecture is a very important component of our worship. My spiritual father is an architect and the churches I have seen from him are all very traditional Byzantine style.

[Nina]

Dear Effie,

In one sense, yes, the Divine Liturgy is the same everywhere save for some variation in the prayers sometimes included or omitted. But the manner of celebration can vary. The normal case in Russia, in both parish churches and monasteries (in my experience), is that after 'Holy, Holy Holy, Lord of Sabaoth' nothing can be heard from the sanctuary until, 'Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos'. The choir meanwhile sing some hymn so that anything that could be heard is not, so the Anaphora cannot be appreciated at all. This is not Greek practice in which (in my experience) everything can be heard. Yet, it seems that making the Epiclisis audible is not actually forbidden - there are one or two churches in Moscow where the priest does make these prayers audible, and many people go to these churches exactly for that reason. My own feeling is that the faithful are, in the normal Russian practice within Russia, deprived of that sense of sublimity, even the very purpose, of the Divine Liturgy. That feeling is shared by my wife and members of her family. I'd be interested to know if there are sound reasons for the practice.



If what you say is the common practice and if they omit audibly the prayers that have to be annunciated, it is taking things to an extreme.

However if we are speaking about the part, which is often mistranslated as audible, or inaudible, but what it really means is: mystical (mystikos as Father Deacon Matthew wrote and explained so well in the Russian Orthodoxy thread), that part, has an embedded profound theological meaning. It creates an aura of mysticism and it stimulates the believers to struggle towards what is yet spiritually unattainable, spiritually unintelligible to them. It represents the idea that what we experience in our Church is not limited to our physical senses, therefore this mystical whispering represents the spiritual realities, the spiritual realms that we must climb, the ladder of ascent.

[Philip Mathew]

My own feelings are that all the prayers said out loud can be very distracting from the prayerful sense of the Liturgy.

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Bless!

Forgive me for sounding dense, but what constitutes "the prayerful sense of the Liturgy"?

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

We are talking about the Divine Liturgy, and other most Holy services and NOT about an POP konzert!

Read the post from Nina (thank you for that!) and mine about the dimmed lights, and yes that is truly a mystical passover!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you for your message, Father. It seems as though whether the epiclesis is heard in liturgies in N. America is a matter of circumstance rather than policy, as it is in Russia. But, as you say, that policy is subject to people being able to find the wording if they so wish. I can only suppose that by leaving out the wording from prayer books and keeping the saying of the words inaudible, the Russians do their best to ensure that the words are not broadcast. I seem to think that in the Greek use, the chanters are silent at this time (as is the choir here in the monastery).

[Father Serafim]

Thank you for your message, Father. It seems as though whether the epiclesis is heard in liturgies in N. America is a matter of circumstance rather than policy, as it is in Russia. But, as you say, that policy is subject to people being able to find the wording if they so wish. I can only suppose that by leaving out the wording from prayer books and keeping the saying of the words inaudible, the Russians do their best to ensure that the words are not broadcast. I seem to think that in the Greek use, the chanters are silent at this time (as is the choir here in the monastery).

I have always understood that the epiclesis is a mystical prayer said by the priest alone i.e. inaudibly because he is engaged in the Mystery. It is not public. This is what I was taught in the Russian Church and on the Holy Mountain. Starets Vitaly (Siderenko) who reposed in 1992 wrote that the priest is consumed by fire at this moment, although he may not be aware of it himself and these words belong to the office of the priesthood and should not be read or heard by anyone else. In our parish we have always observed this practice.

[Andreas Moran]

There is clearly a difference of uses in this. The word 'liturgy' means literally 'work of the people'. The whole of the liturgy is a mystery; one thinks of the Great Entrance when angels are especially present. It is noteworthy that it was during the Great Entrance that saints beheld the heavenly host and sometimes Christ Himself, as in the well-known case of St Seraphim of Sarov. The faithful prepare themselves for what is the most important event that takes place on earth and links earth with heaven. During the liturgy (the particular use of which at the monastery here was determined by Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)), the words of invocation are the most sublime moment to which all the foregoing in the liturgy has led. This awesome and dreadful mystery inspires the faithful. Being used to this, not to hear the words when in Russia seems almost a deprivation. This is also the view of Russians I know. That Staretz Vitaly had one view and Staretz Sophrony another underlines that whether the words are audible or not is a matter of local custom.

[Father Serafim]

I do not quite understand the term 'local custom' as opposed to what is actually written in the Service Book for clergy. The mystical prayers according to the rubics are to be read inaudibly. Drawing the curtain at points in the Liturgy comes under the same rubics - however modern innovation or local custom is to dispense with the curtain altogether - to open up the mystery to all to see. The Mystery becomes a Sacrament in my understanding which is contrary to Holy Tradition. I think here we differ. I attended services at St John's for a number of years, when they were remodelling the old Saxon Church. I helped to whitewash the walls etc.. With due respect to Fr Sophrony, his views were more than 'local custom'.

[Andreas Moran]

I took the expression 'local custom' from the book, 'The Orthodox Liturgy' prepared by the monastery here and published by Oxford University Press. A footnote explains how certain prayers of the priest may be pronounced 'silently or aloud, in accordance with local custom'. I don't have access to priests' service books but my recollection from attendance at Greek parishes in England is that the epiclesis is audible, though even popular texts of the liturgy often say that the priest says the prayer of invocation 'silently'. I note that in his homilies on the Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Avgoustinos of Florina, writes that the priest 'with a loud voice' speaks the words of invocation. If practice varies from one Greek parish to another and between some Greek churches and the Russian Church, I take that to indicate some variation which can be called local custom. What I don't know but which I would be interested to know is whether in the priests' service books of all the Orthodox Churches the rubrics indicate that the epiclesis should be said inaudibly. I simply don't know whether saying these prayers audibly or, at least, not trying to keep them out of earshot of the people, is 'modern innovation' or not. Likewise whether the curtain is drawn or not.


The Mystery becomes a Sacrament in my understanding which is contrary to Holy Tradition.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this. Do you mean that if the high point of the liturgy is not hidden from the people, it loses mystery and becomes merely a rite? In what way could the eucharistic sacrifice be affected? But I I don't see why the epiclesis should lose its mystery if it is witnessed by the people for whom the liturgy is being celebrated.


With due respect to Fr Sophrony, his views were more than 'local custom'.

It is my experience that not saying the epiclesis inaudibly is a practice to be found well beyond Fr Sophrony's monastery.

It would be interesting to hear from others, especially clergy, how far saying the epiclesis inaudibly is such a part of Holy Tradition that departure from such practice is a violation of Holy Tradition, or whether there can be local custom in this matter even if the rubrics do provide for the prayer to be said inaudibly.

[Andreas Moran]

I see I cannot edit my previous post anymore!

Well, I was discussing this topic with my wife after the last posting, and she mentioned that the 'rule' is not as simple in Russia as I thought. Inaudibility is very much the rule in the monasteries but less so in parishes. And in fact I had noticed the last time we were in Moscow that our parish priest was saying the epiclesis just audibly. My wife mentioned that she had talked about this issue with certain fathers of the Lavra and they had said that the rubrics were not of such fixity that inaudibility was absolutely binding on priests but that it had become the invariable custom. In any event, the prayer, when it is audible, is said in a much quieter voice than the 'Take, eat . . . ' and 'Drink ye . . . ' and 'Thine own, of Thine own . . . ' parts.

I don't know how far my wife and her brother represent any wider Russian opinion, but they think that inaudibility is a symptom of Russian authoritarianism, and of priests setting themselves apart from and above the people, reserving to themselves the secret of the mystery.

To put another way what I said above, are the rubrics in the service books to be seen as inviolable parts of Holy Tradition, or do priests have some discretion? The answer to that question determines whether audibility is an unwarranted innovation or the exercise by the priest of his discretion.

[Robert Hegwood]

If the people cannot hear or are given no signal...how can they give their amen at this most holy moment?

I thought the "amen" and the "axios" belonged to the laity as part of their priesthood of the believer. In our parish the priest speaks loud enough to hear, and the people supply a triple amen and the big bell is struck 9 times once for each of the angelic choirs.

[Father Serafim]

<they think that inaudibility is a symptom of Russian authoritarianism> Firstly I apologize for wandering off from the thread of this post. Secondly I can understand thinking that inaudibility is a symptom of Russian authoritarianism, however it is obedience, (not a popular word today) to Holy Tradition that is the issue here. In the Jerusalem Patriarchate, in ROCOR and among the Old Calendar Greeks and (when I served in Russia) - the mystical prayers are only read by the priest. I remember the audible prayers at St John's, but not at Ennismore Gardens and at an Antiochian parish in Auckland. I think the service book was called "Getting involved" - as if the people had not been involved since the days of St Basil?

