www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Holy Saturday Divine Liturgy

I am trying to learn more about this service. I found another article calling it a sort of liturgical high point. I like the service, but why is the Gospel reading chosen as it is from Matthew 28, since this reading clearly depicts the risen Lord on the earth? If we are liturgically not quite yet ready to break the fast and sing and greet one another with "Christ is risen" why is it that we embrace this particular Gospel reading in this particular service which I thought was more about the Lord conquering Hades, while not yet appearing Resurrected on earth?

Actually, the hymns "of Holy Saturday" sung at the Vespers service, portrays the Abyss as crying out in complaint at what Christ has ALREADY done - that is, the freeing of Adam and Eve and the other just souls which is shown in the icon of the Resurrection. At the same service (Vespers and Divine Liturgy on Holy Saturday), we sing the Sunday hymns OF THE RESURRECTION in Tone 1. So it is very much a "resurrectional" service. (The hymns which really focus on the freeing of the just souls from Hades, are those sung at Matins for Holy Saturday.)

So it truly is an office of transition from Holy Saturday to Easter Sunday.

In Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Thanks Jeff,

I think I am starting to see that. But then, I wonder, why restrain ourselves longer from the amazing joyous and festive spirit. Why not break the fast and sing joyous Resurrection hymns and greet one another with "Christ is Risen?"
I have a difficult time with knowing that we are proclaiming the Resurrection, and there is joy, but then we come back later and actually feel the full joy. It is hard for me to imagine this in between state. If my Lord is Resurrected, why not be full out in our joy? What is lacking, that makes us come back for the one more even more joyful service?

contd. from last message...
Not that we shouldn't want to come back to continue to celebrate, as we do on Bright Monday, but what are we still saving the extra festivity for? Also, if the ministers of the altar change there garments to white in the Saturday service and the chants and Gospel specifically glorify the Resurrection, why do we keep the burial shroud on display for veneration and formally remove it at a later liturgy? Am I being too strict here, I know that time is a less narrow defined thing liturgicall speaking?
Anyway, I do not want to sound critical, just a little confused and looking for perspective.

searching east:

Here is a reading a devout friend sent me yesterday.

Christ is risen!

Dear searching,

I will try to come back and answer this tonight or tomorrow. But for now, I can propose a couple of answers for thought:

1. In both the Christian East and West, we sometimes lose track of the meaning of vigil - keeping watch in prayer, with its multiple senses of watching for the coming of the Lord; prayer for protection; acknowledgement of God's work even in the darkness; the deep meaning of "pray always." Too often, we want to either omit the vigil ("that's only for monastics, right?"), or go to the vigil and decide we don't have to complete the vigil by returning to church for the celebration itself.

Keeping watch is a basic feature of Christian prayer - whether in the home, as recommended to us by the Fathers of the second century, or together in church. One of the great needs of our time is a restoration of the idea that prayer in the evening "sees us through" the night, in preparation for the day; and prayer in the morning "greets the new day" as a fulfillment of our night-time watch.

2. It is the sense of progressive celebration of the feast that is key here, I think. At the Vespers and Divine Liturgy of Holy Saturday (which the typikon has starting at 4 PM, and extending into the evening), we recall ALL that God has done in preparing his salvation - it IS the "Passover of the Lord". At Matins, we greet the risen Lord with our most festive hymns, and in the Divine Liturgy, we keep the feast - for "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us."

In Christ,
Jeff

The theme of the Great Saturday Vespers and Basil Divine Liturgy is not yet one of it being early in the morning on the first day of the week where Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint Him.

Think this through.

At Good Friday Vespers we join Joseph and Nicodemus in taking Christ down from the Tree of Life and burying Him in the tomb.

At the Matins of Holy Saturday (Jerusalem Matins, which is only celebrated in a handful of Ruthenian parishes these past years) there is a procession after the Great Doxology. The "theme" of this Divine Service is the funeral for the dead Christ. During the procession the shroud is removed from the tomb and taken in procession around the temple. This symbolizes our Lord's descent into Hades. God is working.

