|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,614
Members6,171
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
It seems to me that this order makes perfect sense. There should be only one Divine Liturgy each day (and this really does builds up the parish). I hate to disagree with the Administrator, and while I agree with the Administrator's point, it is not strong enough. It is not a question of 'should'. There musn't be a second Divine Liturgy. It is against the law, and against the Typikon, and against the theology of the Eastern Churches for there to be a second Divine Liturgy. It makes a mockery of eastern Eucharistic theology. It is wrong, and illegal, ...and illegal for a good reason. The priest should refuse to celebrate twice, the people should refuse to attend a priest's second Divine Liturgy, and the bishops should enforce the laws of the Church. These rules are there for a reason. Ignoring the rules of the Church is the root of so many problems, all of our own making, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. I'm not just talking about the Liturgy here! But it is true about the Liturgy as much as everything else. If we think we know better than the law, better than the canons, better than the fathers, and better than the Tradition.... our arrogance will seal our fate. Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 97
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 97 |
If I only had the Delorian from the "Back to the Future" movies, I would go back in time to Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 9:51 PM and tell myself to find something else to do other than start this discussion on The Byzantine Forum.
The purpose of my original post was to try and explore the decision of some of our parishes to adopt the "Pastoral Option" from Father David's Typicon with regard to the celebration of additional Vesperal Liturgies (other than those traditionally prescribed) was an organic development of our Church and whether or not our Orthodox brothers and sisters are following suit if it is, indeed, an example of growth.
Aside from the responses from Father Anthony & the Administrator, both of which attempted to explore this topic a little bit, this entire discussion degenerated into a debate about whether multiple Divine Liturgies should be celebrated on a given day or whether the Divine Liturgy should be celebrated in the evening. (Based on some of what has happened in past discussions on this Forum, I guess I should not be surprised that so few people were actually able to read and respond to the questions at hand.)
I am still hopeful that other intelligent people may want to explore this topic because, in my opinion, the organic growth of our Liturgy is something that should be of profound importance to any Community of Faith.
In our Metropolia, Father David's Typicon is an excellent resource - and is something with which more of our Faithful (not just the Clergy & Cantors) should familiarize themselves. The Order of Services is an integral part of our Faith, and more people should make an earnest effort to understand "why we do what we do" in Church.
My final comment: In my post on Friday, 12/08 at 1:08 PM, I made an error in the explaining the order of services for Christmas (when it falls on a Monday) according to the prescriptions of our traditional Typicon. It [color:#FF0000]should have read:
DEC 24TH (AM) - Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (for Sunday)
DEC 24TH (PM) - Vespers without Liturgy
DEC 24TH (PM) - Great Compline, followed immediately by Matins
DEC 25TH (AM) - Liturgy of St. Basil the Great
I'm sure someone would have eventually caught the error, so I thought it important enough to post a correction. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Dear Cantor JFK,
I apologize for my diversion about two Liturgies. Clearly that is only the answer to why it would not be suitable to have a Vesperal Liturgy of Saint Basil on Sunday evening. (This year, Christmas falling on Monday).
But the more general question is a good one, and I am sorry if I distracted attention.
Is the pastoral provision for 'Vesperal Liturgies' an organic development? Is it something that the Church should consider? I think it is a very good question.
May I offer a contribution to that point? I do not think it is a legitimate pastoral option, or an example of possible organic development. It is an invention, and an unhelpful one.
There are certain days when such a Vesper-Liturgy is advised by the Typikon. (days before Pascha, Theophany and Christmas, and Holy Thursday). Remember every time the Eucharist is received, then the fast is broken, and food is permitted.
These traditional days are days of radical penance, when the fasting is so strict that nothing at all is eaten before these late Liturgies. The one before Pascha is held at the latest hour, because it is the day of strictest fasting. The one on Holy Thursday, Christmas and Theophany Eve is a little earlier, because the fasting is not as severe. Even in the most radical case (Holy Saturday), I believe the Typikon advises the hour of two or three in the afternoon. If you have fasted from midnight, and then tried to cantor such a long service, then you know that your strength will be failing by 4 or 5 in the afternoon, when the Liturgy will be concluded, and you will be permitted to eat. Clearly these are very exceptional days of prayer, fasting, when our whole lives are given over to prayerful preparation for major feasts or celebrations, and the fasting is quite exceptional. This is the reason for the exceptional directions of the Typikon.
Are we really suggesting making every Saturday, a day of greater penance, greater abstinence, day long fasting in preparation for the Liturgy and the reception of the Mysteries? It is quite an undertaking, and I cannot imagine anyone seriously suggesting it.
The normal hour for Vespers in parish settings (sometime between 5 and 7 p.m.) makes it an entirely unreal expectation on the clergy who must fast in order to celebrate. Such radical fasting, even for those used to it, is a great effort. For busy clergy, anxious about all the weekend duties in a typical parish, it is certainly unwise, and their doctors, friends, and family would probably object!