[Andreas Moran]

I asked about this at the monastery yesterday. I was told that it is a matter of local custom, as is illustrated by the fact that the Patriarch of Moscow issued a directive (right word?) that priests should say the prayers inaudibly, and about the same time the Archbishop of Cyprus told his priests they must say the prayers within the hearing of the people.

The prayers are said audibly in the EP and Antiochian parishes I have been to here. The Antiochian Patriarchate has published a guide to the holy mysteries in which it is said,


'the so-called 'secret prayers' and all other prayers should be said audibly, within the hearing of the faithful . . . The word 'secretly' used in the text of the Liturgy does not mean that the prayer should be said inaudibly but rather that it should be uttered with piety and reverence.'

Archpriest Lawrence Farley (who studied at St Tikhon's Seminary PA, and is pastor of the St Herman of Alaska mission in Surrey, BC, Canada) writes,


'The anaphora is the eucharistic prayer of the Church, and the faithful need to hear it. Indeed, the celebrant recited the anaphora aloud until about the beginning of the sixth century, when he began to say parts of it silently. Many regarded this new practice as an unhealthy innovation, and the Emperor Justinian found it necessary to order the clergy of Constantinople to "offer the Divine Offering, not silently, but in a voice audible to the faithful." For the people assemble for this prayer, for the sake of this prayer they offer all the other prayers.'

Yes, I would naturally shrink from a book called, 'Getting involved'! I find it hard to see, in all the circumstances, that the rubric 'silently' is of such fixity that saying the prayer audibly is disobedience to Holy Tradition. I don't think we can really say that because Old Calendar people do something this takes us back to a purer tradition; after all, Old Believers and Old Rite people in Russia cross themselves with two fingers which St Seraphim of Sarov said was not Orthodox, and have other characteristics we would not share. I don't see the audible saying of the prayers as some trendy innovation - I would be the first to react against that. I do see it as the priest and the people working together as the quotations above indicate. How can the people be moved by this most sublime moment if they cannot share in it? Knowing it is happening is not the same as sharing in its happening.

[Andreas Moran]

Encyclical Letter No. 2784 of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece dated 31 March 2004 deals with this matter. I can't work out how to attach the text to this message, but it does say, after reviewing the history, that the word 'mystikos' does not mean 'secret' (which might tend to Gnosticism) but refers to the Liturgy being 'a "mystical act" in the words of Maximos the Confessor'. It says that ideas of saying the anaphora 'secretly' or 'loudly' are both 'erroneous'. It says that the 'manner of rendering the prayers must not be governed by teleturgic [rubrical] rules'. The people do not, of course, '"perform" the Mystery' which would be a 'purely Protestant understanding' but they do 'participate in it'. The Encyclical directs the reading of the anaphora '"in a normal voice", not "in a whisper"'. This permits the faithful to follow the whole 'canonical structure of the Divine Liturgy'. It notes with approval that the Hierarch's Ordinal and the Priest's Service Book as published by Apostoliki Diakonia uses the expression 'normal voice' and not 'secretly' 'in accordance with the ancient, and correct tradition of the Church'. Metropolitans and their priests are called upon 'to encourage the conscious participation of the faithful . . .by reading the prayers "in a normal voice"'.

I think this says it all.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Please note that the preceding 10 posts, just above this message (i.e., posts #16-25 in this thread) have been moved here from a different thread in which they were originally posted, in order to help keep these topics organised.

Many thanks, INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Robert Hegwood]

If in many places it is long standing custom for those prayers to be read quietly then how do the people know during a weekday Liturgy when to prostrate themselves?

[Andreas Moran]

It is not clear how the custom of saying the anaphora silently started; Wybrew opines that it came from East Syria and reflected a typically oriental sense of fear and awe which led to what he (and, apparently, Schmemann) calls the 'clericalisation' of the liturgy.

A related matter is the screening of the sanctuary from the people. Until the eleventh century, there was no icon screen forming a barrier between the sanctuary and the people. There was a low chancel barrier in many churches, and in larger ones, there were columns carrying an architrave on which icons were placed. There were no curtains between the pillars where there were pillars. (One thinks of medieval English church rood screens.) So even if the anaphora was said silently the faithful could see what was happening. It seems that from the eleventh century onwards there developed a custom in monasteries of drawing a curtain to conceal the sanctuary and this came to be copied in parish churches. But the iconostasis did not develop as we know it until about the 14th-15th century. The full iconostasis with its doors completely obscured the sanctuary from the faithful. This is especially so in Russia where the iconostasis commonly reaches up to the ceiling and there is no way even quietly as opposed to silent prayers can be heard by the people. Throughout the Divine Liturgy, the faithful participate through watching, hearing the prayers and chants, smelling the incense, as well as praying in spirit. This engagement of the physical with the spiritual is what characterises Orthodoxy as compared to the western rejection of the material and a narrow appeal to the intellect. The suspension of the participation of the faithfuls' senses of hearing and seeing (save as to seeing if they are prostrating) during the high point of the Liturgy might be thought to be a departure from the way the Liturgy was celebrated for 1,300 years or so.

In Sami, Kefalonia, where I used to stay on my way to Ithaki, the village church was rebuilt after the earthquake of 1953. The present church was designed to reflect church design as it was more than 1,000 years ago; there is no iconostasis but a low marble barrier on which the icons stand, and so the sanctuary is open to the view of the faithful. In England, many Orthodox communities do not have their own church and so must use other churches. They set up the icons on stands but clearly the faithful can see everything the priest does, not that the faithful therefore gawp at his every move. Such were the arrangements we had when I lived in Sheffield. I never felt that our worship was any the less mystical for this. Indeed, as a tiny community of some 12-15 souls able to worship at all only through the sympathy of the vicar of the church we used, there was very much a sense of ascending to the 'upper room' and experiencing the Mystic Supper.

[Alice]

"The suspension of the participation of the faithfuls' senses of hearing and seeing (save as to hearing if they are prostrating) during the high point of the Liturgy might be thought to be a departure from the way the Liturgy was celebrated for 1,300 years or so.

In Sami, Kefalonia, where I used to stay on my way to Ithaki, the village church was rebuilt after the earthquake of 1953. The present church was designed to reflect church design as it was more than 1,000 years ago; there is no iconostasis but a low marble barrier on which the icons stand, and so the sanctuary is open to the view of the faithful. In England, many Orthodox communities do not have their own church and so must use other churches. They set up the icons on stands but clearly the faithful can see everything the priest does, not that the faithful therefore gawp at his every move. Such were the arrangements we had when I lived in Sheffield. I never felt that our worship was any the less mystical for this. Indeed, as a tiny community of some 12-15 souls able to worship at all only through the sympathy of the vicar of the church we used, there was very much a sense of ascending to the 'upper room' and experiencing the Mystic Supper."

Dear Andreas,

My parish church in NY is built next to and connected to an old estate house which the community also owns. A few years ago, we converted a small room off the entrance hall of the house into a chapel for lightly attended services and liturgies. It has room for fifteen to twenty persons-- at most. It is very small and very tight, and the icon 'screen' is a low mahogany barrier with two icons attached on top of each side. During the Divine Liturgy, we are standing very close to the priest, despite the low barrier, and we see and hear all that he does. I agree that it is a very intimate and mystical feeling to see and hear everything which is going on.

In Christ,
Alice

[Anthony Stokes]

If the people cannot hear or are given no signal...how can they give their amen at this most holy moment?

I thought the "amen" and the "axios" belonged to the laity as part of their priesthood of the believer. In our parish the priest speaks loud enough to hear, and the people supply a triple amen and the big bell is struck 9 times once for each of the angelic choirs.


Actually, and Dn. Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have my service book with me, but the amens that occur there belong to the Deacon (or priest in the absence of a deacon), not the people.

Being a choir director, I can look at the history of this from a musical standpoint. It is easy to see when the different approaches to the "secrecy" of the prayers was common by looking at the anaphoras that were composed at the time. Long, elaborate settings are obviously used when the prayers are read silently, in order to cover up the prayers. This was common in the GOA when I was growing up, and can be seen in much of the Russian music from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Now many settings of the anaphora are much shorter, so that the prayers leading up to "We hymn Thee, we bless Thee..." are heard, but the singing of this hymn (we hymn...) is done slowly, over the priest, leaving the amens to the Deacon.

Now, in my own practice, we sing "We hymn Thee..." slowly, but softly, so that the words can be heard, but, since the choir parts are the people's parts, the congregation sings with us, leaving the clergy to say the amens, but still having them audible.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Father Serafim]

[QUOTE=Anthony Stokes;66945]Actually, and Dn. Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have my service book with me, but the amens that occur there belong to the Deacon (or priest in the absence of a deacon), not the people.

