www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Aliturgical days in the Great Fast

Jeff - I think you are on to something. By liturgical reckoning, the 10th hour would be the time for Vespers in the evening, around 4 or 5 o'clock, and not the morning. Ten in the morning would roughly correspond with the fourth hour of the morning according to the traditional "liturgical clock".

It seems he is talking about absolute time here, and not the usual Byzantine reckoning.

Nick - please note that this text is for this one unique liturgical convergence. Any bishop has the right to exercise economia in these circumstances, which happens on a regular basis. The pastor ultimately will decide what is the best, most pastorally prudent liturgical order for his parish, and we should support him when he is attempting to do that in accord with the Typikon.

In our Eparchy, when an available or "mandated" text does not reconcile with what is directed in the Typikon, the pastor is free to follow the Typikon if he so desires. You can't mandate a Typikon and then turn around and mandate texts that don't agree with it.

Jeff,

Mikita uses the following "Jehda o 10-oi predpoludennoi hodin'i...." "Predpoludennyj" is a compound word: pred-pol(u)-den = before-mid-day. The Russian Sabbaite for the same combination says "pri chase zhe 8-im dne...." Before the 8th hour of the day.

Mikita, it seems (although I have not looked for it and don't have time to right now), is referring to civil time (a.m. in this case) while the Russian Sabbaite seems to refer to the hours "of the day" based on sunrise (hence moveable?). The Russian also makes use of hours of the night, after sunset. I haven't seen this latter convention in Mikita but it may well be there.

I don't know if this helps or not, I hope it does. I wish all a profitable Great and Holy Week.

Tony

I will answer this post with three separate posts, dealing with separate subjects, to keep my posts short enough that more folks will read them.

Nicholas wrote: �Combinations of services are common, but only in certain order.....�

The Typicon (all extant versions) actually prescribes certain services to be served together. Such groupings were described as a matter of fact in the 14th century, Saint Symeon of Thessalonika, so this is not a modern innovation.

Note that for the Annunciation on Great Friday, a unique oddity is prescribed: The Royal Hours are divided. Normally, all 4 Royal Hours together with the Typika form one service, which begins at the second hour of the day; the Royal Doors are opened during the First Hour, and the Gospel Book is brought to the center of the Church, and the Doors remain open and the Gospels remain in the center of the Church until the Ninth Hour when, after the Gospel is read, the Gospel Book is brought back to the Holy Table and the Doors are closed.

When the Annunciation coincides with Great Friday, however, the First Hour follows Mattins. Then, at the fifth hour of the day, the other 3 hours and the Typika are served as one service, with a few modifications due to the feast and to the subsequent Holy Liturgy (according to the Russian Typicon I have in front of me, on the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours, the tropar and kondak of both Great Friday and the Annunciation are sung; at the Typika, �we omit Psalm 33. and we say it at the Liturgy.�).

Nicholas also wrote: �...But, it is my understanding that whatever the combination, when liturgy is included, liturgy is always the ending, the last combined service. Eg. the service ends with communion, what could follow? ...�

Several exceptions to the above come to mind:

On the first Friday of Great Lent, the Triodion prescribes �After the prayer before the Ambon, we sing the following supplicatory canon (moleben) to Saint Theodore:� and, after the canon and its infrastructure, the blessing of kolyva.

For the funeral of a Hierarch, most of the funeral takes place after the Liturgy.
On the Theophany, and on the eve of the Thephany, the Great Blessing of Waters usually takes place at the end of the Liturgy.

On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the Service of Orthodoxy takes place at the end of the Liturgy.

On Great Thursday, where the Washing of Feet is served, this takes place at the end of Liturgy.

By custom, albeit not written in the service books, festive outdoor processions take place at the end of the Liturgy.

And so on ...

If a pastor deemed it appropriate to celebrate the Divine Liturgy by itself (because he wished to keep the Vespers in the evening and keep the Procession with the Burial Shroud with it), it seems appropriate to simply celebrate this Divine Liturgy as one would if the feast fell on a Saturday of the Fast. I put this question to a priest who serves on the liturgical commission of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church (after I posted my recommended options) and he indicated that when Good Friday fell on Annunciation most of the parishes of the Johnstown Diocese celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the morning and the Vespers in the evening. This is similar to what my former pastor had tale me years ago. I will restate that I am advocating that this be a legitimate option. I am not advocating that that it be required.

Admin

I thank Father David for his post, and for his willingness to participate in this discussion.

