www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Handling the Holy

Below is the November 2006 [i]�As it is written�� column by Father Patrick Henry Reardon in the November 2006 issue of Touchstone Magazine [touchstonemag.com] . It is reprinted here with the permission of Father Reardon (as author and Senior Editor of the magaizine). Father Reardon is also pastor of All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago. I highly recommend Touchstone Magazine [touchstonemag.com] . It is one of the few publications that I receive that I read cover-to-cover as soon as it arrives each month. I post it here because I believe it speaks very clearly to respect the Liturgy as it was given to us and, as I have said for so long, the need not to reform it but to embrace it, to celebrate it in its full, official form, and to allow it to form us.[/i]

Handling the Holy
by Father Patrick Henry Reardon
Touchstone Magazine, November 2006

ONE OF THE STORIES that have proved troubling to students of holy Scripture over the years is the account of Uzzah, who stretched forth his hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark, we recall, was being carried by oxcart in order to be installed at David's projected new shrine at Jerusalem. Some obstacle, however, perhaps a bump in the road, caused the oxen to lurch, nearly upsetting the cart and putting the Ark in danger. The Bible describes the scene: "Uzzah put out his hand to the Ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the Ark of God" (2 Sam. 6:6-7).

The shock of readers is surely understandable. Wasn't Uzzah's sudden reaction, after all, simply an instinctive response to save the dignity of the Ark? To the extent that we can even describe his deed as intentional, wasn't that intention good and honorable? How is it, then, that the all-seeing Lord, the God who searches hearts, did not look favorably on what Uzzah did?

The problem is not a recent one, and readers of the Bible have pondered it for centuries. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus, writing about the same time as some New Testament authors, explained that Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark, "since he was not a priest" (me on hierus Antiquities of the Jews 7.4.2.81). This explanation of Josephus is based on prescriptions in Numbers 4, which lists the duties of priests and Levites in regard to the treatment and transportation of the Ark.

This interpretation of the event, which does not necessarily imply a conscious moral failing on the part of Uzzah, is essentially sound, I believe. The Ark of God was very holy, and holiness is dangerous.

In this respect it is important to reflect how little we know about the divina, the things of God. The little we do know will prompt us, surely, to be cautious in how we handle them, even in our minds. The things of God are not what we want or imagine them to be. God himself determines what they are, and God has not the slightest concern for our own interpretations of them. Their holiness is real, objective, and even physical. Holiness is likewise not dependent on man's recognition of it. It resembles electricity in this respect. The trespasser who is electrocuted when climbing too high on a high-voltage tower perishes without regard to his own understanding of what he is about, or his innocent intentions, or his personal theories concerning electricity.

David learned this lesson about holiness from the death of Uzzah. Consequently, when the Ark was later returned to Jerusalem, it was borne, not by oxcart, but on the shoulders of the Levites, as it was supposed to be and as God had prescribed (1 Chr. 15:2,15; Dent. 10:8; 31:25; 1 Sam. 6:15).

David perceived what must be perceived by any who would approach the living God in worship. God decides the nature, structure, and spirit of the worship. Our religious feelings - whether by private or corporate preference - do not determine how we worship. The content and form of our worship has been established, rather, by the inherited, authoritative transmission of the worship itself. We hand it on as we have received it. We do not take it upon ourselves to give form to the worship. If we are faithful, the worship gives form to us, and the example of Uzzah instructs us on the peril of acting otherwise.

Correct ("orthodox") worship is not the uninformed, spontaneous outpouring of human activity, and the worshiper must be on guard against identifying his personal impulses with the agency of the Holy Spirit. Undisciplined, off-the-cuff people are far more likely to act under the impulse of suspect and impure spirits than under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, mere spontaneity and a "sense of fulfillment" in worship are neither adequate nor reliable indications of the agency of the Holy Spirit.

David perceived that correct worship is not chiefly concerned with meeting the religious needs and aspirations of human beings, but with the glory of God, which is inseparable from his holiness. The fundamental ground of true worship is not the religious nature of man, but the glorious manifestation of God. Indeed, any worship that is not a response to God's self-revelation must of necessity be idolatrous, the worship of something that man himself creates from the resources of his own religious nature.

www.touchstonemag.com [touchstonemag.com]

This quote from Fr. Patrick is a classic! Thank you posting this article.

Why is it so subversive to suggest that the Byzantine Catholic Church should hand on to the next generation, the Liturgy it has received from tradition? What is so difficult to accept about that?

