www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Passion Week Services and Current Reforms

In response to the comments of so many of you, regarding some recent reforms/changes to the usual order of services during Passion Week and Pascha, I decided to share my own thoughts through the article below.

As the article mentions, there is no one universal way in which churches of the Byzantine ritual tradition have celebrated this most important week of the liturgical year. There is in each cultural expression however, a certain "received" tradition of the order and emphasis of services, which has long contributed to each individual's anticipated experience of the liturgy during this time.

I hope that the following article may shed some light on where we have been as a people, what some of the treasures of our particular usage have been that help to create a prayerful and spiritual celebration and where certain changes or "reforms" may or may not be of benefit in making Passion Week a meaningful experience for the worshipping community.

The topic is certainly a wide one and much more could be said about the observance of the events surrounding the final week of Jesus' earthly life than space and time allow here. I have tried my best to cover most aspects of our traditional observance and how they relate to our people's unique and time-honored expression of the liturgy of the Byzantine Church.

Naturally, your comments and further observations are welcome, in as much as they are productive to the discussion at hand and helpful for all of us to try to understand more fully, both the paschal mystery itself and our own particular manner of remembering those saving events.

In the Risen Lord,

Fr. Joe

On the Order of Celebration of the
Services of Passion Week & Pascha
and Current Reforms of them
in the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension

by the Rev. Joseph Lavryshyn, MA Th.

The arrangement of the various services of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord according to the Byzantine Rite (Catholic and Orthodox) has taken on many and various forms throughout the ages, as has been correctly mentioned by several posters here. By our time, (the 19th. and 20th. centuries), each ethnic group or geographical location had long developed a "received" manner of celebrating these services, which was the product of many circumstances of time and place and which became embedded into the spiritual life of clergy and faithful of each particular group. Before examining the difficulties and problems that a re-arrangement of such an integral part of the religious life of Christian people everywhere presents, it must be noted that there is no one perfect or eminently correct manner to produce an order of celebration that will fit each and every community and tradition sufficiently. So many factors have to be taken into consideration before one can say that any version is the one and only way that Passion Week should be observed. With that in mind, we have to examine several perspectives and consider them as they relate to our present day circumstances, in order to have a healthy approach to the study of the liturgical observance of the Lord's Passover and the implications of some recent "revisions" of the scheduling or combining of certain particular services.

(a) Historical Development.

As has been mentioned here, in the ancient church, everyone attended all of the services, whenever and wherever they were being celebrated. The prototype for this is the Jerusalem observance, which is attested to in several works, the most important of which is the diary of the pilgrim Egeria, who made a journey from Spain to Palestine one particular Easter during the fourth century. For the sake of time, some of my dates or references might need proofreading. In her testimonies, the liturgy in Jerusalem took place at various locations associated with the actual events in the life of Our Lord, and often proceeded from place to place, where remembrances of these important happenings would be recalled through readings from Scripture, prayers and actions. In the accounts found in The Diary of a Pilgrim all of these services were led by the bishop of Jerusalem, who in his capacity as chief shepherd of the local church, was the one to preside over the Eucharist and the other liturgical rites.

Much of what we do today during this most important week of the liturgical year, has its origins in these ancient practices that were observed at the historical sites of the Holy Land, where the final days of Jesus took place. It is not an accident that the typikon of today makes use of many "props" and liturgical actions that serve to "recreate" in our own parish churches, a replica of the Holy City and of the particular sites and instruments that were part of the first Pascha - the historical life of Christ himself. In fact, our liturgical theology strongly suggests that not only are the saving events of the paschal mystery being remembered and celebrated during these solemn days, but further, that the church actually becomes Jerusalem at this time and that, through liturgical prayer and solemnity, the events endured by Jesus once and for all long ago, are really and mystically taking place among us, as if we ourselves were present in Jerusalem some 2000 years previous from today. This is the "sacramental" dimension of the liturgical services by which we are able to be participants in the salutary actions of Christ, through which our salvation was forever gained and established as a means of communion with God and the restoration of the original, pristine condition of the human race - one formed in the image and likeness of the Creator himself.

Before we examine our present dilemma of how to schedule and observe the many and diverse services that are part of our "received tradition" - a manner of celebration that became fixed long after the pilgrimage of Egeria, it is important to also recall that the paschal services in Christian antiquity were meant not only as a personal recollection for the faithful of historical events, but were greatly intertwined with the sacraments of initiation and originally were the one and only time of the year that new members - catechumens, were received into the church. That is the reason that so much of our current liturgical texts reference baptism and contain elements that served to both instruct and prepare those about to be baptized, for the mysteries that they were to experience. This is particularly true of the service known as the "Easter Vigil" that has retained that title in the Latin Rite but in our rite, has been concealed in what is known to us as the Great Saturday "Vespers and Liturgy of St. Basil the Great." In both ritual traditions, this service still has a strong baptismal character and is rather faithful to many of the original components of the paschal vigil at which the catechumens were received as full members of the church. It also remains the most appropriate time to celebrate baptism and/or chrismation of new members, if there are any in the parish.

The Roman Church has done a good job of restoring this particular service to its original purpose and also of making the period of Lent one of preparation for those who are to either become Christians at Easter or those already baptized, who are to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Roman Sacramentary and the Ceremonial of Bishops, clearly marks the points during Lent when the various stages of reception of new members are to take place, in the midst of the local church, celebrated by the diocesan bishop. One can refer to the well-known RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) to see how they have restored the ancient practices of electing, instructing and initiating new believers into the local church community.

In the Byzantine Church (be it Catholic or Orthodox), while Pascha is today emphasized as the most appropriate time for new members to be received, there has not developed (or been restored), any particular ritual or progressive steps to be taken in the local church (eparchy), on the part of those preparing to receive the sacraments of initiation. What we do have are prayers for the catechumens that are to be taken during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, especially from the fourth week of Great Lent onwards. Perhaps, if liturgical development could be accomplished in our tradition on a more universal basis, we could see the implementation of a rite of gradual initiation for those who are in the process of preparation for reception into the local Christian community. In my opinion, such a provision would benefit the church and serve as a means to highlight and draw importance to the effects of evangelization as they are reflected in the existence of new members being received at Easter time.

The only means that we could possibly take with the present ritual of initiation would be the separation of two distinct rites now contained within the Rite of Baptism and Chrismation - the first part, which is the "reception into the Catechumenate" itself, and the second part, which is the actual administration of the sacraments. This is in fact done is some parishes. Those aspiring to be baptized/chrismated could be received into the catechumenate, using the existing texts from the Trebynk, at an appropriate time before their full initiation. Then, after a suitable period, the actual sacramental rites could be celebrated, i.e.: at the paschal vigil (Vespers with Liturgy of St. Basil). With a bit of organizational work, each eparchy could theoretically celebrate the "reception into the catechumenate" near the beginning of Great Lent, in the cathedral or other important church, by the eparchial bishop. Then, baptisms/chrismations could be administered in each individual parish at Easter. Other than this proposed ritual separation however, we currently have no other steps or ceremonies with which to mark the road of progress towards Christian illumination.