Then we come to the Vespers and Basil Divine Liturgy on Great and Holy Saturday. We hear a resurrection Gospel, and some of the texts are of the resurrection but others are not. One of the most beautiful is the Irmos: "Morn not for Me, O My Mother, when you behold in the tomb the Son Whom you, as a virgin, conceived. For I shall arise and be glorified...." Well, if we've announced the Resurrection they why are we still talking about Christ in the tomb, and don't we just sing "Christ is risen"? Lots of people think this, and I've been told that a few parishes have even gone and changed the whole Divine Liturgy after the Gospel to do just that (and replacing "Morn not for Me" with "The Angel exclaimed" and singing "Christ is Risen").

But liturgically it is not yet "early in the morning on the first day of the week" (even though that is the Gospel proclaimed from Matthew 28 in anticipation)!

The proclamation of the Resurrection at the Vespers and Basil Liturgy is not the one to the women with Mary before the dawn. It is the proclamation of the Resurrection to the Kingdom of the Dead. At this Liturgy we journey with Christ into Hades (it is said that we are actually transported to Hades during this Liturgy) and we see the Fathers and Patriarchs raised from the dead.

But we can't yet sing "Christ is risen" because the the Resurrection has not yet erupted into this world.

Look at some of the other texts:

"Today the Abyss (Hades) sighs and cries out: 'I should never have received the One Who was born of Mary; for He came against me and destroyed my power and crushed my gates of bronze. Being God, He raised the souls which I once held.'"

"...for the Shepherd, crucified, has resurrected Adam; and those whom I held I lost. Those whom I swallowed I have given up...."

"The great Moses foreshadowed this day mystically when he said: 'And God blessed the seventh day.' This is the blessed Sabbath, this is the day of rest on which the Only-begotten Son of God rested from His work, keeping the Sabbath physically by the providence of death...."

Christ is still in the tomb. Physically, He is keeping the Sabbath (resting in death). But here, He is also descending into Hades to free the souls there.

So at this service we need to allow Him the time do do His work, to free the souls from Hades, to raise up Adam and Eve, the Fathers and the Patriarchs. We need to wait just a bit longer until 'just before the dawn' when we journey with the women and Mary to the tomb to find it empty.

-

And yet there are more themes. Each service during Holy Week has at least two themes. On Good Friday, for example, we sing the theme of the Passion, Death and Burial. But a closer look at the texts shows that we are also singing of the Resurrection!

Near the end of Burial Vespers we sing: "I exalt Your suffering. I extol in song Your burial and resurrection...."

After the procession we sing: "The Angel standing by the tomb exclaimed to the myrrh-bearing women: 'Spices are meant for the dead, but Christ reveals Himself as not subject to decay.'"

At Jerusalem Matins we are already singing of the Resurrection in the Angel's Hymns of the Resurrection (sung at Sunday Matins): "The company of Angels was amazed, beholding You, O Savior, numbered among the dead, who has destroyed the power of death and raised up Adam with Yourself, setting all men free from Hades."

We are privileged to both participate intimately in these events of our salvation while also knowing in advance the outcome.

Oh, there is a single exception where "Christ is risen" is sung. After the Vespers and Basil Liturgy monks return to their cells and quietly sing the paschal troparion. They alone do this because they, as monks, are already in the Kingdom of the Dead (dead to this life), so the proclamation of the Resurrection to Hades and the shattering of the gates of bronze that held the captives there intimately affects them. And they sing it quietly (almost to themselves) because the Resurrection has not yet erupted to the surface of the earth.

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people who either don't understand or care about the beautiful themes woven into all of our Divine Services. They say that Vespers cannot be celebrated in the morning (or earlier in the day), and that this service must be moved back to the evening, and updated to make it what the midnight Matins service now is (sort of the equivalent of the "First Mass of Easter"). They then attempt to "update" them. When they do so they do great harm to both the Liturgy and to the people. That is why the Liturgical Instruction directs us to restore to official forms (and to be common with and grow with other Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox), so that we (as a Church) may be formed by our Liturgy and someday begin to understand its wonderful richness and not throw it all away. One can appreciate the good intentions of such people. But the Church - as a whole - needs to understand not just how these services developed into their 'received form' but also why. In most places the rescheduling of the services has only chased people away (understandable since the people come on Saturday evening for the Resurrection and the empty tomb and not just the Resurrection of the Dead, very well symbolized in the still somber music and some of texts, with the real understanding of what is being celebrated mostly forgotten by the Church as a whole, and with the changes occurring without any catechesis). That is because while the lay faithful may not be about to put into words their reasons, they do sense that man is monkeying with the Liturgy the Lord has sculpted over many generations. The way forward here is to not to mandate reform based on man's ideas, but simply to be open to further sculpting by the Spirit over the coming generations.