The revisionists need to really identify what was so wrong with the Liturgy, that they think it needs to be improved.

Maybe Fr. Patrick's words should be printed and sent to our bishops? All we want is to "hand it on as we received it". Is that too much to ask?

Nick

Dear Nick,

The problem is determining what it IS that we have received "from tradition", and what has simply been handed on to us.

On the basis of small-t tradition, one could make an argument for Sanctus bells, ending the Liturgy with a blessing instead of a dismissal, celebrating the Divine Liturgy to the complete exclusion of Vespers and Matins except on great feasts, weekday Liturgies during "Lent", etc.

The problem is that we are trying to shed the last few Latinizations (including some derived from earlier English translations used by the Latins, such as "Glory BE to the Father") and re-acquire authentic Byzantine tradition - such as a fulller liturgical cycle AS WELL AS the use of the vernacular in worship. This means that in at least two senses, we are discarding things that have been "passed on to us".

We have heard similar arguments, for example, AGAINST using more of the psalms at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, saying "the people" are used to the smaller number of psalms they have already memorized.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Last few??? Where do you go to church. Many, many churches in the Cleveland-area only look like Byzantine Churches....the tradition part isn't even factored into things. One parish still has first communions!

We still have, many, many Latinizations that need to go away. Shame on the Bishops for not insisting that they be slowly "forgotten."

Cathy

Dear Jeff,

I must disagree with you. Is Church Slavonic the vernacular in Eastern Europe? Is Koine Greek the vernacular in Greece? No, they are not. They are elevated liturgical languages, embodied with respect and dignity. That is the Orthodox tradition. Should not the english services be elevated beyond the base vernacular, and be something that bestows the Sacredness and Holiness inherent in the Divine Services to all that hear it? That should be the goal, not some common, lowest common denominator english.

Alexandr

Music & Worship: Some Suggestions from the Russian Bishops of 1905*

By Fr. John Shimchick

The missionaries who came to Alaska in the 1700's brought not only the Orthodox faith, but also the Russian approach to the way in which this faith was expressed in worship. From that time on, the standard service books published by the pre-revolutionary Russian Church have been generally accepted as the norm for the liturgical life and practice for many Orthodox churches in America.

While some people look nostalgically back to this period as the "golden age" of Orthodoxy, it is an historic fact that the liturgical situation in pre-revolutionary Russia was not only unsatisfactory, but also chaotic and in need of substantial corrections and changes.[1] This fact is well-established in The Responses of the Diocesan Bishops Concerning the Question of Church Reform,[2] a collection of documents from Russian bishops of the pre-revolutionary era. These "Responses" were prepared in 1905 for the anticipated Great Council (Sobor) of the Russian Church that was eventually held in 1917-1918. While the bishops spoke on many other areas of Church reform, the purpose of this article is to discuss the relationship between their comments on worship and the liturgical situation presently found in America.[3]

The Orthodox faith is experienced, strengthened, and affirmed mainly in worship. Worship is justifiably considered as the best school for the teaching of faith and morality and it bountifully and generously acts on all the powers and capacities of the soul. But, in order for it to accomplish this, all believers must directly and actively be able to participate in it. It must take hold and draw them by its contents and celebration and become an indispensable yearning. It is terribly unfortunate, however, that one cannot say this about the worship of the Russian Orthodox Church" (II, p.454).

With these words, Bishop Nazarius of Nizhni-Novgorod not only introduced his own remarks about worship, but summarized what many of his fellow bishops felt and expressed. They understood the important position worship occupied in the life of the Church and realized, as well, how far it was from fulfilling this responsibility.

Several bishops excellently described what was no doubt the liturgical situation throughout much of pre-revolutionary Russia. Bishop Constantine of Samara wrote that:

The people have no true prayers. They patiently stand for whole hours through the worship in the church, but this is not prayer since the feeling of prayer cannot be sustained for whole hours without an understanding of the words of prayer, and the words of the service in the church are above the understanding of the people. Divine worship is incomprehensible to the people not only because it is celebrated in the Church Slavonic language and with hurried readings, but also simply because a certain measure of theological education is needed to understand it.