(b) The Situation Today - Our Received Tradition and its Most Beneficial Celebration in the 21st. Century.

As I mentioned when beginning, there is no one perfect model of a universal Passion Week and Paschal schedule that will satisfy and fulfill each and every recension of the Byzantine Rite that has developed in various places and among different cultures over the centuries. Nor is there a perfect model that would fit every parochial situation within these diverse traditions. It will suffice here to discuss the received "Ruthenian" usage, that is common to Ukrainian and Ruthenian jurisdictions today (Catholic and Orthodox), while making mention where appropriate to the customs and traditions of other cultures and liturgical recensions.

It should be noted that among Orthodox jurisdictions of Ukrainian/Ruthenian/Southwest Slavic heritage, there tends to be a mixture of usages going on, between a purer use of the Ruthenian recension and those things imported from standard Muscovite usage. The OCA basically is faithful to the standard Muscovite typikon, but often intersperses it with elements from Ruthenian usage, especially in those parishes that have a strong Galician or Subcarpathian heritage (a majority of the longer established OCA churches).

Among Ukrainian Orthodox, there is certainly a confusion between what is clearly characteristic of the Russian Recension (often called "Kyivan" by those Ukrainians who know and advocate its use - and some elements may indeed have originated in Kyiv rather than Moscow), and the recension of Rus' (Ruthenian) used more so in Western Ukraine and Subcarpathia. The matter here seems to be more of a distinction between what is common in central and eastern Ukraine (tending towards what would be seen as "Russian" usage) and the practices of Western Ukraine (Galicia - Halychyna), where the older, Ruthenian recension seems to have survived with greater integrity. Naturally, this reflects the historical/political situation in the various "oblasts" of present day Ukraine, where the central/eastern regions were longer under the influence of imperial Russia than those areas of the western section. It also can indicate a misguided philosophy that there is a distinction between what is Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic usage, with Orthodox being equated with a more russified style of service and Catholic meaning the use of the more indigenous Ruthenian recension. Of course, we know today, that this equation is false and Russian style need not mean that one is more "Orthodox" but that the Ruthenian recension of services in its proper form, is acceptable in and of itself and often contains elements that are more ancient and pristine than the standard "Russian Vulgate" usage. I mean this without prejudice, but rather to dispel the commonly held theory explained above.

Sources for our received Ruthenian recension can be found primarily in the typikons of Dolnitskyj and Mykita, even though these reflect, in minor proportions, some elements that have been imported into the usage from other traditions, mainly those of pre-concilliar Latin Rite Slavic practice. The latter, as has been mentioned, also borrowed certain elements of Byzantine usage, that are still to be found today, both in Europe and in North America, in parishes that have a Slavic Roman Rite majority or heritage. The authors of the above mentioned typikons also make reference in certain places, to where the Ruthenian usage might differ from that which is common in Moscow or in Greece, which is helpful in making comparisons between recensions.

As many have also already noted, until recently in the Ruthenian Church, there was a more or less uniform manner of keeping the main services of Passion Week, that often included the anticipation of services technically designated for morning or evening, to their opposite times of the day. Many factors contributed to this atmosphere of anticipation, some out of convenience, some from necessity and others due to the spirit and importance of the particular services themselves. One observation from liturgical theology should be included here, to set a tone that will permit the discussion of service scheduling, that as has already been demonstrated, is very important to most faithful people and can contain an element of sensitivity that has to be taken into account in a pastoral way.

It is not enough to simply look to what may or may not be most liturgically correct according to a particular typikon. This may satisfy the desires of some people, who are interested in "restoring" the liturgy to its most correct time and form, as it is sometimes dictated today, but can also be a very sensitive subject to others, who have become accustomed to a particular manner of observance for an entire lifetime. Additionally, there are many practical matters that should be taken into consideration, before we can say that the most desirable form of celebration has been attained, or that we are being as faithful as possible to the original intent of the services. These practical and pastoral considerations are not merely ones of the convenience of individuals, but really speak to the heart of the message that is intended to be taken away from the service by the individual worshipper.

In order to properly discuss the scheduling of services, it must also be remembered that there is a sense of "liturgical time" that is separate from "real time" or actual timing. In the Roman tradition, the Easter Triduum, from the Mass of the Lord's Supper through the Easter Vigil is considered to be one continuous service. That is why in each of the daily services of Thursday, Friday and Saturday, there is no formal beginning or dismissal rite except for that which begins the Mass of the Lord's Supper and that which ends the service of the Easter Vigil. Using this as a premise, we can also say that in the Byzantine tradition, Passion Week takes on a character of its own, as one continuous celebration of the Lord's passion, death and resurrection, and that certain of the commemorations - particular services recalling specific events may or may not be taken at the actual times prescribed for the offices into which they are inserted for celebration. Therefore, vespers in the morning and/or matins in the evening may or may not be disruptive to the spiritual character of each service and to the theological message that is derived from them. If we do not take this concept of "liturgical time" into consideration, then indeed it can be interpreted, that the anticipation of certain services may seem to be offensive and plainly wrong, to those observing which services are taken when and are looking for the most "correct" manner in which to celebrate.

However, the goal here is not so much to discover an order of celebration that is most faithful to current concepts of what is correct liturgical theology, but rather to create an atmosphere in which the sacred events of the life of Christ, in the holiest week of the year, become alive and meaningful for those partaking in them. Further, it is imperative that these services transform our lives because of the historical events that they recall and for which we are indebted for our eternal salvation. If liturgical reform, even if it in some ways means a "correction" of previously imperfect times for celebration, serves to alienate those participating in them, or eventually precludes some from attending at all, because they simply no longer are spiritually nourished, due to the timing or content of what is being celebrated, then our efforts in this regard are totally in vain.

The liturgy, being what it is, is a living and continuously evolving phenomenon, that should serve the worshipping community and its spiritual needs, not demand that the assembly act as blind obedients to a pre-decided set of rubrics and scheduled prayers. As has also been mentioned in this discussion, perfection of liturgical times can work well in a monastic environment, where by nature, the entire day is able to be devoted to the cycle of prayer, but on a parochial level, the needs and demands of everyday life are quite different and themselves demand an adaptation of a typikon that is itself monastic in nature.

It has been well over a thousand years since we in the Byzantine tradition have had the advantage of two sets of liturgical usages - one monastic and one urban or parochial. Since we must work with the material that we currently have, there naturally developed a manner of adaptation of the paschal services, that best suited individual communities, "local churches" or eparchies or entire regional traditions. That is what we mean today, when we speak of the "received tradition" that has become so sensitive and important to each community that makes use of the Byzantine typikon. When attempts are made to "reform" or change elements of some services or even entire daily celebrations themselves, simply for the sake of a supposed return to a more "correct" placement of these services, then trouble can potentially arise and people can become alienated from that which once brought deep inspiration and joy into their religious lives. When this occurs, only distress and a sense of being uncomfortable arises, bringing great potential damage to the local worshipping community that can take decades to repair.