These amens are said by the priest, not the people. To answer the question: how do the people know during a weekday Liturgy when to prostrate themselves? They prostrate themselves when the priest does. You can take your cue from the chanters too.

Reading through these threads, including mine of course, the issue seems to be practices that distinguish New Calendar churches from Traditional churches. I don't want to debate the NC issue here, but it seems that open doors, general confession are other innovations to be found in these modern churches. This is a criticism not a judgment.

[Anthony Stokes]

These amens are said by the priest, not the people. To answer the question: how do the people know during a weekday Liturgy when to prostrate themselves? They prostrate themselves when the priest does. You can take your cue from the chanters too.

As long as the chanters aren't actually chanting. That's one problem I find, especially during presanctified liturgies during Let my prayer arise. The priest censes through much of it, and the singers can't prostrate while singing, so often, especially recent converts, people don't know when to prostrate, but that's another topic altogether.


Reading through these threads, including mine of course, the issue seems to be practices that distinguish New Calendar churches from Traditional churches. I don't want to debate the NC issue here, but it seems that open doors, general confession are other innovations to be found in these modern churches. This is a criticism not a judgment.

I'm not so sure that the calendar issue has much to do with this, since, even in Russia, there is a difference of practice, as we have seen on this thread. I have usually heard that it is a directive from the bishop on whether to recite the prayers aloud or not. I haven't heard of a church with general confession, but the closing of the Royal Doors is a practice that is not as widespread in the U.S., from what I have seen. We follow the Athonite practice of curtain and door closings in my OCA parish for every service, so our doors are closed quite often. But, I remember growing up in a GOA parish that never closed the Royal Doors except for Pascha. I don't even think they were closed during the week when there were no services.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Andreas Moran]

Though a member of a New Calendar (NC) jurisdiction, I would prefer that all Orthodox Churches followed the Old Calendar (OC) until all the Churches agreed to follow one or the other. I think, though, that it might be construed as tending to divisiveness to see a split between OC and NC Churches in matters of liturgical observance. After all, there are OC communities under jurisdictions which are NC and visa versa. I am not familiar with 'general confessions' and don't know what this means. Here, regular confession is the norm, though not necessarily before every communion. I have some difficulty in thinking of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Church of Greece and the Church of Cyprus as modern Churches which somehow fail Holy Tradition and give in to innovations. I don't think their Orthodoxy is in any way attenuated, and all these Churches are in communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Church of Russia.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I do not particularly see this as an issue related to the New Calendar, either (nor would I like to see this thread diverted to that topic!). The practice of reading all the mystikos prayers fully aloud does seem, however, to become widespread in the 20th century, emerging perhaps -- and here I speculate -- from the so-called 'Paris School' of Orthodox theology in that era, and its influence elsewhere (particularly in Western Europe and the USA). I would be grateful if any who have studied this history of that group in more detail than I, might be able to confirm whether there is indeed any link. I do know that many of the Paris-school theologians (e.g. Schmemann) felt quite strongly that the prayers should be said fully audibly, for the hearing of all the people; but I don't know if there was widespread practice of this custom prior to their influence (which is, as I say, my assumption). As such, if anyone knows of evidence of this custom prior to the 20th century, in any widespread rather than occasional / exceptional practice, I would be grateful to learn of it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father Serafim]

I believe that Fr Matthew is correct here. The calendar, audible prayers are an innovation of the 20th century. I suspect they were introduced in the 1920s. One can blame the Parish school, the Living Church, which incidentally has adherents even today in Europe and of course the membership of some of the hierarchy in the Masonic movement. (This has been documented).

Other considerations are dress, litany of the catechumens and pews - and the modern tendency to search for historical evidence to support innovation. My objection to the latter is that our Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not by policy-driven historians, sociologists and other social engineers. This would also include some PC tendencies that I have observed in some Orthodox circles.

I know many OCA and Antiochian clergy who dress traditionally and I know that some OCs have pews and omit the catechumen litany. I believe this to be due to modern influence which pervades our faith and of which St Ignatij Brianchinov warned us. May be someone would like to open a thread on the Zeitgeist in Orthodoxy?

[Robert Hegwood]

Other considerations are dress, litany of the catechumens and pews - and the modern tendency to search for historical evidence to support innovation. My objection to the latter is that our Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not by policy-driven historians, sociologists and other social engineers.

Father bless.
With regard to these prayers and related issues...if they were once said more audibly (historical evidence) then came to be prayed silently...and that development we take to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit, why then is it necessary to see the reemergence of these prayers made audibly as some policy driven innovation? Can it not be the Spirit at work in the body to meet the pastoral needs of our times?

Given that in times past the Church has decided a varity calendar questions, has suppressed/modified the use of certain otherwise canonical long prayer/hymn forms...such as the Kontikions then why should bishops making pastoral decisions about how to pray this prayer be treated differently? What filter do we use to distinguish unwarranted innovation from the guiding hand of the Spirit directing the development/use of the Church's liturgical forms?

[Anna K.]

Other considerations are dress, litany of the catechumens and pews

Father Seraphim, bless!

What is meant by litany of the cathecumens, please?

In Christ
Anna

[Alice]

Actually, and Dn. Matthew can correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have my service book with me, but the amens that occur there belong to the Deacon (or priest in the absence of a deacon), not the people.

Being a choir director, I can look at the history of this from a musical standpoint. It is easy to see when the different approaches to the "secrecy" of the prayers was common by looking at the anaphoras that were composed at the time. Long, elaborate settings are obviously used when the prayers are read silently, in order to cover up the prayers. This was common in the GOA when I was growing up, and can be seen in much of the Russian music from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Now many settings of the anaphora are much shorter, so that the prayers leading up to "We hymn Thee, we bless Thee..." are heard, but the singing of this hymn (we hymn...) is done slowly, over the priest, leaving the amens to the Deacon.

Now, in my own practice, we sing "We hymn Thee..." slowly, but softly, so that the words can be heard, but, since the choir parts are the people's parts, the congregation sings with us, leaving the clergy to say the amens, but still having them audible.

Subdeacon Anthony

Dear Subdeacon Anthony,

In my GOA church in NY, the priest, in English, in his beautiful resonant voice, is easily heard over the soft choir, and the congregation joins in with the priest in saying the 'AMIN'. It is very powerful...

A Divine Liturgy there is awesome, and although I am in Greece now-- in an Orthodox country--my husband and I often get very, very, sad at how much we miss the powerful spirituality, devotion, and beauty of his services. Infact, my husband, for business reasons, had to be here in Athens this Holy Week and Pascha, and he was extremely disappointed and sad in the comparison, despite having grown up (though not born) most of his youth in Athens.

That priest brought me to love the Orthodoxy of my birth, and I am finding it quite a challenge to keep feeling that way to the same degree here in Greece. I miss American Orthodoxy--OCA, Greek, anything!!! Please pray for me.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

[Andreas Moran]

Though I'm not very knowledgeable about the 'Paris School' or 'Rue Darue', I know enough to say that I would be among the first to react against its influence. I think reading the full text of the Church of Greece Encyclical would be helpful. It points out that saying the anaphora audibly (not 'loudly') was the tradition of the Church for at least eight centuries, based on 1 Corinthians 14:16-17, the tradition of the Fathers, the Apostolic Traditions, Canon 19 of Laodicea, and the texts of Euchologian manuscripts. The saying of the anaphora silently crept in to use in a way which suggests it might not have been by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Robert makes a good point at the end of his post). The Encyclical says it comes to its conclusions on 'the basis of this liturgical, historical, and canonical evidence'. This does not suggest that the Church of Greece has succumbed to innovation under any western influence. From what some have said, there is a pastoral concern here which I do not see as linked with any modernist or renovationist tendency.

[Anthony Stokes]

Dear Subdeacon Anthony,

In my GOA church in NY, the priest, in English, in his beautiful resonant voice, is easily heard over the soft choir, and the congregation joins in with the priest in saying the 'AMIN'. It is very powerful...


This is true. I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement for the GOA. Each new priest we had (5 in a 20 year period) did it differently. Some would wait for the hymn to end before reading the prayers, some wouldn't. What was common though, were long, elaborate settings of the anaphora with organ, that would cover up the prayers.

Looking at my different service books, my OCA and Antiochian books assign the Amens to the Deacon, while the Greek book gives them to the priest, but probably because Deacons were not common in the GOA 20 years ago when I got the book. There are no Deacons parts at all in the book.

Subdeacon Anthony

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

First, on the Paris school: I would caution against simply reacting against a group under any generalised terms. The 'Paris school' has plenty of aspects to be criticised; but an instinctual reactionary response tends very rarely to be helpful, and is generally an expression of judgementalism more than reasoned consideration.