Orthodox worship is a great treasure if we compare our church's chants with the rather shallow Lutheran hymns and someday all the Orthodox will take advantage of this. Nevertheless, at present this is still a treasure "concealed within the village walls," while the people are spiritually starving and impoverished having no prayer within reach of their understanding, except the litanies and to some extent the akathists, which the people love so much just because they are somewhat understood. It is necessary to educate the people so that they will consider not just the bows and the sign of the cross, not just mechanical readings or the hearing of the incomprehensible words of the psalter, troparia and sticheras as forms of prayer. What can be done so that the corporate worship, in the church, which in Greece was once such a perfect way of satisfying the spiritual needs of prayer, should again be turned into a truly prayerful attitude of worship? (I, p. 440)

Bishop Gury of Simbirsk offers a similar description:

Orthodox worship is one of the main expressions of love for God and the best school for development of the community spirit among the members of the parish, for here in the church hundreds of souls become one in praises, thanksgivings and supplications which unite the souls of the shepherd and his flock, the clergy and the people. This, at least, must be the ideal. Unfortunately, the present situation of Orthodox worship does not fully promote this merging of souls of the pastors and their flocks. Without mentioning the many defects in our worship, which are related to the abuses in the manner in which it is celebrated (extreme hastiness, unintelligible reading and singing, distraction in the celebration of worship and an absence of prayerful feeling in the people themselves) one cannot help but direct his attention to a feature of our worship which, through being sanctified by church practice, leads to the separation of the clergy and people. While the clergy offer their hymns of thanksgiving, supplication, and glorification the people are reduced to the role of passive listeners. Hence, there exits a striking difference in spirit among the laity who, on the one hand, attend services in Orthodox churches and those who attend "non-Orthodox" sectarian) churches and the difference is not in our favor (II, p. 20).

Many of the bishops referred to the church and particularly worship as the main school for Christians. Bishop Ioanniky of Archangel seemed to sense and express the real implication behind this image and its relation to the liturgical language. He wrote:

Worship is a powerful means of influence which the pastor has on his flock, and it has a religious, moral, and educational meaning. However, it will fully reach its goal only when it will be celebrated in a language which is understandable for all, that is, in the native Russian language. Holy Scripture says, "Sing to God with understanding." The apostles preached and prayed with the believers in all languages. We have in Russia the translation of the liturgy into Latvian, Zirian, Mordovian, but worship is not celebrated in our own native language. The sectarians lead some astray precisely because their worship is simple, comprehensible and served in Russian. The church building ought to be a school for the Orthodox layman, and the worship celebrated within it ought to be a series of individual lessons in Christian life, since here a man learns not only what he must do, but also what he must think and feel.

What can be said for a school that conducts its classes in an incomprehensible language? Every sensible person would say that such a school would be of little use, and would have little influence on its pupils. The Orthodox Church in Russia is, in this case, in a worse situation than all of the other schools for the people; everywhere, in all schools, instruction is carried out in a generally comprehensible language; only in the church is worship celebrated in the partially understood and for many even completely unintelligible Slavonic language. Being splendid in content, it remains incomprehensible, and as a result, does not have the desired influence on the simple people. Therefore, it would be useful to substitute Russian in place of the Slavonic language. Such a change will give many the great joy of participating in worship often, not just by standing in church, but by taking part with knowledge (I, pp. 335-336).

Another area mentioned by the bishops concerned the structure of worship as indicated by the Typikon and the way that this was arbitrarily being practiced. Bishop Michael of Minsk wrote that:

The entire compilation of our present worship did not appear at one time. On the contrary, our worship has endured many alterations: from simple prayers, orders, and rites that existed at the time of the apostles, it has undergone constant stratification and additions and now appears in a complicated and many-layered form, intended for numerous hours. In order to celebrate our worship as is meant, without hurrying and distinctly, one would need seven hours to complete the All-Night Vigil before a feast day, three hours for the liturgy, and another two hours for vespers, which adds up to twelve hours. This is celebrated at a few monasteries - and only a few at that.

In some places where it is celebrated according to the rules, with all of the proper readings and hymns, the natural weakness of the clergy forces them to shorten it by hurrying and as a result the readings and hymns are irreverently and incomprehensibly rendered. From this one can conclude that out of the 50,000 Russian churches in the empire, worship is celebrated in 49,000 of them with extremely arbitrary abbreviations and also hastiness and very poor reading and singing (I, pp. 41-42).