I am in general agreement with Father David on the need to be flexible. But the flexibility I advocate is one of tolerance for the traditional liturgy, the official texts and rubrics of the Ruthenian Recension as prepared and promulgated by Rome and as celebrated in the other Churches of the Ruthenian Recension (now prohibited in some eparchies). The flexibility I advocate is one in which legitimate pastoral options are allowed (such as the traditional Holy Week schedule, and, in this conversation, the three options for Annunciation / Good Friday that I have suggested earlier in this discussion). This new prohibition against even celebrating the Annunciation Vespers and Divine Liturgy before 3 PM is an example of inflexibility. I state with all charity that it seems to me that the Liturgical Commission is inflexible when it demands one interpretation of the typicon, one among the possibilities, and demands that this and only this interpretation is to be permitted throughout the Metropolia.

Regarding the end of the liturgical day, I find Father David�s argument that it is too rigid to insist that the liturgical day ends at sunset compelling. His evidence of the Great Prokimenon on these days of great feast is interesting.

In a similar way, the eve of a feast extends further than simply our modern notion of the night before. In fact, the eve of the feast is the 24-hour period, an entire liturgical day in its own right. It does not need to be confined to the period after sunset on the eve before Christmas and Theophany (for example). Christmas Eve begins at sunset on December 23rd, and Theophany Eve at sunset on January 4th. The entire �eve� day is part of the vigil, not just the time beginning at sunset concluding that day.

There seems to be an assumption that the Basil Liturgy was the original evening vigil Divine Liturgy for Christmas, Theophany, and Pascha. This is an unproven assumption. The bias towards this assumption is because Great Vespers has become attached to the Basil Liturgy. Yet I have seen no evidence that an evening Basil Liturgy was the case. Given that there is no evidence of evening Divine Liturgies being common after the legalization of the Church, and noting the universal practice of only celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the morning in both the East and the West (prior to the recent reforms in the Latin Church), it seems more likely that the Basil Liturgies for these days were always morning Divine Liturgies. The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil most likely belonged to the mornings of the eves of Christmas, Theophany and Pascha (not unlike the way the Basil Liturgy belongs to the Sundays of the Fast � a joyful celebration during a period of expectant anticipation). It was the Vespers that belong to these feasts that were anticipated by half a day while the Eucharist remained fixed in the morning. Since the Eucharist was the culmination of this celebration, the Vespers was appended prior to the Basil Liturgy since, after the Basil Liturgy and the reception of Holy Communion, the faithful went to a common meal. This meal was still penitential (the agape feast being shown in our current practice of �Holy Supper�). This seems far more likely than a double Liturgy (Basil, then Chrysostom) on the feast itself. One Liturgy on any given day is always the norm.

Yes, this is certainly speculation on my part. There does not seem to be evidence to prove either position. I am not fluent in other languages so I must form my conclusions on what is written in English (and some might rightly question my fluency in English!). But when I look at the texts for these services this hypothesis seems as reasonable as the hypothesis that the Basil Liturgy was the first Liturgy of the feast. Just thinking about the Vesper / Basil Liturgy of Holy Saturday I am immediately struck with the resurrectional nature of the Stichera (Resurrectional Tone 1) and then the huge change in mood with the muted, anticipatory texts for the Irmos, etc., of the Basil Liturgy. It does seem possible that the Vespers and Basil Liturgy had different emphases, but were joined together as the Vespers became anticipated in the morning. Again, there is no evidence that evening liturgies were common or normative.

Father David asks: �Is the �received tradition� not the real �received tradition� and is only now beginning to be restored, or are we beginning to restore Holy Week according to more authentic principles than our �received tradition,� which should read �received practices.�

The �received tradition� is our heritage. It is this same tradition witnessed by the legitimate Ruthenian Recension and, for the most part, common across the Byzantine Church (both Orthodox and Catholic). It is our tradition.

Now it may be that the Liturgy of the Byzantine Church will evolve. And, in the future, the services of Holy Week may take a different shape. We should wait patiently for that day and not anticipate it. We should work with the entire Byzantine Church (Orthodox and Catholic), not apart from it.

I do not think that is unfair at all for me to believe that our Ruthenian Church has much to do to appreciate our heritage. We have lost so much and are now still at the beginning of restoring what we have lost. It will take several generations of praying our complete liturgical tradition (the �received tradition�) before our Ruthenian Church has a fuller understanding of what it means to be Church. Monastics must be formed and become wise to speak to the Liturgy from that perspective. Married clergy must be formed and become wise to speak to the Liturgy from that perspective. Lay people must be formed and become wise to speak to the Liturgy from that perspective. A single group in the Church (the celibate priesthood) certainly offers wisdom, but that wisdom is and cannot be complete enough for our Church to undertake revision (think about not seeing the forest because of all the trees). We ought to look to the Byzantine Orthodox Church and learn from them where that is appropriate. Right now some in our Church have a wonderful enthusiasm of renewal (which I applaud and give thanks for). That enthusiasm needs to be tempered by the wisdom of those who have not lost what we have lost. The Liturgical Instruction rightly tells us to look towards our Sister Eastern Churches for examples of organic development. There is no pastoral demand for reform. There is no hurry for reform.