Second, on the 'amens' at the epiclesis: These are properly the deacon's, as they form an integral part of the deacon's dialogue with the bishop at this point in the service:

Deacon: Master, bless the holy Bread.
Bishop: And make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ.
Deacon: Amen. Master, bless the holy Cup.
Bishop: And that which is in this Cup, the precious Blood of thy Christ.
Deacon: Amen. Master, bless them both.
Bishop: Changing them by thy Holy Spirit.
Deacon: Amen, Amen, Amen. Remember me, a sinner, holy Master.
Clearly, when a priest serves in the stead of his bishop, the bishop's prayers above are said by the priest. When a priest serves without a deacon (as Subdeacon Anthony rightly notes is the assumption in many Greek service books, which oftentimes include no rubrics for the deacon whatsoever), then the whole dialogue is said by the priest alone.

According to the fundamental 'shape' of the liturgical service at this stage, this is clearly a dialogue between the deacon and bishop/priest, which takes place while the people, in and with the choir, are praying (in song) 'We praise thee, we bless thee, we give thanks to thee, and we pray to thee, our God'. The text of the Liturgy itself presumes this as the full participation of the whole community in the liturgical offering: not the people's interjection into the dialogue between the bishop and the deacon (which is a particular dialogue of consecration), but their binding together of that dialogue with the prayer and worship of the whole body, of all the faithful, in the prayer that is rightly theirs.

On an entirely personal level, I have always felt that the argument that all the people should say the 'amens' at this point so as to 'participate in the consecration', while clearly (by my reading) incorrect in terms of precise liturgical form, is perhaps even more problematic in its implicit debasement of the authentic prayer offered by the people. The prayer 'We praise thee, we bless thee...' is part of the eucharistic offering. This is the full participation in the eucharistic consecration. To insist that only the 'amens' of the deacon permit proper participation, is to pay substantial offense to the true role of the people in the Liturgy as a whole; and is to denegrate at the precise moment of the epiclesis the part played in it by the prayer that belongs, by liturgical rite, to the assembled faithful and not to the deacon or bishop. Each plays an essential, irrepeatable, unique part in this mystery; the body made of many members works in harmony, the eye not saying to the toe that it is greater, nor -- and this is perhaps most often forgotten -- the toe saying 'I must do what the eye does in order to have value'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I would caution against simply reacting against a group under any generalised terms. The 'Paris school' has plenty of aspects to be criticised; but an instinctual reactionary response tends very rarely to be helpful, and is generally an expression of judgementalism more than reasoned consideration.

A lapse in intellectual integrity - caution accepted.

This explanation of the proper interaction of the celebrant and the people I find very persuasive if I may say so. There does indeed seem no warrant for the people to appropriate the words of the deacon even if no deacon is present. I guess that the people do not identify with the choir as it chants, 'We praise thee . . . ' I must admit I hadn't thought to do so, but I recall that in Greek texts of the Liturgy, it says not choir but Λαος, People. I wonder if we could look into the meaning of 1 Cor. 14:16-17?

Relevant to audibility is whether the choir chants this hymn during the anaphora or whether (as the monastery here) it stops chanting and the softly spoken words of the epiclesis are then heard. Quite apart from the size of the church, the arrangement of the church will have some bearing on this. In Greek churches, the choir are usually in front of the south door of the iconostasis and so between the priest and the people, and there is often amplification (even when it isn't necessary). So the priest will not be heard unless, as is common, he has a roving microphone. Except for Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, I cannot recall amplification in Russian churches. And the choir is commonly in a loft at the west end of the church as at the monastery here. If the anaphora were to be said in a voice which could be heard beyond the iconostasis, the choir, were it singing throughout, would not then prevent audibility. At our parish church in Moscow, the choir are, in fact, just to the south of the south door of the iconostasis but are screened from the people by a huge, floor-standing icon, so the sound of their singing is deflected. It's also worth remembering that in Russian parish churches nearly all the members of the choir (typically numbering about four or five) are young women with soft voices whereas in Greek churches (here and in Greece and Cyprus) they are usually men.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Father Seraphim, bless!

What is meant by litany of the cathecumens, please?

In Christ
Anna

The Litany for the Catechumens contains petitions, offered by the Orthodox faithful, for the catechumens of the Church. These petitions ask the Lord to guide the catechumens in their journey toward "Illumination" in the Orthodox faith. After which, the priest announces "All ye catechumens, depart! Depart, ye catechumens! All ye that are catechumens, depart! Let no catechumens remain! But let us who are of the faithful, again and again, in peace pray to the Lord..." with the Prayer of the Faithful, followed by the Cherubic Hymn and the Great Entrance.

There was a time when many Orthodox churches wouldn't know what to do with a catechumen if they tripped over one. With no catechumens, all the litany did was confuse people and make the Liturgy longer. These days, I guess we fear offending people if we ask them to leave in the middle of the service. If we don't ask the visiting Lutherans to leave, why should we chase out the catechumens? Some parishes I have visited (which do have catechumens) do have the Litany of the Catechumens but leave out the "depart". Other parishes leave in the "...depart..." but don't have any catechumens anyways so nobody bothers about it (there must be some sort of ironic element there but I can't quite put my finger on it...). Or it is being done in Slavonic or Greek and very few people know what is being said anyways but that is another topic...

No doubt adding it back in to the Liturgy in some places would generate charges of "historical justification of innovations"...

I'm not taking a position here, simply trying to answer a question.

Herman the Pooh

[Anthony Stokes]

There was a time when many Orthodox churches wouldn't know what to do with a catechumen if they tripped over one. With no catechumens, all the litany did was confuse people and make the Liturgy longer. These days, I guess we fear offending people if we ask them to leave in the middle of the service. If we don't ask the visiting Lutherans to leave, why should we chase out the catechumens? Some parishes I have visited (which do have catechumens) do have the Litany of the Catechumens but leave out the "depart". Other parishes leave in the "...depart..." but don't have any catechumens anyways so nobody bothers about it (there must be some sort of ironic element there but I can't quite put my finger on it...).


At my church, our catechumens usually do leave at that point, but it is up to them. Our priest explains the reasons why catechumens would leave, and then lets them make the decision. Most of them then go to the church library and read their catechism materials and return at the end of the service.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Anna K.]

Thank you for your answer, Herman.

It was the prayer I thought it was and that's why I wondered about it being innovative. I've been visiting an MP Church several times and at first stayed all the way through Liturgy. The services are in slavonic, so I've only gradually started to realise (studying my bi-lingual book of the Liturgy) the point of leaving and also the importance of it. Now that I've started to take it seriously, I feel much more "right" in my place at the moment. I'm not "in" yet, so I'm not "fit" for everything, everything is not useful for me, there are things that don't "do me good" yet. Also I feel I'm somehow trespassing, not honoring the holiness if I stay.
It's something mysterious, but I've strongly felt the difference.

But back to the original topic, sorry for the hopping off...

In Christ
Anna K.

[Father David Moser]

Except for Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, I cannot recall amplification in Russian churches.

Holy Virgin Cathedral in SF has an amplification system, however, it is so finely tuned to the acoustics of the building that you wouldn't know it is even there. The old Holy Protection Cathedral in Chicago had amplification (don't know if the new cathedral does or not) because Archbishop Alypy is so soft spoken. The odd thing was that the system was not well shielded and used to pick up radio broadcasts occasionally during the service.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Astley]

On an entirely personal level, I have always felt that the argument that all the people should say the 'amens' at this point so as to 'participate in the consecration', while clearly (by my reading) incorrect in terms of precise liturgical form, is perhaps even more problematic in its implicit debasement of the authentic prayer offered by the people. The prayer 'We praise thee, we bless thee...' is part of the eucharistic offering. This is the full participation in the eucharistic consecration. To insist that only the 'amens' of the deacon permit proper participation, is to pay substantial offense to the true role of the people in the Liturgy as a whole; and is to denegrate at the precise moment of the epiclesis the part played in it by the prayer that belongs, by liturgical rite, to the assembled faithful and not to the deacon or bishop. Each plays an essential, irrepeatable, unique part in this mystery; the body made of many members works in harmony, the eye not saying to the toe that it is greater, nor -- and this is perhaps most often forgotten -- the toe saying 'I must do what the eye does in order to have value'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

I couldn't agree more, Father.

As a convert to Orthodoxy from a tradition where the heritage has been for everybody to do the same thing at the same time, and for anything else to be decried as clericalism, I never cease to be amazed by the irony of this. It seems to me that it is much more clericalist to suggest that the only way that the laity can truly participate is by joining in the priest's or deacon's role.

I cannot speak for those within Orthodoxy but with respect to those without, I think that the perception of things being deliberately hidden away in Orthodoxy is perhaps another example of Orthodoxy being viewed through the lens of Catholic/Protestant history, creating an inaccurate image.