Christ is Risen!

To support the Administrator's points: the Church does not have Vespers at midnight! In principle it would be nice to have Vespers and Liturgy of Basil starting at twilight. But most of us want to be able to come home for a bit, perhaps rest prior to the night service or make some last-minute preparations, and arrive in Church at 11:30, so as to enjoy the Mesonycticon and Procession, and the Paschal Orthros and Divine Liturgy. That got me home and back in bed at about 7:30 AM, exhausted but happy. I was next seen at Vespers (4 PM), then came home and collapsed again. I had to turn down many invitations to come for dinner, but was quite happy at home with some nice soup.

Fr. Serge

The Lenten Triodion, translated by Metropolitan Kallistos and Mother Mary, advises that both the vespers for Great Friday and for Holy Saturday begin "at the tenth hour of the day (4 o'clock)," while the vesperal liturgy for Holy Thursday begins "at the eighth hour of the day (2 o'clock)."

Could the practice of moving the vesperal services to mornings, especially those of Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, somehow have to do with fasting requirements before Holy Communion, to lessen the fast so that people would receive?

John,

That is a good part of it. A friend of mine who is Greek Orthodox pointed out when he was growing up in Boston the Vespers / Basil DL on Holy Thursday was celebrated at 5 AM - and was set at this time because people wanted to take Eucharist before going to work.

Another part of it is probably pastoral, simply to spread out the services a bit to give people a chance to recover and get ready for the next service. In the modern usage, (as Father Serge points out) it becomes more difficult for the faithful to come to both the Vespers/Basil if celebrated at 5 PM (or later) and then come back for Paschal Matins and the Chrysostom Liturgy (at midnight, yes, but even harder when it is advanced to 8 PM or 9 PM!).

Think of parallel on Christmas and Theophany Eves. We have the Vespers and Basil Liturgy in the morning, followed by the "Holy Supper". The "Holy Supper" is still a fasting meal but not too strict since it was a bit of a celebration after taking Communion at the Vespers & Basil Divine Liturgy. We rejoice in taking Eucharist and have a good meal, yet we still fast from certain foods in anticipation of taking Eucharist again the next day. But the "Holy Supper" looses its meaning when the Vesper/Basil DL is moved to 6 or 8 PM on Christmas Eve, forcing the faithful to have the celebration of the agape meal before going to Liturgy and taking Eucharist!

Our Liturgy in its 'received form' contains incredible wisdom!

Хрїстóсъ воскрéсе! Воистину воскресе!

John

I would agree with John that the tone of the Holy Saturday Vesperal Liutrgy is different the Paschal Matins. However, as one of those who believe Vespers(Evening Prayer) should be in the Evening or at leats late afternoon, I would disagree that moving it from the 12pm to 4pm or 5pm is undesirable, especially since Paschal Matins is usually celebrated in the late Evening. I also agree with John that "updating" the service is wrong. Now if a parish needs two Liturgies for Pascha then I think Pashcal Matins with Liturgy should be celebrated Saturday in the late Evening or Midnight.

Christ is risen!

And yet, what does this do the services for December 24? What about Matins of Christmas Eve, or the Royal Hours?

It seems to me that in opposing a Holy Thursday or Holy Saturday Vesperal Liturgy in the morning with one in the late evening, you miss precisely the solution in our typikon - a service in the mid- to late afternoon, which could easily be preceded by a service in the morning or at noon-time - and followed by a supper (at the church or at the home) and a REAL evening or night-time vigil. Why the insistence on the mid-morning "Mass"? Is this really our tradition? (I do know that the preferred Latin timing of tercex influenced our time of celebration of the Presanctified, and made it easier for that service to be replaced with a weekday "Lenten Mass." I just don't see why you seem to think a morning Holy Saturday Divine Liturgy is preferable to one at noon or 3-4 PM.)