Apart from the clergy, I cannot imagine many people who would be able to fast for 18 hours to receive communion, and to have them come to Liturgy without anyone coming to communion is hardly a good idea.
Let the clergy eat after a Saturday morning Liturgy, they need to be healthy and at strength for the weekend services of Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy.
You don't have to fast before Vespers, so let the clergy just celebrate Vespers in the evening, which is the tradition... as prescribed in the Typikon.
It is a bad innovation, because the fasting it would demand is not appropriate or wise. The Typikon doesn't really allow it. And no spiritual father I know would give a blessing to that kind of fasting.
To have such a Vesperal Liturgy regularly on a Saturday is not a good idea. With the exception of Great Saturday, no Saturday is such an extraordinary day of fasting. Even in Lent, the Liturgy is permitted on Saturday morning, and the fasting regime is lightened because of the special character of Saturday. This would be a major change to the historical nature of Saturday, a day of moderation even in the Great Fast.
To have a Vesperal Liturgy on the eve of other feast days, would be to make the feast equal to or greater than Christmas, Theophany, or even Pascha, where there is no total fast on the vigil until 5 or 6 p.m. the day before.
No, the Typikon is wise, logical, and well thought out. We can't just go offering improvements and options, without changing the theology that framed the Typikon.
It is that Typikon we need to recover, and that theology we need to study and live.
Again, I am sorry for speaking only about the special case this Christmas eve, where a second Liturgy would be utter nonsense. I hope I have offered some thoughts more on the topic title, and the question you ask. If I have missed the mark again, please forgive me.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 97
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 97 |
Nick:
Thanks for taking the time to respond again.
I agree that it does seem that the Vesperal Liturgy served a very practical pastoral need by giving the Faithful an opportunity to end their "Strict Fast" through the reception of the Eucharist at the Vesperal Liturgy on the eve of a Great Feast (e.g., Theophany, Christmas, Pascha).
Father David's Typicon also states: "...the original reason for this special form of Vespers, namely, that two Liturgies may be served on the same day has fallen into disuse."
Perhaps Father David (presuming he has read some of this discussion) could share his thoughts, but it seems that the "Pastoral Option" in the Typicon for additional Vesperal Liturgies might be an adaptation of the principle above to fit the modern practice where the Divine Liturgy is more frequently multiplied in the parish setting.
That might not, however, take into consideration the other suggested historical reason for the existence of the Vesperal Liturgy, which is linked to the Fasting Periods before the Great Feasts of our Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Sometimes organic developments are highly desirable - and sometimes organic developments are cancerous. I'm still not sure that I even understand the reason which prompts a desire to have an evening Divine Liturgy on 24 December when that day falls on a Sunday. But it seems unlikely that any reason could be particularly plausible.
One must also ask "organic development from what?" The prescription currently found in the Typicon - that when the Vigil of the Nativity or the Vigil of the Theophany falls on a Sunday there is to be the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom on Sunday morning, Vespers with no Divine Liturgy, then the Vigil service, and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil on the feast itself - grows organically from the rule that Sunday is never a fast day. The desire for what will turn out to be a "second Liturgy" on such a Sunday is an organic development from neglect of fasting in general and the Eucharistic Fast in particular.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 97
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 97 |
Sometimes organic developments are highly desirable - and sometimes organic developments are cancerous. I'm still not sure that I even understand the reason which prompts a desire to have an evening Divine Liturgy on 24 December when that day falls on a Sunday. But it seems unlikely that any reason could be particularly plausible.
One must also ask "organic development from what?" The prescription currently found in the Typicon - that when the Vigil of the Nativity or the Vigil of the Theophany falls on a Sunday there is to be the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom on Sunday morning, Vespers with no Divine Liturgy, then the Vigil service, and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil on the feast itself - grows organically from the rule that Sunday is never a fast day. The desire for what will turn out to be a "second Liturgy" on such a Sunday is an organic development from neglect of fasting in general and the Eucharistic Fast in particular.
Fr. Serge
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
It appears that you and I have the same position on this one, as I do not see any benefit whatsoever to "innovate" and celebrate a Vesperal Liturgy when the Vigil of the Nativity falls on a Sunday (or, for that matter, to celebrate a Vesperal Liturgy every week on Saturday Evening in anticipation of Sunday).
Many priests of our Metropolia seem to like the concept of additional Vesperal Liturgies and have already adopted this practice in their parishes - so it seems that our position might place us in the minority (at least with our present company).
The concern that I am beginning to have is that many of the Faithful and Clergy in these parishes don't even seem to know that this is an innovative practice - and actually believe they are being faithful to the prescriptions of our traditional Typicon.
Again, thank you for responding. It is always a glad pleasure to "read" from you on these topics and to learn your perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135 |
Cantor JKF,
The number of priests jumping on the Vesperal Liturgy bandwagon is only about 10%.
JD
|
|
|
|
|