Certainly, in the post-schism west with its notions of centralised clerical authority, the laity took part less and less in the mass. The Lord's Prayer would be introduced with "we are bold to say", only for the priest to then say the prayer alone. The people would only join in with "but deliver us from evil". The Canon (Anaphora) came to be said silently. Communion of the people became less and less frequent, to the point where they would communicate once per year at Easter. The amusing result of this, as explained in Eamonn Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars was that "squints", which are still in evidence in surviving mediaeval churches, were cut into church walls. These were little slits in the wood or stone which permitted priests offering simultaneous masses at different altars within a church to see each other. This was to facilitate the elevations to be staggered so that the people could run from altar to altar and view the host being elevated, as this was the nearest that they got to the sacrament for the greater part of the year.

Certainly, these things were not healthy, but the protestant reaction against them simply went to the other extreme, so that we have such peculiarities in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer where the vesting prayers of the priest were directed to be said aloud so that all of the people could hear them. The result is that it appears that the Anglican communion service has the Lord's Prayer said twice while in fact the first is simply part of the vesting prayers of the priest which happens to be said aloud. This was the seed of what grew into the mentality with which I was brought up: the people must be able to see everything, hear everything, give voice to everything. Anything short of this was seen as the deliberate exclusion of the people by the clergy. So now the priest has to stand behind the altar so that the people can see, the prayers of the priest must be said loudly, and so forth, and everybody must be doing the same thing at the same time otherwise it is not considered to be communal worship.

From conversations with my friends, including a recent conversation at work, it is clear that many people see Orthodox worship and look at it from the context of this development that started life as a Catholic/Protestant divide when, in fact, this is an argument in which the Orthodox Church never had part, and it is wrong to view our practice from that perspective. If the people cannot see everything on the Holy Table throughout the Anaphora, it is not because the priest is deliberately trying to hide anything from them, but it is incidental to how the Liturgy is conducted. In Orthodox Rome, (and, I believe, Jerusalem), where the early basilicas were built the "wrong way round", i.e. where the topography of the place meant that the Holy Table was at the west end, what would happen at the anaphora is that the deacon would declare "Conversi ad dominum" (Turn towards the Lord!), and the people would turn to face east to pray, with the Holy Table behind them, the priest facing east with them. The point was the the whole people of God, priest and people together, were praying to the Lord, and there was no concept that everything had to be seen always and by all in order for them to participate. Similarly the prayers. There is no attempt at secrecy. The priest is just saying the prayers.

Certainly, when I have served at my parish and at the cathdral with the bishop, they are done audibly and with no attempt to make them secret but at the same time with no conscious effort to chant them aloud for the hearing of all. We manage to prostrate at the right times because the priest and servers are clearly visible at this point, and sometimes the spoken prayers can be heard above the "We praise thee...", which we sing solwly, as many times as necessary, (which can be a few times in the Liturgy of St Basil). Interestingly, the only churches that I have been to where absolutely nobody but the clergy ever makes a metania or a prostration at the epiklesis have been churches where it is chanted aloud for their hearing although, to be fair, in one of these churches, prostration is prevented by the closely set rows of chairs.

On the purely psychological level, with most things, it seems that making everything common and readily accessible diminishes the respect that people have for it. I cannot judge the hearts of anybody and would not wish to, but I wonder whether those who make no reverence at this point and can be heard chatting while the epiklesis is being chanted aloud have perhaps never had instilled in them any sense of awe at the significance of the moment. How could we deprive people of the awe and mystery of the epiklesis, which then blossoms into that wonderful moment when the curtains are drawn aside, the Royal Doors are opened, and the priest emerges with the Body and Blood of the Saviour, when prostrate ourselves and chant, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! God is the Lord and hath revealed himself unto us!" Why would anybody want to?

[Anthony Stokes]

I read this article today and found the first paragraph to be somewhat related to this topic. I just thought it was kind of funny to happen upon this today.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10453

It's written by an Eastern Catholic monk. The first paragraph is on the website, and that is really the relevant part, but the whole article is pretty good.

Subdeacon Anthony

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Astley, Subdeacon Anthony, and others,

I'm grateful for your most recent post, Michael, which I read with great interest. There is much in what you say that is perceptive of the way perceptions are often driven by reactions to (against) trends in entirely different traditions or scopes, often having very little direct bearing on the specific subject itself.

With regard to several liturgical practices that emerged in the 20th century, and the theological explanations that were used to advance them (I am thinking in particular of the saying of all mystikoi prayers fully aloud, so as to be deliberately audible to all the people; as well as the commemoration of both Orthodox and non-Orthodox during the proskomedia), it seems to me this was often the case. Let us take our main issue of the audible recitation of the mystikoi prayers. Much of the justification for this practice came in continuation of an ongoing western volley dialogue against-and-for-and-against-and-for-and-against a separation of the clergy's roles from the people, whose heart was really in Western European Roman Catholicism of the sixteenth century, and the post-Reformation disputes over it that have really never ended. While other issues were also at play and cannot be dismissed (such as the very real problem of infrequent communion in Orthodoxy in the west at the time), the main arguments put forward theologically for saying the prayers aloud, communally audibly, were essentially indistinguishable from various criticisms made by older Protestants of older Catholic practice -- despite the fact that the mystikoi elements of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom are quite a different story than the privatisation of the mass in the medieval west.

I should note that I know of no liturgical foundation for insisting that the mystikoi prayers must be 'kept silent', that is, hid from the hearing of the people. Deliberate secretive silence is not their aim. Insisting that the people must not or should not hear these prayers would certainly be flawed. But it seems equally flawed to insist that the people must hear these prayers. This is, as Michael rightly says, simply an anti-clericalism that becomes an inverted clericalism. And the first sign that it's something foreign to the nature of the Divine Liturgy itself, rather than the habits of later tradition, is that one actually has to re-work the shape of the Liturgy in order to accomplish it. The prayers of the Liturgy clearly suppose that a great deal of what is prayed by the bishop or priest will not be heard by the people, since the people are prescribed to be praying (singing) something else at the time. Hence the prayers of light, said while the reader proclaims Psalm 103 at vespers; the prayers of the antiphons, said by the bishop during the singing of the same; the prayer of the Gospel, said during the reading of the epistle; the prayer of the trisagion, said during the singing of the troparia; etc. and etc. The same is true of the priestly prayer concluding each litany - which is why, when a priest serves without a deacon, the choir has at one stage to sing 'Lord, have mercy' in a very protracted manner: to give the priest enough time to say the prayer that would otherwise be said by him while the litany is being sung as the dialogue between deacon and people. Insistence that all these (and other) mystikoi elements of the Liturgy are to be said wholly aloud, audible to the whole gathering of the faithful -- and I have been present at Liturgies where this was strictly and absolutely the case -- inserts an extraordinary number of odd pauses, interruptions of clear, singular liturgical motions, and other indications that this is not the manner in which the service is intended to be separated.

As with so much else, the right way forward seems to be to ask how the shape of the Liturgy is meant to transform perceptions of what it is, and how it involves and engages those who participate in it. Rather than insist that certain problems (primarily with other, foreign liturgical traditions and their accretions) mean it should be done one way or another, the Liturgy itself is a tool that teaches its right experience. One cannot be fully faithful to the shape of the Liturgy with a militant insistence on every prayer being heard; the shape must be modified in order to accommodate this. But mightn't one instead ask, how does the shape of the Liturgy teach us to understand the role of 'hearing' and 'participating' in liturgical worship?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Anthony Stokes]

Hence the prayers of light, said while the reader proclaims Psalm 103 at vespers; the prayers of the antiphons, said by the bishop during the singing of the same; the prayer of the Gospel, said during the reading of the epistle; the prayer of the trisagion, said during the singing of the troparia; etc. and etc. The same is true of the priestly prayer concluding each litany - which is why, when a priest serves without a deacon, the choir has at one stage to sing 'Lord, have mercy' in a very protracted manner: to give the priest enough time to say the prayer that would otherwise be said by him while the litany is being sung as the dialogue between deacon and people. Insistence that all these (and other) mystikoi elements of the Liturgy are to be said wholly aloud, audible to the whole gathering of the faithful -- and I have been present at Liturgies where this was strictly and absolutely the case -- inserts an extraordinary number of odd pauses, interruptions of clear, singular liturgical motions, and other indications that this is not the manner in which the service is intended to be separated.

I would also think of the 12 prayers read by the priest during the Six Psalms at matins. It would be very disrupting in the flow of matins to read them all out loud in addition to the Six Psalms.


But mightn't one instead ask, how does the shape of the Liturgy teach us to understand the role of 'hearing' and 'participating' in liturgical worship?

This is something that we discuss often among the members of the Pan-Orthodox Society for the Advancement of Liturgical Music (PSALM). I think that the music that we choose has a large influence on the people's capacity to "hear" or "participate."