Certainly, liturgical change is always controversial and may take years for people to adapt to or become accustomed to, but here we are speaking of changes that will are intended to ultimately be for the benefit of those taking part in the liturgy. On the other hand, certain changes, simply for the sake of academia or historical correctness, that do not address the needs or circumstances of the assemblies of today can create nothing but havoc and a sense of alienation that results for some, in a total removal of themselves from the worship that is taking place. It is this latter type of reform that we have been speaking of in this topic. My intention here is to try to clarify what and when may be occasions for present day liturgical reform to our Passion Week observance and which are those things that have simply made it impossible for many to take away from the services, that which is intended, and that which they formally received - a transformation of life, through recollection of the paschal mystery's historical events - a renewed spiritual life, upon which the rest of the year draws its substance and power, for the individual Christian.

(c) Development of Passion Week among the Ruthenian Recension Churches.

Let me clarify that I prefer here the use of the term, "Passion Week" because of its designation as such in the majority of Ruthenian and other recension sources. The alternate primary term, "Great and Holy Week" can also be found, however Passion Week still seems to be the preferred term in many typikons and service books.

For many generations, and still, in most Orthodox jurisdictions, the main services of Passion Week and Pascha were/are celebrated at certain times that permitted a greater participation by the parish community. Some services took on a larger degree of importance, while others were relegated to times that did not lend themselves to large assemblies. While it is true that there were some important services that were neglected because of this practice and some that were completely disregarded, a complete schedule of services, whether anticipated or celebrated at their more intended time of day was kept in both monasteries and, most notably, in our cathedral churches up until our own generation. While few parishes may have celebrated services such as Royal Hours or Jerusalem Matins, a look at the bulletins of Greek Catholic and Orthodox cathedrals in America through the 1990s (before some of the presently-discussed "reforms"), shows that these services were indeed kept in those places. The idea existed (and still exists in theory), that cathedral churches should maintain all of the divine services, including the divine office, praying on behalf of the entire local church (eparchy). As we know from other discussions, this was the original purpose of the local "chapter of canons" who were responsible, on a rotating basis, for praying these offices in the cathedral church. Only later, did the canons become an assembly of the more important clerics of the eparchy, who were part of the "bishop's household" or "eparchial curia."

Parish churches, on the other hand, tended to keep only those services which were considered to be integral to the observance of the day, not in a minimalist sense, but in a practical one. Even with this mentality, there were plenty of services to be held in any parish, and deeply embedded customs developed and became standard to the faithful. In reference to traditions and customs, we are talking (in the Ruthenian recension), about such things as, but not limited to, the procession on Great Friday, the veneration of the "plashchanitsa" or "burial shroud," personal visitations to the tomb during Holy Saturday morning and afternoon, the procession of Resurrection Matins and the blessing of paschal foods. These traditions coincided usually with the celebration of one or another of the main Passion Week services.

Borrowing back and forth, between locations and native areas also occurred, and eventually, there developed a more or less standard way in which to observe Passion Week and the Easter season. Still, each local parish maintained its own customs to an extent, and there was no one profile that fit exactly, each and every place, although the majority of the customs were the same. There was even, as has been mentioned above, a borrowing between ritual traditions themselves, with the Latin Rite Poles, Slovaks, Slovenians and others, incorporating the Byzantine tradition of the set up of Christ's sepulchre, into their own services. Likewise, we may have borrowed certain elements of Roman liturgy, such as the use of twelve candles during the "Strasti" or Matins with the twelve passion Gospels, extinguishing one after each reading, perhaps in imitation of the Latin "tenebrae" service. Another example could be the placing of the ciborium or monstrance with the Blessed Sacrament in the graves of Greek Catholic and Orthodox churches and carrying the Eucharist in the procession of Resurrection Matins. Such a borrowing or exchange back and forth need not necessarily be a bad thing, especially if it enhances the visual spiritual experience of those attending the services, as long as this does not jeopardize the integrity of the Byzantine or Roman service itself.

(d) The Timing of the Celebration of the Main Passion Week Services.

Also occurring over the past centuries, was an established timing for certain offices to be celebrated. As has been noted elsewhere, some of this had to do with previous fasting regulations and some of it had its origins in times of convenience for people who had to work and therefore could not be present, if certain services were to be celebrated at their chronologically appointed times.

Therefore, we have the "received tradition" of celebrating the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil with Vespers on Holy Thursday morning, with the evening devoted to the "Office of Matins with the Twelve Passion Gospels" popularly known as "Strasti" or in translation, "the Passion service" which gave the faithful a repetitive hearing of the passion narratives, in preparation for the somber celebration of Great Friday. While it is definitely unfortunate that the Divine Liturgy was missed by the majority of the faithful on Holy Thursday, a most important day to remember and receive Our Lord in the Eucharist, it was and still is an integral service in cathedrals, where the bishop gathers with his clergy, to celebrate the Eucharist, consecrate chrism, perform the historical remembrance of the "Washing of the Feet" and when necessary, to consecrate antimensia to be used throughout the eparchy. It is my personal opinion, that if any reforms are to be made to our usual, "received" tradition of Passion Week, it should be the celebration of this Holy Thursday Vesperal Divine Liturgy in the afternoon or evening, with the participation of the faithful, and the "Strasti" or 12 Passion Gospels being read either later into Thursday night or on Friday morning (as is now prescribed in some eparchies).

But, if many of the faithful are attached to the 12 Passion Gospel Matins, as a main service of Holy Thursday, I see no reason to relegate this services into the oblivion of Good Friday morning, when virtually no one will attend. Liturgy as a living organism will naturally develop and if there is a spiritual draw to a call for this change, it will occur. A late afternoon or early evening celebration of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, would enable the faithful to partake of the Lord's Body and Blood on the day of its institution. Normally, "Strasti" or the 12 Passion Gospels were not celebrated until 7 or 8 p.m. anyway, so this arrangement could be one reform that would satisfy both spiritual hunger for Our Lord in Holy Communion and allow time for the priest and cantor to have a brief rest, before the beginning of the Office of Our Lord's Passion.

In a way, what is suggested above, is in harmony with the usage of the Roman Liturgy, which celebrates the "Mass of the Lord's Supper" in the late afternoon, after which the Blessed Sacrament is carried to the place of repose (repository) and the altars in the church are stripped of their cloths. Any crosses are then veiled or removed completely from the sanctuary and the other images also covered with veils (if this has not already been done in the weeks prior to the Easter Tridiuum). The tabernacle is empty before the Mass of the Lord's Supper begins. All of these Roman customs signify the upcoming day of Christ's suffering and crucifixion, and are in keeping with a Byzantine emphasis on the Lord's Passion on Holy Thursday night.