Bishop Nazarius of Nizhni-Novgorod added:

Obviously, this matter does not simply concern the good or bad training of the readers and singers. There was a time when "psalm-reader" positions were assumed only by those people who had finished a seminary course of study; but even then it was not much better. The situation does usually improve in those places where the rectors themselves are concerned about the best execution of the reading and singing and have the support of the other "clerics" ("psalm-readers" and others who help with the services) who in return welcome the pious zeal of the rectors . . . However, it seems that in most cases the liturgical service becomes a profession or formal job for the "clerics" and not something in which they direct all their energy. This leads to their coldness and indifference towards it and also, as a result, to the meaningless abbreviations of the services. Many of these abbreviations, because they were done so long ago and have been spread around to such an extent, have become accepted everywhere as normal and proper � and almost no one notices that they do not make any sense. The soul of one who does notice this mourns, grumbles and is filled with indignation. Here are some examples of the abbreviations:

1. At the Vigil:

The Opening Psalm "Bless the Lord, O My Soul" (104)

First Kathisma (Blessed is the Man)

Polyeleion Psalms (Praise the Name of the Lord)

Praises, before "Glory to God in the Highest"

The First Hour, when it begins directly with "Holy God, Holy Mighty."

2. At the Liturgy:

The Antiphons (Bless the Lord, O My Soul and the others)

The usual practice in numerous cases is to sing some parts of the verses which are selected from the Psalms without any connection between the logical meaning and the structure. But everyone gets so accustomed to these abridgements that no one thinks about it and simply accepts them as being necessary and even appointed (II, pp. 454-458).

The Deanery Assembly of the Shenkursk Province (Archangel Diocese) wrote:

The Typikon, according to which the services must be celebrated, is only carried out in monasteries; in the parishes there is so much which is omitted, depending on the arbitrariness of the clergy, that the fair though offensive saying has come about that: "Each priest has his own Typikon." Therefore it is necessary to develop a special Parish Typikon (I, p. 403).

Bishop Eusebius of Vladivostok felt that guidelines were needed to regulate the already existing, though unofficial, "Parish Typikon." He wrote:

I would like to point out the desirability of introducing uniformity into the celebration of worship in view of the fairly long existence of a generally practiced and deviated form of the Typikon. This form is handed down in the village and city churches not according to a written, but oral tradition and could be recognized as a "Parish Typikon." On the one hand, it must be acknowledged that this abridged Typikon for parishes obviously is caused by the demands of life itself and the absence of a non-monastic Typikon. But on the other hand, all of these deviations, while being reinforced by long practice, still have not attained widespread agreement and uniformity.

As a result, this leaves a great deal of room for the personal and often completely arbitrary discretion of the negligent and shrewd pastors who usually justify themselves by saying that we do not have a monastery here, that abbreviations are done in all parishes and that if the services drag on for too long then the worshippers will not come. If it is necessary to shorten the Typikon, then it would be better to show some definite guidelines (IV, p. 202).

Many of the bishops also pointed out that liturgical music had an important role in making worship accessible to the people and in encouraging congregational participation.

Bishop John of Poltava wrote:

In regard to worship, both singing and reading have the same essential meaning and both should be understandable and prayerful. However, this prayerful liturgical character now is frequently disturbed by the musical rendition of the hymnography which was created on a basis alien to the spirit of our Church. There are musical arrangements which are completely foreign to this humble and reverently prayerful character, such as "Our Father" ascribed to Mozart, "Open to Me the Doors of Repentance" by Vedel and others which are unfit for worship.

There are such arrangements which, because of their artistic execution, draw the attention of listeners more to their aesthetical than prayerful side, as seen, for example in Grechaninov's recent composition of "The Creed" for solo voice and most of the "concert" pieces. Such compositions are unsuitable for use in church. They offer truly beautiful harmonizations, but undermine the spirit of man which is turned to God. Instead of the spiritual movement toward the One who is everywhere, as appears in the intense elevation of our minds and hearts toward God, we get musical enjoyment instead. The result turns out to be a religious concert, but it is not prayer. Probably everyone who examines his own prayer life during the singing of this type will find that what has been said is correct (II, p. 334).

Bishop George of Astrakhan added:

It is necessary to turn our attention to liturgical singing and to use only those chants which are strictly in conformity with the spirit of Orthodox worship. Those presently selected now exhibit great arbitrariness and disorder. The pieces chosen are highly embellished, flowery, and in the spirit of Italian music, which, as a result, sometimes turn the church of God into a musical hall, and a religiously-prayerful spirit into one that is more concerned with artistic and aesthetical matters (I, p. 323).