Subdeacon Anthony

[Andreas Moran]

Looking over the posts which have been put together to form this thread and in particular at very recent posts, I think we are in danger of conflating two or more issues and then making comments which relate to the conflation but which actually are not apt to an issue within the conflation. My own posts have been concerned with the audibility of the mystikoi prayers in the anaphora during the Divine Liturgy and a large number of the other posts have been made in relation to this issue. The first post, though, concerns 'the audibility of various prayers (not simply those at the heart of the anaphora)'. Fr Raphael (in post 2) said, and no one here disagrees with him, that 'all the prayers said out loud can be very distracting'. No one here, though, has argued that all the prayers should be said aloud, and so this ought not to be thought part of our discussion in this thread. Clearly, there are a good many prayers said in the Liturgy, and in other services which are not for the hearing of the people. We may think of the prayers and exchanges of priest and deacon before the Great Entrance and the exchange between them after.

There are also some comments which, with all due respect, I think need to be modified. Fr Dcn Steenberg wrote in post 34 that the 'practice of reading all the mystikos prayers fully aloud does seem, however, to become widespread in the 20th century' with some tentative speculation that this was due to the influence of the Paris School. There is then Fr Serafim's comment in post 35 that 'audible prayers are an innovation of the 20th century'. I am not sure whether this latter comment refers to all mystikoi prayers, those in the Liturgy, or only those in the anaphora. I will comment as though the last was meant. Fr Dcn Matthew's comment is clear but taken together, and looking in particular at Fr Serafim's comment, the impression is given that there is no precedent for this and that it is entirely a 20th century innovation. Liturgical history, as briefly outlined in the Church of Greece's Encyclical, makes clear that this is not true but rather it makes clear that saying the mystikoi prayers in the anaphora audibly was the tradition of the Church during all the centuries of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Fr Serafim's post mentioned 'other considerations' such as dress and pews. Such matters are well outside the topic of this thread but mention of them has the unfortunate effect of bracketing the audible saying of the mystikoi prayers in the anaphora with modernist tendencies which I would be the first to criticise. The Church is, as we all know, guided by the Holy Spirit as Fr Serafim says, but given the historical facts, attributing audibility to what Fr Serafim called the guidance of 'policy-driven historians, sociologists and other social engineers' and 'some PC tendencies' is not well founded. I don't see the members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece and of the Archbishop of Cyprus as fitting those descriptions! As I suggested, I see no evidence from the way in which silence for these prayers might be the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit in that I know of nothing from history, from patristic sources or from canons that would support such a view. Indeed, as Fr Dcn Matthew writes (post 49), 'I know of no liturgical foundation for insisting that the mystikoi prayers [he does not say which ones] must be 'kept silent', that is, hid from the hearing of the people.'

Fr Dcn Matthew then brings in the matter of the faithful saying 'amen' which is properly the role of the deacon. Whilst obviously closely related, I would see this as being distinct from the question of audibility. Clearly, if the faithful do not say 'amen' the prayers may yet be said audibly. Michael, in his post, picks up this point but I do see it as being distinct in the way I have tried to suggest. Michael then says:


I cannot speak for those within Orthodoxy but with respect to those without, I think that the perception of things being deliberately hidden away in Orthodoxy is perhaps another example of Orthodoxy being viewed through the lens of Catholic/Protestant history, creating an inaccurate image.

I'm not clear what point is being made here. Since we are discussing this topic as Orthodox Christians, I don't see the relevance of the almost inevitably 'inaccurate image' of Orthodoxy by 'those without'. For myself, I was never a participant of the western church and so know little of its post-schism practices. Of course it is wrong to view our Orthodox practice from the perspective of the 'Catholic/Protestant divide'; I can't see in this thread where anyone has. Michael's description of 'the prayers' [he doesn't say which but I assume he means in the anaphora] as being 'done audibly and with no attempt to make them secret but at the same time with no conscious effort to chant them aloud for the hearing of all' seems, if I may say so, to express very well the kind of practice directed by the Church of Greece. On Michael's particular point made here:


How could we deprive people of the awe and mystery of the epiklesis, which then blossoms into that wonderful moment when the curtains are drawn aside, the Royal Doors are opened, and the priest emerges with the Body and Blood of the Saviour, when prostrate ourselves and chant, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! God is the Lord and hath revealed himself unto us!"

I don't see why the closed doors and drawn curtain are apt to confer awe and mystery (it could conceivably be seen by some as theatrical); was the anaphora until the 14th century, when the iconostasis became common, not so awesome and mysterious?

Fr Dcn Matthew in his last post writes:


With regard to several liturgical practices that emerged in the 20th century, and the theological explanations that were used to advance them (I am thinking in particular of the saying of all mystikoi prayers fully aloud, so as to be deliberately audible to all the people; as well as the commemoration of both Orthodox and non-Orthodox during the proskomedia), it seems to me this was often the case.

However, neither of these matters - which clearly are unwarranted innovations with the latter being especially wrong - are issues in this thread. He then goes on to take up Michael's bringing in the western dimension and the justification for saying all mystikoi prayers fully aloud. But again, that is not a topic within this thread. I cannot go along with the notion that saying the faithful must hear the anaphora prayers is 'simply an anti-clericalism'. On the contrary, the Churches of Greece, Cyprus and others see the matter as being pastoral, touching upon not merely the participation 'of the People of God' but 'upon the people's salvation' (which, I confess, is putting very highly indeed!). Some posts clearly highlight the pastoral nature of this issue. I don't see that the Liturgy needs its shape re-working if we are talking only about the mystikoi prayers in the anaphora. Fr Dcn Matthew writes of 'a miltant insistence on every prayer being heard' but I am unaware that anyone here is so insisting. If there is such a view somewhere, I'm sure all of us here would disagree with it but I can't see why this view is mentioned in our discussion.

A separate thread on the participation of the people in the Divine Liturgy would be good, I think, but I would like this thread to focus on the mystikoi prayers in the anaphora since, as already said, no one here has suggested that all other mystikoi prayers ought to be audible, and clearly they should not be.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas,

I read your post with interest, though did find portions of it quite confusing. You seem to wish to limit discussion of this topic not only to one specific aspect of it, but a specific subset of that one aspect; and to suggest that other aspects of the issue are irrelevant to its specific focus. But this is a topic, the direct discussion of which incorporates many dimensions, since it deals with a core dimension of liturgical praxis, at which the audible recitation of the mytikoi prayers are at the heart.

A few particular points to consider: the division of 'the mystikoi prayers of the anaphora', and 'all the mystikoi prayers', which you make most strongly in your last paragraph, is not a straightforward issue. You seem to suggest that this thread should only address the former type, but this begs many questions. Why are they distinct? Why might/should the practice for some be different than for others? Whence a tradition of dividing up manners of practice of the Liturgy by portion, so that, hypothetically, one thing is done with the mystikoi prayers in the first 50% of its celebration, another for the next 25%, and a return for the final quarter? I don't suggest these are irrelevant or obvious questions; but to suggest that the question of the mystikoi prayers should be subdivided in the manner you have, presupposes a number of issues that are rightly part of this discussion.

The question of participation in the 'amens' is a subsidiary issue, yes; but it does strike me as quite intimately connected. The approach to participation at this moment of the anaphora is often driven by the same concerns / understandings that drive the whole approach to the mystikoi prayers throughout the Liturgy, and especially at the anaphora; and indeed, this is a portion of the anaphora itself, in which vocal participation has been driven in large part by the very issue of making the dialogue audible, and thus a thing to be 'joined in with'.

There are a number of points that relate to this discussion, some of which have been touched on already in the discussion, others hinted at, others not:


Why are the mytikoi prayers mystikoi?
Is there a difference between the mystikoi prayers of the anaphora and those elsewhere in the services?
If yes, what is it? If not, might there be other reasons that the mytikoi prayers of the anaphora should be treated differently in praxis than those elsewhere (e.g. pastoral reasons)?
How does traditional practice of reciting the mystikoi prayers relate to / differ from that found today? (i.e. the 'historical precidents' question)
How do approaches to the mystikoi prayers relate to questions of 'participation in' the Liturgy, in which context they are very often (perhaps most often) raised?
Are their theological and/or pastoral justifications for a variety of practices?