Great Friday itself, remains more or less intact with the received tradition, even with the "reforms" of recent years. It has always been the Ruthenian recension's emphasis to give greater significance to the celebration of Great Friday vespers, rather than the service of "Lamentations" or "Jerusalem Matins" which is the main service of the day in the Greek and Arabic traditions. Unlike other usages, in which the Plashchanitsa - Burial Shroud is simply carried from the altar, through the northern door of the iconostasis to the sepulchre (grave), during the singing of the "apostica" of vespers, the Ruthenians have elaborated this procession, taking it around the church either one or three times, during the singing of the troparion "The Noble Joseph . . . " In the other traditions, the elaborate procession takes place at the end of the Jerusalem Matins or Lamentations, in a similar manner to that of the Ruthenians during Great Vespers.

An historical note should be placed here so that the use of the word, "Lamentations" for the Jerusalem Matins (as it is called in those traditions which emphasize it), not be confused with another kind of "Lamentations" that became popular in the Ruthenian tradition sometime over the past several centuries. These are the "Lamentations of the Mother of God" and consist of a "canon" with nine odes, each containing an irmos and following verses and troparia, that focus on the human impact of the death and burial of Christ as seen through the eyes of his Blessed Mother. It was designed to be either a public service taken by the priest and small assembly before the sepulchre (sometime on either Good Friday night more probably, Holy Saturday morning or afternoon), or recited by individuals when they came to visit the plashchantisa during the time it reposed in the grave. While this is an emotionally moving canon, I am not sure of its origins or when it became popular among those using the Ruthenian tradition. It can be found in English and Church Slavonic in the book, "The Main Services of Passion Week and the Glorious Resurrection" published by the Rev. Dr. Julius Grigassy in the early 20th. century. I would need to do further research to see where else this canon might be mentioned or included. I do have a Ukrainian translation of the Dolnitskyj typikon and a Slavonic edition of Mykita, but have not yet looked to see if this service is mentioned therein.

Royal Hours of Great Friday, where they are celebrated, should normally be done in the late morning or early afternoon. They can be taken individually (each hour as a separate service) or more commonly, together, as one celebration. In some parishes, it works out well to make this time an opportunity for confessions to be heard, either by priests other than the celebrant of the hours, or by the pastor/celebrant between the hours, if they are taken separately (for instance, every hour on the hour, from noon till 4 or 11 till 3 p.m., etc).

Holy Saturday remains the day of the Lord's Sabbath - one of expectation, commemorating the time that Jesus rested in the tomb and, according to some interpretations, descended into Hades, to loose the bonds of the souls of the righteous whose deaths preceded the coming of Christ. It is a day which in many parishes, people visit their own church and sometimes, other churches throughout the area, to "pay their respects" to the plashchanitsa. The church should be open during these times, to allow the faithful to make these visits. Some parishes even keep an all night vigil from Great Friday vespers, through the Resurrection Matins, during which the Psalms are read and finally the Acts of the Apostles, immediately before Paschal Matins.

Great Saturday also became a popular time for the blessing of paschal food baskets. This is still done today in many larger parishes and often draws a huge crowd. At a certain Ukrainian Catholic parish in Canada, Holy Saturday afternoon saw a parish hall filled with rows of tables containing what had to have been several thousand paschal baskets. Today, many Roman Catholic parishes have a scheduled blessing of Easter foods on this very same afternoon. In Russia, it has long been the custom for women to bring their "kulich" or "pascha" to the church on Holy Saturday during the daytime, to be blessed, after which they return home to continue preparing the many paschal delicacies for the family table.

I mention this custom because during the past two decades, it has been forbidden in certain eparchies of the Ruthenians in the US. I undoubtedly understand the reasoning of the bishops - that paschal foods should not be blessed until after the "official" proclamation of the resurrection at Resurrection Matins. This thinking surely has a firm theological foundation. However, we must again remain cognizant of both the theological and pastoral dimensions of our liturgical life. Some parishes never had the custom of blessing Easter food on Holy Saturday afternoon, but only after Resurrection Matins (whenever they were celebrated). If, on the other hand, there is good reason and a long-established local precedent to bless paschal food baskets on Holy Saturday afternoon, especially if such large numbers of faithful are served by such a practice, then one must think long and hard before forbidding its observance. On the reverse side, what has happened in many places where paschal foods are only permitted to be blessed after either the Saturday evening Matins and Divine Liturgy (or Vespers, Divine Liturgy and Matins) or on Sunday morning after the same, and there had been a previous tradition of Holy Saturday afternoon basket blessings, is that rather than all complying with the new regulations, people simply do not bring their food to church any longer, or seek out another parish where they can have their food blessed at the time they were accustomed to. So one must ask: "Where is something gained and what has been lost by promulgating liturgical rules that conflict with "received" practice, even if those rules are theologically sound and perhaps well intentioned?" This especially applies to reforms of minor customs such as the above, that do not depend on deeper rooted theological questions. We clergy must remember that the liturgy is meant to serve the people and reflect their spiritual lives, bringing our religion into contact with everyday life, not the other way around.

(e) The Paschal Dilemma - Recent Reforms of the Traditional Easter Celebrations, their Historical Development and Current Effects.

As has been succinctly manifested, the recent "reforms" made to the services of Holy Saturday evening have caused the greatest consternation among the Ruthenian faithful more than any other liturgical change that has taken place over recent years. I will "go out on a limb" and give my own impression of these reforms and the effect that they have had on both Easter attendance and the spirituality of the faithful. Before we examine the various possibilities for Great and Holy Saturday, I would like to mention two already existing traditions among those who use the Ruthenian recension (and some others as well).

While in many places throughout the United States, the celebration of Resurrection Matins became normative for Holy Saturday evening, usually around 8:00 p.m., this was not necessarily the case in Europe and not universally the practice here. In Ukraine itself and other areas that constituted Subcarpathian Rus' or Galicia, "Voskresennya Utrenya" or "Resurrection Matins" were often celebrated in the early hours of the morning, around dawn, followed by the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the blessing of paschal food baskets. This custom of early morning "sunrise services" is still observed in some American parishes, especially those with a large immigrant population. The service in this case, usually begins around 5 or 6 a.m. (or a bit later in some places), while it is often still dark, with the procession around the church and the opening of the doors, and the first singing of the paschal troparion with its verses. The beauty of this custom is that the day changes gradually from darkness into light, as the service progresses and by the time the Divine Liturgy is completed, things are in a full array of light (especially if the sun is shinning brightly that day). I have every reason to believe that this is still the most common method in Europe today, and can remember it among the Ruthenians in the Yonkers parish and see it in many Ukrainian parishes still now.

While among many of Orthodox, it is normative to celebrate Nocturnes, Resurrection Matins and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom around midnight, I do not think that this was ever the usual practice among Greek Catholics or non-Russified Orthodox in Western Ukraine or Subcarpathian Rus' or among our people in North America. One of the primary reasons for the midnight observance was so that the fast, kept strictly throughout the entire period of Great Lent and Passion Week, could be broken at the first possible moment, after the reception of the Easter communion.