Indeed, He is risen!

Jeff

P.S. By the way, the service of Jerusalem Matins was celebrated this year in the cathedral in Munhall this Holy Saturday, for the first time in a while. Very, very wonderful.

XB

John--

I totally agree that to have the Holy Saturday vesperal liturgy at 5 is too late, especially if Matins are at 8 or 9. Two or three o'clock maybe a better solution if matins are at 9PM or in the rare case where a Greek Catholic church celebrates them at midnight. The Triodion prescribes 4PM, why not just stick to it?

Interestingly enough, when we were preparing our Centennial book and going through old records and writings, we found that for the first 10 years or so of the parish's existence, Paschal Matins were celebrated at 5AM, followed by the DL.

What then is the "received tradition?"

John

Being very practical, holding the Vespers and Basil Liturgy earlier on the Eves of Christmas and Theophany leaves room for Compline and Matins and the Chrysostom Liturgy, in addition to not forcing the faithful to have their “Holy Supper” before taking Eucharist when the Vespers/Basil is moved to later in the evening. I know of at least one parish that anticipated the Royal Hours on the 23rd (at night), celebrated the Vespers and Basil Divine Liturgy on Christmas Eve at noon, then celebrated Compline and Carols at 9 PM, and then celebrated Matins and the Chrysostom Liturgy (two full services, and not a combo of half of each) in the morning. Spreading them out allowed the people to come and pray but also go home and rest and prepare for the holy day. All I am advocating is being pastoral, with some flexibility to accommodate custom and need.

If you read my post I don’t absolutely oppose it. I clearly said that we need to restore the ‘received forms’ and be formed by them and then allowing the Spirit to sculpt as He desires over time, without mandates that harm people. Why the bishops are so opposed to restoring a full liturgy (and I am not speaking of the mandated "Low Mass" of the Revised Divine Liturgy as a full Liturgy!) and allowing things to develop together with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) as the Liturgical Instruction directs is very curious.

Consider the celebrations of Holy Thursday / Good Friday. I know plenty of parishes that had good crowds for Vespers/Basil earlier in the day (in the morning or at noon or even 2 PM) and again for the Matins (12 Gospels) in the evening. Since the relatively forced moving of the Holy Thursday Vespers and Basil to the evening there are a number of parishes that simply dropped the Matins (12 Gospels) altogether (some did move it to the morning of Good Friday but then dropped it after few attended). How satisfactory is that? I can understand the desire to have the celebration of the Mystical Supper in the evening, but is it worth throwing away the 12 Gospels?

[And I've noted it before. While the typicon seems to have kept the scheduled times over the centuries the services themselves continued to develop. The Holy Saturday Vespers/Basil became musically more somber as it began to be celebrated earlier in the day (and ceased to be a major time for baptisms). Only when it did so did the Paschal Matins bloom into what they are now. Further, moving the Vespers/Basil back the evening as the equivalent of the Latin "First Mass of Easter" and modifying it to add "The Angel exclaimed" and the "Christ is risens" robs the solemn pronouncement of the Resurrection at the doors of the church at Matins. There is much to consider that those demanding change are ignoring, or are ignorant of.]

I’ve spoken of the parish here in Virginia and how those seeking change through mandates have harmed the faithful. The parish had a history of Vespers & Basil DL at noon, with about 50-75 people participating, then Resurrection Matins at 11 PM followed by the Divine Liturgy (but over the years crept back to start at 9 PM). It had 450+ attending, and then another 450 or so between two morning Divine Liturgies. Back when the mandates hit they put the Basil DL at 5 PM, and kept Matins and Chrysostom at 9 PM. The Basil DL gets about 50 and the Matins and Chrysostom gets about 50-74 people, and the two Sunday DLs get about 250 between them. That is about 10 years ago now and the parish has never recovered (it has lost maybe another half with the mandated RDL). One can do great damage by following good intentions when the people and their needs are ignored.