Bishop Antoni (Khrapovitskii) of Volhynia felt that in order to do something about the condition of church music, one must first deal with those whom he felt are really in charge of the services. He wrote that:

The diocesan councils must discuss how to adorn the divine worship to God by its correct performance, how to manage the chief "regulators;" of our present worship that is, the choir directors), and generally, how to change its present and confused state. The order of each festal service is dependent not upon the priest or even on the "psalm-reader" but upon a hired "expert" from a secular background who is completely ignorant and often a disgrace. During the service there is almost nothing that remains the same, but everything is abandoned in favor of two or three disgusting "concert" numbers that are not appointed by the Typikon (I, p.134).

Bishop Constantine of Samara wrote about congregational singing:

We must restore singing to the state it should and formerly did have. It is necessary to renew in the minds of the people the notion that congregational singing is the norm, and that choral singing is only a substitution for this, just as the work of cantors only replaces the choir in those situations where a community is unable to have a choir. The idea of the choir as only a replacement for congregational singing, whenever it is impractical for the whole church to sing something (depending on the existing conditions of time and place), must be taught to the people through worship in cathedrals and in the churches of the ecclesiastical schools where the worshippers would mostly consist of students.

Congregational singing can begin most easily with the singing of psalms, using melodies that are not very complicated and fairly well known. The text could be published with divisions into musical phrases (as when the stichera are published) so that all churches would be able to utilize it in worship. After the psalms, one could use some of the various hymns that make up daily worship and whose melodies are known throughout the whole church. For example: "O Gladsome Light," "St. Simeon's Prayer," "Only Begotten Son," "Glory to God in the Highest," "Holy God," and "Come, Let us Worship" (I, pp. 440-441).

The Deanery Report of the Onezh Province (Archangel Diocese) concluded:

It is desirable to introduce the practice of singing some of the psalms such as "I will bless the Lord at all times," Ps 34) and "Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy," (Ps 51) so that those parishioners who would like could sing them during Holy Communion . . . In addition, it would be good to teach all parishioners the following hymns: "The Creed," "The Anaphora - It is meet and right; Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth!; We praise Thee," "It is Truly Meet," and "Our Father." These hymns should especially be taught to school children, who will be able to continually sing them as they grow older (I, p. 339).

Bishop Gury of Simbirsk, while encouraging the introduction of congregational singing, realized that "it will not be very organized (especially at the beginning); but what a change for the better can come about in the spirit of the faithful!" (II, p. 20)

As we have seen, the Russian bishops touched upon many aspects of worship. Their "Responses" reflected the desire that worship should be intelligible, that the congregation must be able to participate in it, and finally that it must return to its role as the "school" for the teaching of the Christian faith. Andrew Kuharsky, an Orthodox layman, once listed some of the problems that he has experienced in contemporary Orthodox worship.[4] These included such things as: lack of uniformity in the celebration, careless and hurried reading and singing, the need for a parish typikon, the problems of liturgical language, and the need for congregational singing. Not much has changed since the Russian bishops submitted their "Responses" almost 90 years ago! The problems are the same, and they concern not only the topic of worship, but the typical approach of Orthodox people toward their faith. How does a church which prides itself in tradition recognize creativity and change? Is the Church the preservation of customs and identity or is it the living continuity of the faith of the apostles of Jesus Christ? Are the unchangeable essentials of this faith accessible to every age?

These are the questions which we as Orthodox Christians (and not just liturgical musicians) must face. These are the questions which we, unlike the bishops of 1905, (who were prevented by the Russian Revolution from even further discussing), have the possibility of answering.



NOTES:

[1] Fr. Alexander Schmemann, "On the Question of Liturgical Practices - A Letter to My Bishop," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, l7:3/1973, pp. 227-38.
[2] 0tzyvy eparkhial'nykh arkhireey po voprosam o tserkovnoi reforme, 3 vols. St. Petersburg, 1906, and supplement (contains a total of 79 reports from 64 bishops).

[3] Various aspects of these documents have been studied:
� Fr. John Meyendorff briefly presented the background and outlined some areas of their discussion in "Russian Bishops and Church Reform in 1905," Catholicity and the Church, (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983), pp. 143-156.

� James W. Cunningham studied in great detail the documents and the movement for Church renewal in Russia (1905-1906) in A Vanquished Hope, (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981).