In America, Resurrection Matins became popular among the Ruthenians on Holy Saturday evening, again, around 7 or 8 p.m. This was followed by the blessing of Easter foods. The only and very serious problem with this arrangement, was that Matins was very often celebrated alone, without the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and thus, the Easter observance was incomplete. One had to return to church the following morning for the Divine Liturgy and to receive their Easter communion, which then technically broke the fast. What was terribly wrong, was that, since paschal foods had already been blessed after matins, many people would return home to eat their traditional foods on Saturday evening, without receiving communion first. Theologically, liturgically and spiritually, this was a serious abuse. However, if the Easter Divine Liturgy had been celebrated, then one could indeed partake of the delicacies of their paschal food baskets. It is part of the current reasoning with the Vesper Liturgy of St. Basil combined with Resurrection Matins. However, it is not the normative liturgy that is being celebrated, whereas that of St. John Chrysostom is the paschal Divine Liturgy as we know it from both experience and from the typikons.

The other factor that is relevant here is the celebration of the historical "Easter Vigil" which for we in the Byzantine ritual tradition, is the present-day Liturgy of St. Basil the Great with Vespers. It contains the series of Old Testament readings (16 possible, normally reduced to two or three for the sake of brevity), the singing of the hymn "All you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Alleluia" in place of the trisagion, and the proclamation of the Resurrection narrative from the Gospel of St. Matthew, before which the priest changes from dark vestments, worn for the beginning of the service, to bright (white) vestments, worn for the remainder of the service. This is indeed the baptismal liturgy, at which the catechumens were received into the church and is still the most appropriate time to do so, if a parish has catechumens or those awaiting reception into full communion with the church. This service is indeed a most beautiful one and its atmosphere of a gradual revelation of the mystery of the resurrection is moving to the worshipper. The difficulty with the service in the Byzantine usage, is when to have it. Practically, the best time for its celebration is still in the morning of Holy Saturday or, if Resurrection Matins and the Chrysostom Liturgy are held at sunrise or early morning, then it could well be celebrated on Holy Saturday afternoon or even night. Sadly, no matter how it is done, this important service is for the most part poorly attended and neglected. Efforts to restore it to its proper place are admirable and theologically proper, but the manner in which it has been done so far, have produced negative results which have alienated the faithful from what is their normal and expected celebration of Pascha - the Resurrection Matins and Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom with the blessing of Easter foods.

An historical note should be made here about the development of Resurrection Matins and the decline of the Easter Vigil. When fewer and fewer catechumens were being baptized at Easter, the original vigil took on lesser importance and greater emphasis was placed on the celebration of the Matins of the Resurrection. A ritual developed around this service that included the procession, the singing of the joyful paschal troparion (Christ is risen from the dead . . . ) and the opening of the church doors, to reveal the interior bedecked with flowers and light. Likewise, other hymns and actions of paschal matins, especially the paschal sitchera and veneration of the glorified Cross, icon, Gospel Book, artos, etc., are an integral part of the service.

While it was unfortunate that the historical Easter Vigil lost its significance and popularity, since it is catechetically, a relevant service, we of the Byzantine tradition do not have the same liberty to restore it to its former prominence as did the Roman Church, when they restored it with the 1958 reforms of Pius XII. This worked in the Latin tradition exactly because there did not develop an organically distinct service separate from the historical vigil. Prior to 1958, there was, in the Roman Rite, simply a Holy Saturday morning mass and then, the more solemn, joyful masses of Easter Sunday itself, so that when the Easter Vigil was restored, nothing was taken away, that had become endeared to the faithful and was a beautiful, joy-filled service in and of itself, as is the case with our Resurrection Matins. Rather, restorations were made that enhanced the service, including the "lighting of the new fire," the "blessing and inscription of the paschal candle" and other liturgical actions. This helps to explain why, the Easter Vigil could easily be restored in the Church of Rome, while for us, it is a completely different scenario.

It is interesting to note that among Byzantine Arabic Christians, preceding the Vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil is the blessing of the new fire, from which all the faithful light their own candles and during which the priest raises his own, singing, "The light of Christ enlightens all," in a manner strikingly similar to the Roman custom. I am not sure if this practice of lighting a new fire exists among the Greeks, but do know that it is important in these Mediterranean cultures, that the light from the "new fire" is brought to the home by someone taking part in this, usually afternoon service, in order to light the lamps in the family house. People later return to the church for the midnight celebration of Matins and the Divine Liturgy. Of course, this custom also most likely has a connection to the tradition of the "holy fire" observed in the "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" (the Anastasis) in Jerusalem. In this latter Jerusalem case however, I believe that the "holy fire" is that which is passed among the faithful at the beginning of Resurrection Matins (or is it?). It would take a commentary from someone among the Greeks and Arabs to comment on these practices further.

The joyful celebration of the Roman Easter Vigil cannot be compared with the much more subdued Byzantine Vesper Liturgy of St. Basil, no matter how theologically moving it may be. Nor can placing this latter service together with Resurrection Matins satisfy the needs of Orthodox or Greek Catholic people, to observe Pascha with the integrity and sensibility the have come to know. In the latter case, Resurrection Matins becomes more of an afterthought and anti-climatic, rather than the climax of the week-long observance of Passion Week.

Since the majority of Ruthenian parishes in the US have long celebrated Resurrection Matins on Holy Saturday night (as above, around 8 p.m.), the Liturgy of St. Basil with Vespers, the historical Easter Vigil, must practically, still be relegated to Holy Saturday morning or afternoon, to keep continuity with the received tradition. People expect Easter to emphasize Resurrection Matins (and the Chrysostom Liturgy), with their joyful melodies, the opening procession (not somewhere in the middle of the observance), the singing of the paschal troparion - "Christ is risen . . . " the paschal canon, stichera and all the other well known hymns, which our people formally knew "na pamjat'" - "from memory" and often still do. Like it or not, this is for most people, Easter, along with, at the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Gospel reading in various languages and Holy Communion. I do not think that this can be easily or effectively changed and the arrangement of the Liturgy of St. Basil with Vespers in its present form, together with Resurrection Matins simply does not do justice to the character of the paschal celebration.

To be quite frank, the practice of celebrating Vespers with St. Basil's Liturgy, followed immediately by the procession, opening of the doors and Resurrection Matins, is simply unheard of in any other tradition, Catholic or Orthodox, present or past and is very anti-climatic, with the order of service seeming to be in the reverse form of what people expect and are used to. I understand completely the liturgical theology and good intention behind this reform, but it simply does not work in most, if any places and this has been proven by the testimonies given here and heard elsewhere, about the decline in attendance, unrest among the faithful, and the simply unusual, unnatural and undesirable nature of this order of service. While I understand the desire to place greater emphasis on the historical Easter Vigil, I do not comprehend its forced character. A service that is unnatural or lacks organic development is just that . . . forced, and this never works with a live, active worshipping community.