Rather than these (and there may be others) being distinct matters that risk conflating the topic of discussion, I would suggest they are essential aspects of the topic, without a sense of which, one cannot really explore any single aspect of it (i.e. the particular question of what's done at the anaphora) in a whole or fully considered way.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Fr Dcn Matthew,

Thank you for your careful consideration of my post. I'm sorry if parts of it seemed confusing - maybe I shouldn't have tried to post so late! (I have read over it and I'm not sure which parts might be quite confusing - but then I'm getting on a bit!) I understand the point of setting discussion of the anaphora prayers in context; it only seemed to me that since no one questioned the appropriateness of other prayers being said inaudibly, we might focus on the anaphora. It is only the inaudibility of these that has caused pastoral concern of some of the faithful as we have seen in some posts here. If it is wished to keep the discussion broader, then fine, but I do think that we must be careful not colour the issue of the anaphora prayers with the same charge of modernist innovation as may be levelled at (properly, in my view) things such as pews and commemorating non-Orthodox in the proskomidi.

[Michael Astley]

Thank you all for your subsequent contributions, which have given more food for thought.


Looking over the posts which have been put together to form this thread and in particular at very recent posts, I think we are in danger of conflating two or more issues and then making comments which relate to the conflation but which actually are not apt to an issue within the conflation. My own posts have been concerned with the audibility of the mystikoi prayers in the anaphora during the Divine Liturgy and a large number of the other posts have been made in relation to this issue.

In response to this, I'm not sure what others think, but from my perspective, the deliberate chanting aloud, (not merely audible praying), of the prayers in the Anaphora directed to be said mystikos is not something that stands in isolation but in some cases at least is part of a mentality that also affects other liturgical practices. Therefore, it does not necessarily stand alone and it does not seem to me to be off-topic to discuss it within the context of other prayers and related liturgical practices.


Michael then says:


I cannot speak for those within Orthodoxy but with respect to those without, I think that the perception of things being deliberately hidden away in Orthodoxy is perhaps another example of Orthodoxy being viewed through the lens of Catholic/Protestant history, creating an inaccurate image.

I'm not clear what point is being made here. Since we are discussing this topic as Orthodox Christians, I don't see the relevance of the almost inevitably 'inaccurate image' of Orthodoxy by 'those without'. For myself, I was never a participant of the western church and so know little of its post-schism practices. Of course it is wrong to view our Orthodox practice from the perspective of the 'Catholic/Protestant divide'; I can't see in this thread where anyone has.

I am sorry for my lack of clarity of intent, Andreas. I was simply adding another dimension to the discussion. I did not say, and certainly did not mean to imply, that your reasoning was the direct result of involvement in non-Orthodox, western churches and I am sorry if anything in my wording gave that impression. I was posting largely without having ordered my thoughts but, on reflection, what I said still does seem relevant.

Many of us Orthodox in Britain and America are converts from heterodoxy, including many clergy, and this historical Catholic/Protestant debate has affected our formation, whether or not we are immediately aware of it. All of us who have come to Orthodoxy after childhood have much to learn that we may otherwise have absorbed in childhood, and those of us who have come to Orthodoxy from other Christian confessions have to unlearn many things, which takes years. It does not seem unreasonable to think that many Orthodox clergy and laity who used to be protestant of one flavour or another, are still influenced to some degree by our pasts, so the introduction into the discussion of the history of perceived secrecy in public worship in the west seems quite relevant. I spoke above of the parish where the people do not prostrate even though the epiklesis is chanted aloud, and where there are rows of chairs. The priest there is a personal friend of mine and a fellow convert from Anglicanism. When we had a friendly discussion about this, he prefixed his defence of the epiklesis chanted aloud with the words, 'Maybe this is the Protestant within me speaking...'. He was speaking lightheartedly, of course, but I don't think that we can just dismiss western historical thought on this matter as irrelevant to current Orthodox practice when many Orthodox people in the west had their early formation in the resultant climate of that thought and may still be holding onto elements of it today.

Please note that I am emphatically not saying that this is what colours all thought on the matter on the part of those in favour of chanting them aloud but simply that it may affect some and is therefore relevant to the discussion.


Michael's description of 'the prayers' [he doesn't say which but I assume he means in the anaphora] as being 'done audibly and with no attempt to make them secret but at the same time with no conscious effort to chant them aloud for the hearing of all' seems, if I may say so, to express very well the kind of practice directed by the Church of Greece. On Michael's particular point made here:


How could we deprive people of the awe and mystery of the epiklesis, which then blossoms into that wonderful moment when the curtains are drawn aside, the Royal Doors are opened, and the priest emerges with the Body and Blood of the Saviour, when prostrate ourselves and chant, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord! God is the Lord and hath revealed himself unto us!"

I am pleased that my thoughts on the matter are in keeping with the Church of Greece. It helps every now and then to be reassured that I am not completely beyond the pale in my thoughts on Orthodoxy. ;-)


I don't see why the closed doors and drawn curtain are apt to confer awe and mystery (it could conceivably be seen by some as theatrical); was the anaphora until the 14th century, when the iconostasis became common, not so awesome and mysterious?

Certainly it was. However, that was the liturgy as it was then and, presumably, the clergy and people just served the Liturgy as they knew it, without making a point of being secretive or chanting everything aloud. Today, our church architecture and liturgy have evolved and there is a clear sensory distinction between prayers said softly with some visual obscurance of the liturgical action at the Holy Table, and the open doors and visual presentation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the people. Perhaps this is theatrical but if it is then I would argue that it is only incidentally so. My point is not that any period was any more or less mysterios but that what we have today is the Liturgy as we currently have it and as we have received it, and that we should just serve it faithfully as our prayer and worship to God without making a point of doing things to highlight either extreme of secrecy or exclamation in parts that call for neither.

[Robert Hegwood]

The only reason I can think of for these prayers to have been made silent rather than audible is perhaps related to the same pastoral reasons for the development of the iconostasis. There was a time very early on when all who were communing gather near the altar. But then was when catechumens and those not communing were actually dismissed and left the premises (the doors the doors). When this ceased to be the norm, the iconostasis grew from a simple demarcation of the altar area to serve the pastoral purpose of screening holy things from the eyes of those who were not in the proper state to witness them directly...either through spiritual infancy or spiritual discipline or or spiritual lassitude. It would make sense then in order to safeguard the Holy Mysteries from aural voyeurism certain key prayers at the heart of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist would have become low or silent, audible if at all only to those serving within the altar.

If this is indeed the case regarding the liturgical development of this usage...then it would seem the corresponding condition for a return to audibilty would be once again the limitation of the Divine Liturgy only to those ready to commune and a general higher caliber of spiritual life among the faithful at large. But that is my speculation. It is also conceivable that other pastoral factors in our time might weigh heavily for their audible use despite a mixed congregation (with regard to eligibility to commune).

[Andreas Moran]

many Orthodox people in the west had their early formation in the resultant climate of that thought and may still be holding onto elements of it today.

Thank you for your last post, Michael. I suppose I find it difficult to appreciate the thinking processes of those who were involved in one of the Christian denominations before becoming Orthodox. Furthermore, my contact with Orthodox people is entirely with Russians, Greeks, Cypriots and others and not with western converts - except here!


Please note that I am emphatically not saying that this is what colours all thought on the matter on the part of those in favour of chanting them aloud but simply that it may affect some and is therefore relevant to the discussion.

Thank you for clarifying that you don't think I'm a modernist innovator! Perish the thought!


what we have today is the Liturgy as we currently have it and as we have received it

I don't know that silence in these prayers was the rule everywhere until recently. Does anyone know if saying the anaphora prayers audibly (if not loudly) continued in Cyprus or Greece? But evidently what we do have today is some variation in custom, and my point is that in Churches such as Russia where inaudibility is almost invariably the case, the faithful have some concern about this as we have seen. And I do feel that this is not related to modernising tendencies: it's the only thing that people like my wife and those I know in Russia comment upon; they are otherwise staunch supporters of tradition.

I note that we have not had any laity in this forum coming forward to support the saying of all the anaphora inaudibly.

Robert's point is interesting, though, as he concedes, speculative. It reminds me of something the Lavra Fathers said when they were visiting the monastery here. We talked about this, and they agreed to say the anaphora audibly, remarking that they felt they could put aside their normal practice because it was by and large always the same people in the congregation rather than a parish church in a busy place where anybody might have dropped in.

[Father Serafim]

I am off to Orthodox Family Camp in Eugene, Oregon, tomorrow and will not be able to continue the debate - which I find very informative, if contrary to my understanding and my bishop's of the Divine Liturgy.

Just a quick point - the innovation of omitting the prayers for the catechumens is a part of the tendency to shorten the services to cater for "the pastoral needs of our times". I was once told that if you don't have catechumens then you don't need to pray for them...implying that the Church is parochial not universal. This person did not understand the universality of the Liturgy. There is only one Liturgy, wherever and whenever it is served - but I suppose this is not current thinking in some circles.

I hope to return to this debate when I get back from Camp, God willing.

[Andreas Moran]

Just a quick point - the innovation of omitting the prayers for the catechumens is a part of the tendency to shorten the services to cater for "the pastoral needs of our times". I was once told that if you don't have catechumens then you don't need to pray for them...implying that the Church is parochial not universal. This person did not understand the universality of the Liturgy. There is only one Liturgy, wherever and whenever it is served - but I suppose this is not current thinking in some circles.