I again thank Father David for participating in this discussion. I, too, wish him and each of our Forum participants, a prayerful journey through Holy Week and the joy of the Resurrection on Pascha.

Admin

This is my last post on this subject, simply because tomorrow I must go home to my Eparchy to assist in the celebration of Holy Week. I will be praying for all my brothers and sisters in faith, and I ask for your prayers also.

I am writing briefly because I think it would be an error to assume that a morning Liturgy and evening Vespers on the eves of great feasts is more likely. True in antiquity morning Liturgies did become the norm, but the feasts were always celebrated in their own way, almost always preceded by a day of fasting ending with the breaking of the fast in the evening. The fast was first broken moderately as Christians do everything in moderation - we do not fast completely, then pig out. The feasts then have two liturgies, though NOT on the same calendar day. Christmas is a prime example - the evening Liturgy has the story of the birth of Christ according to St. Luke, Christmas Day - (after the birth?!) - tells the story of the Magi. The Paschal Vigil has the gospel of the resurrection, Paschal Sunday (after the resurrection ?!) begins the continuous reading of the Gospel of St. John. There is not even the slightest scrap of evidence for Administrator's hypothesis.

It is interesting that Mikita has the Annunciation Liturgy at 10 am. However, one must read Mikita with great, great caution - he was a fervent "latinizer." I suspect this might be the case here - however indirectly. The Roman Church observed Lent with the morning Divine Liturgy, the Byzantines fasted and celebrated an evening Presanctified Liturgy. I suspect the case why Byzantines moved Vespers to the morning is that fasting until Vespers was required and this law became harder and harder to keep. Note that on Good Friday, the most holy penitential day of the year, all Typicons are very cautious about moving Vespers forward, usually no earlier than mid-afternoon (about 2 pm, which means they would end around 4 pm). Mikita here may be influenced by the Roman practice of Liturgies in the morning during the Great Fast - even on Good Friday, though note even his caution, not until 10 am, and still with Vespers, which means the fast would be be broken until noon.

Each generation must take responsibility for the Christian celebration of the Liturgy, we cannot simply say, maybe future generations, when, thankfully I'll be dead, can worry about it. I hope and pray we have the wisdom and courage to do what is right. Whatever we do, though, I hope and pray that we are filled with the life of Christ.

Fr. Dave

Nicholas furthermore wrote: �So the idea of having Vespers & Liturgy & Matins as one service, is the wrong order. An innovation, which is more in keeping with the tradition would be to have Vespers and Matins ending with the Divine Liturgy. Never Vespers & Liturgy & Matins. Divine Liturgy is always the summit, the end, the climax of the service, for which a vigil (Vespers & Matins) is a suitable preparation?�

There's no need for innovation; if you want to make sense of the Great Sabbath and Pascha, just follow the Typicon! This would restore things to their late Byzantine splendor, when our rite was at its peak. Unfortunately, nowadays, only in a handful of monasteries is this done close to correctly, but the rubrics that aren't generally followed describe a coherent, sensible set of services:
One needs to understand that the Great sabbath commemorates the time that Christ was dead bodily, and so lasts from vespers on Great Friday to the Midnight Office on the Great Sabbath; the latter is technically on Sunday, of course, but the office is still that of the Great Sabbath, with the same canon used the previous day at Matins and the Tropar in use since two Vespers before it. One also needs to understand that the greater the fast day, the later the Liturgy, and the greater the feast day, the earlier the Liturgy. The latter is pretty much extinct, except on Pascha, but the former is still true, at least in monastic practice.

Below is a quick outline of the vigil; if anyone wants the full rubrics, I'm happy to translate them from the Sabbaite Typicon, published in 1906 in Moscow, that I own.

On Saturday, at the 10th hour of the day, Vespers with the Liturgy of Saint Basil is begun; this should be timed to end at the second hour of the night. If there be no Liturgy (for example, because there is no priest), then after the Trisagion, the troparia are �the Noble Joseph...�, Glory ... �Though Thou didst descend...�, Both now, �The Myrrh-bearing women...�.