What we are dealing with here, is not simply a question of change or resistance to it, or of a long standing tradition that was wrong. The present arrangement is, in plain language, strange, unnatural and unheard of in any other usage. It would have been much better to simply mandate that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom always follow Resurrection Matins, so that people could break the fast with Holy Communion. This would have been correct and reasonable to most people. But, to combine two services which have historically always been separated from one another is organically awkward and practically unreasonable. The Vespers with St. Basil themselves last at least two hours (I know, I just celebrated them this Holy Saturday morning). To add to this, Resurrection Matins with the blessing of paschal baskets after all of that certainly makes for a good three or three and a half hour service in total. For our people, who are not accustomed to this length or arrangement, it can be seen how they would feel alienated and put out of their own church and tradition. It is simply again, unheard of to use this combination.

(f) Where Do We Go From Here? Possibilities for the Future.

To recapitulate what I discussed above, if Resurrection Matins and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom are celebrated at sunrise, then there is no problem with restoring the historical Easter Vigil to its intended time. But, since so many of our parishes have long been accustomed to the Resurrection Matins on Saturday evening, it is really unthinkable, that the present "reformed" arrangement could or would work out well at all. The spiritual mood of the both services are strikingly different. There is good reason why over time, there was an organic development that separated the two services by hours, if not almost an entire day. While the original spirit of the "Easter Vigil" liturgy may have been one of joy and fulfillment, celebrating completely, the radiant resurrection of Christ, the way that the Vespers and Liturgy of St. Basil are constructed today gives the service a sense of incomplete expectation, of the resurrection. Even after the proclamation of the resurrection Gospel, the worshippers are left with a sense that something more striking, more radiant and more complete is yet to come. Without a major reform to the Vigil service itself, which due to the many factors that exist within the various jurisdictions and traditions of Byzantine Christianity, we all know is not forthcoming in the predictable future, its combination with Resurrection Matins and all that goes with it, creates a confused rather than a fulfilled spirit among those participating and makes the latter service seem more like an afterthought than the culmination of the preceding days and weeks of expectation.

Liturgy is sensitive and should be meaningful. To destroy the entire framework of tradition and at that, with something totally foreign to any other usage, is quite out of the ordinary and I have to ask where the sense of this comes from. I respect educated minds and historical research, especially those of whom are most likely the impetus behind the current "reforms." I know that their work is sound and solid. This in itself leaves me even more perplexed than if the present situation had been the product of some other source. I promote good liturgy that makes for a meaningful worship experience, but this arrangement, to say it in the most polite way possible, simply boggles the mind. The only way that I can possibly imagine, where this arrangement would not disturb people, is if they knew no other practice, attended no other Easter in a Byzantine usage church of any jurisdiction or denomination, or simply did not care about the church services.

It is also important to take care that the Ruthenian Church not become known as some type of "experiment" in liturgical reform for other jurisdictions to watch, in order to see which re-arrangement may work and which may not. I fear that this is what is happening, with both the standard Divine Liturgy itself and now, with the paschal services. There is a difference between certain, less integral reforms such as taking prayers aloud or making particular ektenias optional or abbreviated and, the manipulating of the entire framework of services or departing from what is known usage in any tradition of the Byzantine ritual. Rather than following organic development that is based on and connected with liturgical and historical scholarship, many present Ruthenian reforms have become merely oddities that neither restore services to their truly pristine form nor represent a situation that responds to the pastoral needs of our own day. The former would necessitate a complete revision of the services themselves (as in the Roman reforms) and the latter would refer more to a practical manner of celebrating a particular service that may, for reasons of pastoral prudence, choose to eliminate or shorten certain non-integral portions, especially those that are repetitive, instead of experimenting with times and combinations or creating an entirely new "poryaduk" or "order of service" unknown elsewhere in the Byzantine world and eliminating familiar and spiritually fruitful traditions.

Since post-paschal reforms have also been mentioned in this forum, a short discussion of these may also be beneficial. I am not sure exactly what changes have been promulgated in the various eparchies, but as has been said in previous years, a characteristic of some Ruthenian recension parishes has long been to extend some of the practices of Bright Week throughout the entire period from Pascha to the Ascension. A few of these characteristics have been particularly true of Sundays during the paschal season, while others refer to both daily and Sunday celebrations. In fact, keeping with other precedents, some of these practices may have indeed been more ancient usage. Some parishes have been known to keep the iconostasis doors open for the entire 40 day period. Other aspects that are almost universal in our tradition include the singing of the paschal troparion in place of other, post-communion hymns for the same period. Common to all traditions seems to be that the hymns, "Heavenly King . . . " and "We have seen the true light . . . " are never sung from Pascha until Pentecost, even being replaced with postfestive Ascension hymns and for one day, hymns for the departed, to keep consistency.

Right or wrong, this refers as well, to the singing of "Many years . . . " and "Eternal memory . . . " during paschaltide. The Ruthenian Recension also includes some post-communion replacements that are not used in other traditions, such as "May our lips be filled . . . ", "Blessed be the name of the Lord . . ." and the manner in which the paschal troparion is chanted in place of the usual, "Glory to the Father . . . " immediately before the dismissal, "Christ our true God . . . have mercy on us and save us . . . " In other usages, the practice is a bit different in these places. Should we stop doing this simply because it is unique to ourselves? One thing can be said with surety, that in Europe, the usual post-paschal practices are still employed as far as I have been able to observe, and they are known by recent immigrants to North America.

While the Ruthenian usage may indeed highlight Pascha far beyond Bright Week, including the daily use of the Sunday or paschal antiphons in the Divine Liturgy, there are many factors which contribute to these customs and they need not necessarily be seen as wrong, bad or undesirable, especially when we consider the nature of the various liturgical customs. One must remember that we follow the Greek style of antiphons, not the Russian, which does revert to the "typical psalms and beatitudes" almost immediately after every major feast day.

And yes, Easter is the most important of all feasts - holyday of holydays, and by its own right, should exceed the festivity accorded to other celebrations. It has been said for sometime now, by those from within and without our recension, that fasting is not compatible with the Easter season and probably was not required of the faithful until a more monastic model of liturgical law became the common denominator. The Lord was with his disciples for 40 days after his resurrection. To fast while the Savior is still with us, seems incongruent with the liturgical observance of this historical period of the life of Christ. We should be making progress in our understanding of liturgical worship and its connection with other aspects of the spiritual life, not reverting here, to practices which even those who have always used them are taking into consideration. Here, the reasoning seems backwards - trying to imitate the more austere atmosphere of differing traditions that ours never possessed, where in the reforms mentioned in the bulk of this article go against the practices of any other tradition. The consistency is not there and it seems as if we who follow the Ruthenian recension are once again, confused as to who we are and ashamed of the factors which make our usage a unique expression of Byzantine liturgy unto itself. So, history may be repeating itself in this regard, shielded under the guise of liturgical reform or restoration.