I agree that the prayers for the catechumens ought not to be omitted in parish churches. What I'm not sure about is whether this is applicable to liturgies in monasteries which are unlikely to have catechumens present but I take the point that the Divine Liturgy is never entirely a local act.

[Anthony Stokes]

I agree that the prayers for the catechumens ought not to be omitted in parish churches. What I'm not sure about is whether this is applicable to liturgies in monasteries which are unlikely to have catechumens present but I take the point that the Divine Liturgy is never entirely a local act.


I would think that since monks are called to pray for the world, that it would include catechumens. Plus, many catechumens visit monasteries, which is why so many monasteries have such strict rules about their narthexes and who can enter the church.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Julia Hayes]

I don't know that silence in these prayers was the rule everywhere until recently. Does anyone know if saying the anaphora prayers audibly (if not loudly) continued in Cyprus or Greece? But evidently what we do have today is some variation in custom, and my point is that in Churches such as Russia where inaudibility is almost invariably the case, the faithful have some concern about this as we have seen. And I do feel that this is not related to modernising tendencies: it's the only thing that people like my wife and those I know in Russia comment upon; they are otherwise staunch supporters of tradition.



Hi Andreas,
Here in Greece, whether the Anaphora prayers are said aloud or secretly, depends primarily on the priest and his liturgical education (or lack thereof). I know certain priests (one of whom is one of my liturgics professors) who say all the prayers aloud during the liturgy. It is probably only a handful of priests that do say them aloud. I remember one priest being amazed that I even knew what was said during the Anaphora. I also recall after a liturgy I had attended here in Athens where the priest had read all they prayers aloud, all the elderly ladies in the parish crowded around him afterwards saying "Thank you, father, for reading all the prayers aloud so we could hear them!"

[Michael Astley]

May I resuscitate this thread to link to something pertinent? Earlier, there was a quotation supplied from Fr Lawrence Farley, in which he cited the imperial decree (Novella 137)of St Justinian to support his view that prayers being said mystikos was an innovation at the time to be combatted. It seems that this reading of St Justinian's text is not universally accepted and is considered quite flawed in some quarters (http://www.jordanville.org/files/The-Celebrant--Priest-or-Pastor.pdf) (PDF).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As often happens with these issues I wonder if there is not ground in the middle that is profitable to explore. For the Liturgy of St Basil I read the prayers out loud from the litany before the Creed (prayer of the offering) through the Anaphora and then the from the litany before Our Father.

Now the need of each parish is different- and this I think should be taken into account. Thus we experienced at one time a problem often encountered in smaller Russian parishes which was the people chattering away all through the service, especially in the narthex (pritvor). When I observed this more closely I realized that the way we often do the services, in certain settings, allows for the attention of our people to greatly wander. In other words the service is something going on 'out there' beyond the Royal Doors and by the priest. In any case with the Doors open a bit more and the prayers read out loud on certain occasions this problem vanished immediately. At times I am moved by the silence in the church among our people during the anaphora.

Anyway- as you can see I have not entered into the historical debate. I am not sure of its helpfulness in any case since so much of the ancient evidence is spotty, representative of (maybe) a certain time & locale, and can be interpreted in widely different ways. All that I know is that I have over my time as a priest witnessed a whole spectrum of uses regarding the prayers; and that beyond a particular use by particular jurisdictions.

Interestingly, having just returned from Russia I see that they are adopting more and more pastorally motivated uses in the service that should be of great interest to us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear Subdeacon Michael and others,

Thank you for the note and the link. I have just finished reading the article by by Cyril Quatrone, which I had not before seen. I found it interesting and in many ways helpful -- though it also contains several points which are either incorrect or counter-productive (e.g. the errant confusion of apophasis and kataphasis; the somewhat unhelpful staging of the discussion in polemical terms of 'traditionalists vs. modernists'; at times [p. 22 esp.] proceeding by emotion and unproductively casual dialogue; etc.).

Nonetheless, it is filled with a number of helpful points. There are a few that are worth extracting out here:

Firstly, that there is no evidence from the patristic corpus that any point in history was conclusively marked by there not being prayers said mystically or inaudibly. On this point I think the author is quite correct. The testimony from the earliest period is generally vague, and yet there are certainly passages that imply a differentiation between the prayers a priest said himself, and those said in full hearing of / vocal participation with all the people; and certainly later Orthodox patristic writing makes this practice quite explicit (and he cites a few sources on both). What this means is that the early patristic corpus should not be used by anyone wishing to make an emphatic claim one way or the other (and it is refreshing to see the author say this, since he is himself making an emphatic claim, but resisting the temptation to make the early Fathers pronounce dogmatically in one direction -- which tactic not a few employ), even if the general tendency of their writings seems to suggest there was a distinction between such types of prayer.
Secondly, he reminds his readers that 'what was done at first' is not the Orthodox litmus test for what should be done now; and that even if it could be shown that earliest practice was emphatically not differentiated between audible and mystical prayers (which cannot be shown, because, as above, there is no conclusive testimony on this), even so this would not indicate it to be the correct approach for the Orthodox Church today, which as a living organism, the Body of Christ, has developed her expression of the unchanging Truth of the Gospel so that it best serves the ascetical and pastoral work of fostering the Body. The author gives a small selection of examples by which the Church fosters practices now that we know were not practices in the earliest centuries (e.g. laity receiving communion in the hand), but which we do not abandon simply because they were not practiced in early years -- rather, which we see as an expression of the Church's wisdom as fittingly applies to human need. For various reasons, the Church has applied this same principle to the distinction of mystical and audible prayers in the divine services, some of which reasons (theological, pastoral, etc.) the author touches on in his text.
Thirdly, and perhaps most helpfully, the author discusses the hierarchical nature of Orthodox as it relates to this matter. He begins with a passage from St Dionysius, and refers back to it (and to the broader theme of hierarchy) several times throughout his text; and my wish here was that he had explored this in a little more depth. A true understanding of spiritual hierarchy (not just the practical shape of hierarchy -- e.g. bishops do this, priests do that, laity do this -- but the spiritual reality of hierarchy which gives meaning to how and why we imitate and manifest such order in our ecclesiastical lives) is central to an Orthodox understanding not just of the Church, but of all that the Church says and does (her mysteries, her teaching, her ascesis, her prayer, etc.). The issue of mystical prayers seems to me to be very much bound up in this, and I felt that the text touched on it (helpfully); but there is much more to be said.

Finally, the author does also correct the occasional misreading of Emperor Justinian. While it is absolutely clear that Justinian (alone among the patristic-era writers) emphatically does not like the custom of prayers being read inaudibly, what is equally clear is that he is not (as is sometimes claimed) arguing against this as an innovative practice that should be abandoned; rather, he is quite specifically arguing against what he understands to be the traditional practice of prayers being read inaudibly (he specifically mentions the prayers at the proskomedia, as well as baptism, though he is clearly referring also to others), which practice he does not like and wishes to replace with a new approach: the reading of all prayers audibly, 'in a voice that can be heard by the very faithful people'. He understands that this is a new practice, and seems also to anticipate that it will be highly controversial: his text goes on to spell out how his provincial governors are to follow up with bishops and their local synods, ensuring that the new legislation is enacted and the new commands fulfilled; and if any bishops are remiss in calling local synods in order to enact this new pattern, the governors are to report them to the emperor so that this tactic of 'delaying' the implementation of the new custom can be corrected ('...if they do not observe these orders, they will be subjected to the ultimate punishments' [!]). So while it is clear that Justinian himself does not like the inaudible reading of prayers by priests, it is absolutely clear that he is responding to what he knows perfectly well is the traditional and widespread practice of the Church in his day, which he wishes to change for something new (and which he seemed clearly enough to feel would find somewhat active and extensive opposition).

All this by way of saying that the 'answer' to the question over such prayer is not to be found in the documents of history. What history (patristic history) shows us, clearly, is that this matter is one of change over time, and one that, as it develops (which seems to have happened early enough) is based on theological and ecclesiological questions, not simply questions of 'understanding' or 'participation' (which are the categories almost always used to address it when it is raised today). If there is to be a fruitful approach to understanding why the Church prays in this manner in our day, it must not try to back-peddle to an imagined early era when things were uniformly done differently, nor must it attempt to speak to the practice in terms that are inauthentic to the Church's vision of hierarchy, ecclesiology, and liturgical worship itself. Rather, it must seek to be exposed to the Church's understanding of these very matters, by which she has identified a distinction in types of prayer at the divine services that suitably reflects her pastoral and ascetical experience.

INXC, Hieromonk Irenei