� Liturgical reform has been discussed by Nicholas Zernov, "The Reform of the Church and the Pre-revolutionary Russian Episcopate," St Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, 6:1962, pp. 128-138, and in The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century, (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1963), pp. 53-85.

[4] "Lipservice to the Lord," The Orthodox Church, May, 1984.

+
*This article was originally featured in Orthodox Church Music, Number 2, 1985, pp. 3-8 (published by The Department of Liturgical, Orthodox Church in America.)

Most of the material was taken from the author�s unpublished master's thesis prepared for St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary (1980) entitled, The Responses of the Russian Episcopate Concerning Worship, 1905, and the Liturgical Situation in America. [This is available from the Theological Research Exchange Network - TREN.]

Alexandr,

Old Slavonic and Koine Greek are about as intelligible to Modern Slavic and Greek speakers as Middle English is to Modern English speakers, not very. And it this why there is constant agitation for the Liturgies to be taken in Modern Russian and Greek.

Old Slavonic and Koine Greek are the tradition? What of Arabic, Romanian, Albanian, Georgian, Finnish, Aleut, Tlingit, English, Spanish, and others that are currently used. It is the Litrugy that bestows sacredness and holiness to the language not the language to the Liturgy. Good formal English should be used but one does not need to use archaic English to use good English.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Many have stated that the Byzantine Liturgy is not in need of reform. The above shows that many have thought it has for quite some time. Below is an even more concise vision of what was considered to need reform in the Byzantine Liturgy, excerpted from: ON THE QUESTION OF LITURGICAL PRACTICES A Letter to My Bishop by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, which I have linked to many times but people must be dismissing and not reading it because they keep asking question answered by it.

"Worship," writes, for example, Bishop Seraphim of Polotsk, "is performed by clergy, and as to the people-even if they pray during services, their prayer remains private and not corporate for it usually has no link, external or internal, to what is going on in the church" (I, 176). Almost unanimously the Bishops who write on liturgical matters ask for a parish typikon distinct from the monastic one, since the obvious impossibility to comply with the latter results, according to Bishop Michael of Minsk, in "49,000 parishes celebrating irregular worship." They ask for the shortening of services, "which have become incomprehensible and therefore boring," for the revision of rubrics, and for new translations-from Church Slavonic into Russian. They see the need for certain changes in the Divine Liturgy itself. It is indeed the apostle of American Orthodoxy, the future Patriarch Tikhon then Bishop of North America, who suggests "abolishing certain litanies which are repeated much too often" and "the reading aloud of secret prayers" (I, 537), and he is seconded by several others: Evlogy of Warsaw ("one should without any question abolish litanies for catechumens," II, 287), Constantine of Samara (I, 441) etc. "It is imperative," writes Gregory of Astrach, "to revise the Typikon. This book. . not revised since 1682, has acquired in the eyes of the zealots the character of something eternal, dogmatic and unchangeable. . . . And precisely because of this it ceased to regulate worship. . . . It is essential to revise it in the light of the perfectly legitimate needs of the faithful so that it may again become operative and understandable. Such a revision is perfectly in continuity with the past practice of the Church in this area" (I, 324). Clearly the Russian Bishops see in the nominal, incomprehensible, and often defective worship the source of the people's alienation from the Church, of the growing success of the sects, and of the progressive dechristianization of Russian society.

The Russian Sobor of 1917-18, in preparation for which these reports were written was interrupted before it could deal with liturgical questions. It is permissible to think, however, that one of the reasons for the massive apostasy of the Russian people from the Church is to be found precisely in the state of worship so lucidly and pastorally diagnosed by the Russian Bishops long before the Revolution, And if today among certain Russians deeply wounded by the revolutionary collapse there exists the tendency to idealize-almost fanatically-the pre-revolutionary state of the Russian Church, including her liturgical life, there is no reason for us to make ours their emotional rejection of historical evidence, their blind pseudo-conservatism, and their plain ignorance. Applicable to them are the words written as early as 1864 by one of the pioneers of Russian liturgical scholarship, Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov:

For such people the order of worship with which they are familiar is the original and unchanging order. Why? Because they wholly ignore the history of Church life and, obsessed with themselves, cherish only that which they know. History clearly shows that in liturgical matters the Church dealt with reasonable freedom: she adopted new forms when she saw that the old arrangements were not altogether useful and there was need for a change.... Here, as in other matters, she neither accepted the rule of those who, according to apostolic institutions, are to be disciples and not teachers, nor did she allow herself to go into deep sleeping but paid great attention to the needs of the time and the demands of souls. ..."