To conclude this unwieldy topic, let us all remember that what is "received" tradition has lasted for a long time for a reason. While perhaps imperfect in the world of academia, it has been time-proven in the realm of pastoral practice. There is place for reform, where this will benefit the community, but should always be done with the input of the faithful and with their sensitivity in mind. I believe that a fair and balanced position can be reached that responds to the needs of our times while simultaneously taking into consideration liturgical and historical scholarship. It is a task that requires all of these things to be done with a sense of solidarity between hierarchy, clergy and faithful, considering the input of each, to create an atmosphere of worship that will remain uplifting, avoid alienation and enable each of us to bring our best to the Lord of the ages . . . a heartfelt and sincere sacrifice of praise, especially during the commemoration of the central events of salvation history.

May Passion Week and Pascha continue to accomplish in us, those things for which the historical events themselves took place - a transformation of our world with the love and peace of the radiant resurrection of Christ, by which we are all saved from death and grafted into the very life of God - that covers every kind of sin, fault and weakness. May Jesus' sacrifice be celebrated each and every day, but especially at Pascha, in a way that brings to our lives, its life-changing power and strength.

- Fr. Joe -

Christ is Risen!

A very informative and insightful article, Father.

As you so rightly mentioned, there are many variations on the theme within every particular tradition regarding Paschal liturgical usages.

Fr. Joe,

Let me take the liberty to address what you call the "sacramental" dimension of the liturgical service. I would rather call it the "symbolic" dimension. When the meaning of a rite becomes utterly detached to the act itself, we have something different. Maybe I have a different appreciation of the meaning of "sacrament" but allow me to share some of my own thoughts on this sacramental (or symbolic) dimension of our Byzantine tradition through the article below.

taken from ...

"THE GREAT ENTRANCE: A LOCUS OF SYMBOLIC INTERPRETATIONS IN THE BYZANTINE TRADITION"

By Cantor Joseph E. Thur

-------

NO IMMUNITY FROM INTERPRETATION

The liturgy in general and the offertory in particular were not to remain immune from interpretation in the search for meaning. It was understood that one can read out of the New Testament at least two types of meanings: the literal and the spiritual. John Cassian lists four "senses" of scripture (or levels of meaning that can be found there). They are: (1) the literal meaning and (2) the spiritual; but this spiritual sense had three of its own levels of meaning: (a) the allegorical or dogmatic level, (b) the tropological or moral level, and (c) the anagogical or eschatological level. This approach to scripture was also applied to the Liturgy and especially the transfer of gifts within the offertory rites.

With all these possible levels of interpretation, various schools of thought stressing one level over the other developed. Two most famous schools of thought that took opposite ends of the spectrum were the Antiochene and Alexandrian Christians. The Antiochene school stressed a literal interpretation of things, whereas the Alexandrian school stressed a spiritual-anagogical interpretation. The literal approach took into consideration the historical aspect of the history of salvation and Christ's humanity. The anagogical or eschatological approach searched for meaning in the mysteries of the liturgy as the revelation of God's mystery. A correlation existed between the outward forms of the liturgy and the reality that remained hidden behind them. These extreme approaches to interpretation will soon collide head-on when the search for meaning in the liturgical act of what would later be called the Great Entrance, another name for the simple rite of transferring the unconsecrated gifts of bread and wine to the altar by the deacons. It became the "Great Entrance" only after developing into something more than what it originally was. In sum, "the significance of the Great Entrance in the Byzantine Liturgy is quite other than that of the Roman offertory procession."

THE MYSTAGOGICAL CATECHESIS

The first genre of writing which began assigning meaning to the transfer of gifts at the offertory were the 'mystagogical catechesis' beginning in the 4th Century shortly after the end of great persecutions of Christians. Since it was the bishop who was the official teacher in each Christian community, it was his job to instruct those newcomers in the meaning of what they were supposed to experience at the Liturgy. They were given typically during Paschal Week to the newly initiated. Originally in oral form, these catechesis were eventually put to writing and copied for use elsewhere. Great bishops like Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia come to mind. Though the mystagogies were not intended to be forms of eisegesis or a 'reading into' the liturgy. There arose a doctrinal value in the liturgy and the bishops' explanations became instructions on how the beliefs in Christianity were realized in liturgical actions.

By their mystagogical catechesis, the bishops replaced the earlier 'ecclesiological' understanding of the Eucharist by a 'representational' (or symbolic) one. This ecclesiological understanding embraced a corporate idea, whereas the symbolic understanding embraced new individualistic ideas. Thus, liturgical piety, was being reformed mysteriologically.

But the factors affecting the new Christians were not any 'corporate' dangers found in the Church - persecution thus being officially over - but the individual temptation to align oneself with various 'movements' effecting Christianity. There were three major movements - some not being official organizations - which crept into the lives of Christians: (1) Arianism, (2) Gnosticism and (3) Docetism. Arianism was a confusion over orthodox Trinitarian subordination. In a nutshell, "Arius concluded that the subordination of Christ to God according to the economy ... implied subordination at the level of the God's being ..." Gnosticism was dualistic which implied an antithesis of matter and spirit. Docetism was an exaggeration of the spiritual over the material. All movements effected tremendously the Christological, soteriological and liturgical understanding within the Church by denying the human nature of Christ. The denial of the human element in Christ would prove to be an important factor in the direction liturgical interpretation would take. No longer was the Church 'underground' and saved from the luxury of layering additional meanings to its sacramental rites. The Church had to respond to the pressures of outsiders instilling beliefs that were contradictory and, therefore, unacceptable to Christian doctrine. It responded by using the liturgy itself as a catechetical tool since the liturgy, like Scripture, was a source of revelation and gives us many possibilities of meaning.

The use of spiritual interpretation is not without its critics. The late Fr. Alexander Schmemman tells us what the meanings of these symbols are: nothing. "Nothing happens, nothing is accomplished, there is no "reality." Schmemman also goes on to state that, �� they obscure and mutilate the very meaning of liturgy, of liturgical acts.� He echoes similar sentiments of Patriarch Eutychius (552-565) who also criticized symbolic interpretation of rituals and hymns in his Paschal Sermon by stating "They act stupidly ..." Gabriel M. Braso, O.S.B., Abbot of Monterrat, refers to the era of decadent exteriority of worship, which the West also experienced, as �empty formalism� arising from �sterile polemics.�

What is interesting is the fact that these symbolic interpretations never became �official� in the Byzantine tradition. One can probably still hear echoes of Patriarch Eutychius criticism of such phenomena as being stupid. Similar situations where �empty formalism� was never the official Church tradition can even be found in today�s current Latin marriage ritual, an example of how deeply entrenched such symbolism can get � even to the point of being borrowed by Byzantine Christians. So common is the acceptance of the bride walking alone into the church without an escort that we have forgotten the age-old understanding that no one invites themselves into the church for reception of a sacrament. Whether one is there for reception of Baptism, Marriage or Ordination, one is always �escorted� into the Church. How many would be willing to forgo the sentimental meanings of empty formalism and individualism widely accepted in today�s Church for a truer ecclesial and liturgical act? We can see early on that once organic and practical movements within liturgy are assigned symbolic meaning it can become difficult, if not impossible at times, to return to a more true understanding of liturgical rites, especially if those rites are actually foreign to the liturgy.