A parish went from 50 at Vespers/Basil and 450 at Matins/Chrysostom to 50 at each simply because a literal adherence to the typicon without concessions for what the faithful were used to. One must always be considerate to the faithful for they are the Church – and even things like the timing of services are part of their rock of stability. When a change is necessary it must occur very slowly (over decades, not in a single year with mandates).

A lot of Ruthenian faithful have not forgotten that when the RDL was mandated the old people sat in the pews crying over what had been taken away from them (and some are still crying today). They've been called ignorant and disobedient for complaining. And there was nothing in the Revision whatsoever that demanded hurting people.

I spoke with a friend of mine who is a priest last night. He told me that Holy Week was wonderful because they got to use the old books for everything. They are certainly imperfect books, and need to be reprinted with some corrections and in fuller forms (the procedure I still recommend for the 1964 Chrysostom and 1976 Basil Liturgies). But after 35 years the music style and most of the text do not need revision because it memorized. And the solution to parishes that cannot sing the Thompson music is to return to music that is familiar and memorized.

Again, the larger point here is that the 'received tradition' worked far better then a mandated literal application of the typicon. The Church needs to restore it as best as is possible and learn from it, and then be one with all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) to allow the Holy Spirit to sculpt as He desires over the coming decades and centuries. There is no need to be so intolerant to our own 'received tradition'. It is certainly not pastoral.

Χριστός ἀνέστη! Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη!

BB!

John,

I know some priests and cantors who were literally wiped out at the Passaic mandate of the Vespers / Basil DL / Matins combo (putting aside for the moment that is really bad liturgical theology). Have Vespers/Basil at 4 or 5 PM and then then Matins/Chrysostom at 8 or 9 is just as hard on the clergy and the cantors. I think the key is flexibility. In an age where people often drive 30-60 minutes each way putting the services too close makes a busy day almost impossible. [It is telling that the few people who actually support the Revisions will allow the Vespers/Basils for Christmas & Theophany Eves, Holy Thr and Holy Saturday AFTER the time prescribed by the typicon, but not a moment earlier!]

In most places among Carpathians and Ukrainians the 'received tradition' was along these lines (but there was never total uniformity):

Holy Thursday morning: Vespers & Basil DL
Holy Thursday night: Matins (12 Gospels)
Holy Friday morning: Royal Hours (but omitted in many places).
Holy Friday night: Burial Vespers (Jerusalem Matins was not celebrated)
Holy Saturday morning: Vespers and Basil DL
Holy Sunday morning: Pascha Matins at sunrise followed by Chrysostom DL

In America there was lots of odd scheduling in the early days as the few priests needed to celebrate everything several times across different parishes. That tended to return to the above schedule (more or less!) once there were more priests and parishes grew.

LOL! I do remember when I was in high school and a young cantor one of the local pastors I often helped out had two parishes and a mission. He had Burial Vespers at 3 PM, 5 PM and 7 PM (one each!) and then Matins/Chrysostom at 7 PM and 11 PM (the mission had Chrysostom in the morning). Is was a standard tease to the pastor that he killed off the Lord three times but only allowed him to rise twice!

But again, the larger point is to return to the 'received tradition' that is known across the Byzantine Church (and especially by the older people that fill our parishes). Because it is familiar it will be embraced, and can be a new foundation for growth. The 'received schedule' did not develop because the clergy and people were stupid, but because of real pastoral considerations (that we probably do not yet really comprehend). If changes are absolutely necessary undertake them slowly and with great care. We should always learn from the failures of the Latins. They lost up to 1/3 of their people with the post-Vatican II changes to their Mass. Had those same changes (if absolutely necessary) been accomplished over several generations instead of overnight no one need have been chased away. And the evidence is plain that the RDL mandate has both hurt people and chased them away. The Ruthenian Church can still return to something more authentic, and I pray daily that the bishops do so.

Again, I am not and have never said that we must return to the 'received tradition' unto all ages. Only that we return to it until we are properly formed in our own tradition, and then be liturgically one with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox), and allow the Holy Spirit to be the one sculpting the Liturgy over time.

al-Masīḥ qām! Ḥaqqan qām!

John