Deacon Lance,

You would make a wonderful apologist for the Living Church Schism in the 1920's and 30's, the Obnovlencheskaya Tserkov. Your quoting indicates a lack of understanding of the Renovationist movement in the Russian Church. Firstly, your source is derived from St. Vladimir's, which is of the Evlogian School of thought, and is, unfortunately, derived from many of the false ideas and concepts of the Living Church. These concepts and renovations were adamantly oppose by the likes of St. Patriarch Tikhon, St. John of Kronstadt, St Metropolitan Peter of Kruitsa, St Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, Metropolitan Anthony Krapovitsky, and numerous others. The source of most of Fr Shimchick's thesis is Nikolai Zernov, a writer of questionable Orthodoxy, and a virulent ecumenist, and hardly one to approach the concept of the Church with a patristic eye. You are using as an argument, the arguments put forth by the revisionists in the Orthodox Church. As I have stated in the past, just because someone else is doing it, does not make it correct. Are you aware that these same people called for a married episcopate, moving the altar to the middle of the church, and other monstrosities. Are you aware that in 1934, the Renovationist Synod issued an infamous decision declaring the �allegiance to the old church�(Starotserkovniechestvo), i.e. the Patriarchal Church, to be a �heresy� and a �schism�. The mastermind behind that �ingenious� decision, Metropolitan Nikolai (Platonov) of Leningrad resigned from episcopacy in 1938, publicly denounced the faith and became an infamous propagator of atheism. Such good company you are proposing us to keep.

No, dear Deacon lance. These excuses have been tried in the past. But the very gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. If you are interested in learning more of the Russian Church, and it's history pm me and I'll refer you. And trust me, it won't be to St Vlad's, the St Sergius Institue, or to Schmemmann and Meyendorff and company.

Alexandr

Hold your horses there Deacon Lance. Are you a speaker of a Slavic tongue that you can state that Slavonic is unintelligable to one who is? Or are you just repeating what someone else is telling you? I guarantee you that I can go to any babyshka in Presov, or Michalovce, read her the Gospel in Slavonic, and she'll comprehend it totally. Please do not assume to speak for those of us who are Slavic speaking. And where is this "constant agitation" for the Liturgies to be put in the vernacular, other than in the daydreams of the revisionists?

Alexandr

Jeff,

We seem to be on opposites of many issues!

To me there does not seem to be anything in your post that is relevant to the article. Your post does not speak to Tradition at all. It might be useful to discuss what you have posted in a new thread. For now I will only make a few comments.

There are those who keep saying that there is a problem determining what our liturgical tradition is. I just don�t understand why some find this to be a problem. In the first part of the last century the Ruthenian bishops asked Rome to do the research and publish authoritative editions of our liturgical books. Rome has done so. We most certainly know what has been �handed down� to us because we have official, authoritative books that tell us. We have instructions from Rome telling us to follow the official books. Where exactly is the problem? Why do our bishops continue to reject Rome�s clear direction? Why are we so afraid or embarrassed of our own liturgical tradition? What we should do is to take a few generations to bring the style of celebration of the Divine Liturgy up the official standard, while also renewing the other Divine Services (Vespers and Matins). That way our Church can be formed anew by the Liturgy. Why is this so offensive to the small number in our Church that is attempting to force revisions to the Liturgy?

Please keep in mind that the proposed revised Liturgy is LESS faithful to the 1942 standard that the current 1964/1965 edition.

The issue of whether we use �Glory be to� or �Glory to� is not one of Latinization. It is a matter of translation style. The usage comes to both us and the Roman Catholics from the Book of Common Prayer. Common translations of texts that are common to East and West should be simple common sense.

Also, there is no standard in the Orthodox world for �Glory to�. Much (if not all) of Mother Mary / Bishop Kallistos [Ware]�s work employs �Glory be�. On the matter of translation style one hopes that both East and West will someday have a single translation of common texts.

I don�t remember anyone making such an argument. My recommendation (which some have intentionally twisted) is to present a full and accurate text without an artificial assigning of psalms to particular days of the week. Such an artificial division takes away from people that which they are comfortable with, which they have memorized. Stability in Liturgy is important. Over time the missing psalms can be added. But don�t take away that which people have memorized and love to pray.