After the dismissal, there is the usual blessing of bread and wine: Having censed them, the priest recites the usual prayer �O Lord Jesus Christ our God, having blessed five loaves ...� (Note that no oil is blessed because it is a strict fast day.) Then we eat, each in his place: each is given a round loaf of bread, as though it were a prosphor, six dates or figs, and a measured cup of wine. (Some other options are given in the rubrics, but these are trivial in the scheme of an outline)

During this, the reading of the Acts of the Apostles commences. (Note that this parallels a normal vigil, where there is a reading between Vespers and Matins, when bread and wind that were blessed are consumed; for a Sunday, the New Testament is read: The Acts during Pentecost, then the Epistles until [as I recall ... didn't look this up) the Sunday of the Second Coming, then from the Apocalypse]; Saint John Chrysostom said that the Acts of the Apostles are the greatest proof of the Resurrection.)

The Acts are read until the fourth hour of the night, when the Midnight Office Commences. At this office, the canon of the Great Sabbath is sung ... after the third ode, the sessional �Thy grave, O Saviour...�, Glory ... both now ... the same; and a reading from Epiphanius of Cypress, which begins �What great silence is today, that the King sleeps?� ... after the sixth ode, the kondak and ikos of the Great Sabbath, and the reading from Chrysostom ... After the trisagion, the tropar, �Though Thou didst descend ...� ... and the dismissal of the previous day. (Note that the Typicon does not mention what I have always seen, the taking of the Shroud into the altar at the ninth ode of the canon.)

On the Holy and Great Sunday of Pascha ... a verbose description of the lamp lighting and and other preparations, and the procession around the temple. Pascal Matins. The Hours. The Liturgy. The Blessing of food. The blessing of the Artos. Warnings against bringing meat into the temple and against the Armenian custom of sacrificing a lamb.

I hope this inconsistently edited abridgement of many pages of rubrics is of use to someone in understanding the Byzantine Pascal Vigil services.

Photius, Reader

"In our Eparchy, when an available or "mandated" text does not reconcile with what is directed in the Typikon, the pastor is free to follow the Typikon if he so desires. You can't mandate a Typikon and then turn around and mandate texts that don't agree with it. "

That, Diak, is as irresponsible an answer as I have seen posted on here yet.

Fr. Petras' Typikon is only "mandated" in any eparchy in the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia inasmuch as there is not a contrary statement from the Council of Hierarchs. Fr. Petras would be the first person to tell you that. When the Council of Hierarchs publishes something liturgical, it takes precedence over anything else. And I am certain, because of your level of erudition shown on this list, that you actually know that and are saying something that is manifestly false.

And you may be absolutely certain that I will be pointing this out to your hierarch today by email.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Professor, calling or implying someone to be a liar is quite a strong allegation indeed followed by a threat of tattle-taling.

I would be happy to clarify my statements which were obviously mistaken if, in charity, actually given a chance. It seems the Hierarchs should be responsible for compliance and discipline rather than yourself.

I will and do comply with what my pastor directs, nothing more and nothing less, and if he has a problem rest assured he will take it up with my bishop.

Is the Professor's post - with its explicit threat and implicit invasion of privacy -compliant with the user agreement? I would hope not, as such posts could have a real chilling effect on discussions.

I think calling someone a "liar" is against the rules of the forum, especially since what Diak said was the truth. The "mandated" liturgical book, and the typicon do not agree with each other, that is the simple truth.

That there is confusion is understandable, that is what happens when you decide to change the rules and introduce innovations in the liturgy. Instead of trying to help those struggling with the mandated changes in the Byzantine liturgy, threats are are a poor response.

I am sorry if I have violated the board's TOS.

My statement did not say there was no conflict between the published Typikon of Fr. Petras and the book issued by the Council of Hierarchs. My statement said that, even if the Typikon is authorized for use in a given Eparchy (as it is in the Eparchy of Parma), any direct statement from the Council of Hierarchs "trumps" that general authorization.

This statement is one of a group of statements that have been posted on the Forum that undermine the litrurgical authority of the Council of Hierarchs.

The Hierarchs are, indeed, responsible for both compliance and for discipline. If you had made this sort of statement in a private forum, I would have never heard about it. But if one decides to flaunt episcopal authority and announce it on a public forum, then being challenged on it is, I fear, a legitmate avenue for any member of the Church.

The purpose of letting Bishop John of Parma, or any other hierarch, know of liturgical abberations is to help provide for clearer channels of communication. If there was truly a misunderstanding here, then it needs to not happen again.

Diak also posted on here:

"Nick - please note that this text is for this one unique liturgical convergence. Any bishop has the right to exercise economia in these circumstances, which happens on a regular basis. The pastor ultimately will decide what is the best, most pastorally prudent liturgical order for his parish, and we should support him when he is attempting to do that in accord with the Typikon."