But again none of what you have written speaks to what the article is taking about.

John

Alexandr,

The above bishops were not associated with the Living Church Schism. The same Patriarch St. Tikhon you claim was admantly opposed himself suggested "abolishing certain litanies which are repeated much too often" and "the reading aloud of secret prayers".

Now if you reject the above reports because they come from those with some association to the "Evlogian" school, you will understand my rejection of the ROCOR school's claims.

As to modern Slavic speakers understanding Church Slavonic I have found there to be two opinions. ROCOR's, which says every Slavic speaker can understand Church Slavonic just fine and everybody else who says they understand only bits and pieces. Please excuse me if I choose to believe the majority.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Liturgical Instruction clearly tells us to first restore then renew.

At this point in time the idea of whether the Liturgy is in need of reform is irrelevant. Our Church should not be so arrogant to attempt to reform 1) that which we do not know or can even pretend to know because we have not celebrated it and 2) that which is the common property of all (there are numerous parts of the Liturgical Instruction that speak directly to the requirement to work with other Churches).

The Liturgy will certainly continue to develop over the generations. There is absolutely no need for our tiny, local Byzantine Church to move away from the rest of the Byzantine Church on Liturgy.

Of course, the few in our Church attempting to force a revison simply ignore the Vatican directives as well as common sense.

John

Very little of this discussion has anything to do with the original article.

Let me give a reflection on the story above with regard to the issue of revising the Liturgy (quoting extensively from the article but without italics or quotes so that the point is clear).

The oxen carrying the Ark had stumbled. The Ark was in danger of falling. Uzzah did what he thought was the good and honorable thing � he reached out to keep the Ark from falling. But he was struck down dead. Why? Because it was not his place to touch the Ark.

Our Church in America has stumbled. It is in danger of dying. Our past bishops did what they thought was a good and honorable thing � they ordered the Liturgy to be celebrated in ways that they thought made sense at the time. And our Church began to die. Why? Because it was not their job to revise the Litugy. Now we have new bishops. They are also good and honorable men. They see that our Church is dying. They make what they believe is a good and honorable attempt to revise the Liturgy, imitating ideas that the Latins experimented with. They seek to improve the Liturgy according to their standards, or at least make it relevant to 21st century America. It will not work. Why? Because the Liturgy is not theirs to revise. So long as we do not embrace what is ours, what has been �handed down� to us through the authoritative transmission of Divine Worship, we will continue to die.

To adapt the author a bit, the Liturgy is a thing of God. It is not what we want or imagine it to be. God himself determines what the [Liturgy] is, and God has not the slightest concern for our own interpretation of what [Liturgy] is. � The content and form of our worship has been established, rather, by the inherited, authoritative transmission of the worship itself. We hand it on as we have received it. We do not take it upon ourselves to give form to the worship. If we are faithful, the worship gives form to us, and the example of Uzzah instructs us on the peril of acting otherwise.

It�s not about us or what we think about Liturgy, or even what we get out of it.

It�s about God and what He does with Liturgy.

So long as we choose to keep tinkering with the Liturgy and refuse to embrace what has been handed down as it has been handed down authoritatively our Church will continue to die.

Comments on the article anyone?

Dear Deacon Lance,

The litanies that St Tikhon advocated abolishing were the extended catechumenate litanies and the litanies for the preservation from natural calamities, normally said at time of disaster, but found their way into common practice.

Allow me to correct you. There is no ROCOR school. There is the Russian Orthodox School, and there is the Evlogian, which adopted such teachings as Sophiology, Bulgakovism, Berdyaevism and other such rubbish.

As to your last comment,"As to modern Slavic speakers understanding Church Slavonic I have found there to be two opinions. ROCOR's, which says every Slavic speaker can understand Church Slavonic just fine and everybody else who says they understand only bits and pieces. Please excuse me if I choose to believe the majority"
you are stating what you believe, and what you have been told, I am telling you what I know. Any semi literate Russian, Ukranian, Serb, Bulgar, or Rusnak can comprehend Slavonic. Pushkin is rife with Slavonic phrasing, as is most Russian literature. But as an non slavic speaker, you have no way of knowing this, thus are relying on what others are telling you. Saying that Slavs cannot understand Slavonic is like saying Americans cannot understand King James English. Rise above provincial American thinking and look at the situation world wide, and you will see.

Alexandr