Pastors do not have the authority to change what was mandated by their hierarch. This Forum spends an incredible amount of time talking about the irresponsibility of Roman Catholic priests and their usurpation of liturgical authority which they do not have. This sort of behavior is just as reprehensible among Byzantine Catholics as Roman Catholics. When pastors decide not to do what they have been instructed to do by their hierarch, they are setting a very bad example for the faithful entrusted to their care.

There are many things within the Byzantine tradition that are within the choice of the ecclesiarch. Those are listed in the liturgical books with phrases such as, "as the ecclesiarch wishes." A mandate, however, falls outside of such considerations.

I feel that there is mendacity in these posts. In reviewing the User Agreement, I read the following:

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use The Byzantine Forum to post any material which is unchristian, knowingly false and/or defamatory, accusatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB."

It certainly can be said that my comment about the veracity of Diak's statement (specifically about the Typikon taking precedence over something mandated by the Council of Hierarchs)
is accusatory. The dictionary definition of "defamatory," however, says "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another as by slander or libel; calumny."

From reading the many other posts that Diak has made on this Forum, it appears to me that he speaks with a great deal of authority on liturgical matters. Doing this in an abstract or scholarly way is an exercise in academic freedom. Making public statements that support not following instructions from the Council of Hierarchs leaves the grove of academe and goes instead into the place where obedience is the first responsiblity.

There are any number of things that fall under the liturgical purview of the hierarchs that I may personally disagree with, perhaps even with intensity. But, when push comes to shove, it's not my call. If what is being done seems to be a serious abuse, I would in conscience have to raise my concern with my hierarch. If it was serious enough, I would have to choose between my employment with the Church and my conscience. But nowhere within the purview of priest, cantor, or seminary professor is there an "override" of episcopal authority.

"Professor, calling or implying someone to be a liar is quite a strong allegation indeed followed by a threat of tattle-taling."

If I have misjudged Diak's statement, I apologize, both to him and to the Forum. He has already sent me two private messages today:

"I am having a legal review of your public post done. I believe that is approaching libel."

and

"If anything negative comes of this from Bishop John, rest assured I will share your libellous, demeaning, threatening, and contentious behavior not only with him but all of the hierarchs."

As some of us have learned to our consternation, this IS a public forum. It is not a private club, especially since it bears the name of our church. The disclaimer notwithstanding, people who read this usually think that things here are somehow from the ecclesiastical authorities--and I have heard it quoted in such a manner.

Threatening? Contentious? I think that, despite the fact that we are in Pascha and now reading the Gospel according to St. John, we all (myself included) might read St. Matthew 7: 1-5 with good effect.

If telling a bishop that something is wrong has become "tattle-tailing," we are all in trouble.
And, quite seriously, if nothing is actually wrong, then there is no fear.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

I stand by my statements, Mr. Thompson: As I mentioned, your post was not in any way charitable nor was I given any chance to clarify my statements before your allegations of premediated falsehood, which you clearly did make:

Defamatory? Completely. Did you realize you also ended your post as a representative of the Seminary?

You quite clearly did allege I engaged in a "manifest falsehood" which indeed does approach libellous statements, defamatory, as you have defined. Others picked up on that immediately.

I never overtly recommended anyone to disdain statements from the Council of Hierarchs. If that is implied, it was not intended and I withdraw it. And if it is explicit, I demand it be shown.

Your threats are indeed bullying, and have no place in a public thread, all of your platitudes of quoting the Gospel after you have attempted to defame someone's character aside.

If the Bishop wishes to make a Typicon normative, that is indeed his call, and not yours. You may tell Bishop John what you want, I certainly have no fear of that.

When opinion becomes the stuff of defamation, this Forum is out of control.

Diak,

Your statement does strongly IMPLY authority by the directness without allowance for possibility of opinion contained within the statement:

"In our Eparchy, when an available or "mandated" text does not reconcile with what is directed in the Typikon, the pastor is free to follow the Typikon if he so desires. You can't mandate a Typikon and then turn around and mandate texts that don't agree with it."

While the last sentence postulates an impossibility, there exists the possibility of human error on the part of contrdicting a mandate. You wrote what you considered your opinion without a statement wasthat it is your opinion to clarify the statement where it could be interpreted as a statement of fact.

In this thread I have read postings from many in "authoritative" positions which disagree on a number of liturgical matters. Most of those posting differing opinions have clearly stated that what they write is their opinion.

And that, is my .00000002 cents worth of an opinion.


Steve Petach,
(a nobody when it comes to being an expert)