While the Byzantine Liturgy would layer symbolic interpretation upon symbolic interpretation and spice up this simple offertory rite with great pomp and ceremony, the West would eventually head in the opposite direction - only after overburdening its own liturgy, which "had become emeshed in a network of complicated rites drawn from court ceremonial." These court ceremony embellishments were also the source of much of our Byzantine Liturgical rites too. These elaborate ceremonies spread from East Syria (per the "Liturgical Homilies" of Narsai) to Constantinople. We still refer to the doors in the iconostasis, which only the ordained clergy pass through as "Royal Doors," which actually was a name given to the Main Church doors at the West entrance of the Church building where the Emperor entered as opposed to the "Holy Doors" which entered into the altar.

By 700 AD, processions basically ceased at the Lateran basilica (thus rendering the double aisles useless) because of the policy of limiting the movement of the faithful during the liturgy. Along with this, the offertory procession lost any or all of its impressive pomp by becoming a simple collection of bread and wine. This was due to several factors: (1) the overcrowded atmosphere of the Roman liturgy in larger towns, (2) the rise of the daily private mass, and (3) the introduction of unleavened bread in the 9th century, (4) the elimination of "real" offerings of bread, wine, poultry, cheese, etc for the "mass stipend," and finally (5) the ceasing of admonitions from the bishops and church synods by the 11th century. In the East, the Great Entrance procession got more impressive as time went on. But it too was thought by some to have been a replacement of an earlier corporate offering by the people.

PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS

Pseudo-Dionysius was the first to offer a symbolic interpretation of the Liturgy and the Great Entrance in his text "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy." Being of the Alexandrian School, he was a participant of the spiritualizing trend in the Church. He rarely mentions the earthly ministry of Christ and focuses his attention on his divinity. This extreme and lop-sided approach gave us an imbalanced theology in areas of Christology, salvation history and, of course, the Church's Liturgy. This avoidance of addressing the historical work of salvation reflected a neoplatonic orientation within the context of the monophysite movement. But not all is lost with Ps.-Dionysius, for he does subscribe to the Chalcedonian "asynchtos."

Of the four levels of interpretation stated above, Ps.-Dionysius subscribes to the anagogical method, where the intelligible spiritual realities are communicated by the sensible material rites in the liturgy. He proceeds to describe the sacred mysteries by first defining the sacrament, then by describing it, and finally giving us the meaning (or theoria) of it. That meaning (or theoria) comes from a higher reality.

So what is the meaning of the Liturgy to Ps.-Dionysius? The Liturgy is "the allegory of the soul's progress from sin to divine communion; the ascent from the material to the spiritual, from the multiplicity of lower existence to the unity of the divine." It serves as a 'function' of both the heavenly and earthly hierarchies. In short, a medium that transfers God's radiant illumination via the angels and the priesthood to the people and, in turn, allowing the people to return to God. One has to stop for a moment and question whether the proponent of this idea rejected the doctrine of theosis. Does God not work through Christ in the Holy Spirit, thus allowing us men to cooperate with the Holy Spirit to return to our Father through Christ? First, Ps.-Dionysius was not giving us a Trinitarian or soteriological theology but what we would call later "liturgical theology." He gave little attention to the analysis of the rite itself. His attention was on the reality, which lay behind it. And because of this, the Great Entrance was not assigned any meaning to it.

With the advent of the great church of Hagia Sophia being built in Constantinople, there came with it a grander way of doing things at the liturgy. With thousands of people standing by as the gifts were transferred from the skeuophylakion to the altar, there was a tendency to graft on hymns and meaning to it. It was basically undressed and it didn't fit well for its new royal-like environment. Both the architecture and the royal-style entrance procession were made to fit the Dionysian worldview of the time.

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA

The development of the Byzantine tradition was not done in a vacuum. It adopted many properties from the Jerusalem Church. Here, we see an adoption of traditions and meanings from the stational churches found on the places of our Lord's passion, death, and burial. When the lamp was brought into the church from the Lord's tomb, it "... signaled the spiritual presence of Christ the Savior in the assembly ..." This spread from the Jerusalem practice and was easily adopted into Byzantine usage because symbolic interpretation was in vogue (with John the Faster's allusion to the altar being the tomb of Christ) up to and including Blessed Symeon of Thessalonica.

While the Byzantine traditon was immersed in the Dionysian world view, there crept in this historicizing trend to counter-balance the more Alexandrian spiritualization of liturgical meaning. The first liturgical explicator of this was Theodore of Mopsuestia. His writings on the subject can be found in his "Catechetical Homilies" and reflected an Antiochene tradition. They were a series of sermons delivered in Antioch when Theodore was a priest ten years before becoming the bishop of Mopsuestia.

Theodore utilized the Allegorical Approach in connecting the meaning of the liturgical actions with the historical Jesus. With this, the meaning of the priest adopted a more "in persona christi" understanding, and his mediation has Christ acting in the Eucharist.

The Liturgy then became ".. a reenactment of Christ's earthly ministry and his heavenly high priesthood" or better yet, an 'anamnesis' of the resurrection. This then explains why, for the first time, the liturgy's individual rites were affixed representational meaning of the Economy of Redemption by using "... images, types, and symbols that transmit reality."

The Great Entrance had its detailed interpretation included in this new topographical understanding of Christ's earthly ministry. If the altar was the "tomb" of Christ, then the people, actions, and objects in the transfer of gifts were symbolic of "Christ being led to his passion." The bearers of the gifts symbolized the angels, the deacons were the angels, the metal ripidia were the seraphs, the altar was the tomb, and the linens were the burial shroud. They were all "images" of the reality; they were symbolic representations.
Our Byzantine Liturgy keeps this historical-passion understanding in the tropar the priest says after depositing the gifts on the altar and covers them with the incensed aer: "The noble Joseph, after taking down your immaculate body from the cross, wrapped it in a clean shroud with sweet spices and sorrowfully laid it in a new grave." The Russians say the tropar twice. In fact, the antimension on the altar has an image of Christ's burial and these very words written on them. Our Entrancy Hymn on Great Saturday at St. Basil's Liturgy has us sing: "Let all mortal flesh be silent, and let it stand with fear and awe, having no earthly thought. The King of Kings and the Lord of Lords comes to be sacrificed ..." Though this could be taken as referring to our Lord's procession to his passion, it also had a ring of expectation of Communion. Both of these refer to our Lord's passion, whereas the Presanctified Hymn of Entrance refers to his death and burial in the past tense: "Now the powers of heaven are serving us invisibly, for, behold, the King of glory enters, they escort the mystical sacrifice, ALREADY accomplished." The atmosphere is of a "burial-cortege." Along with this funeral tradition is the singing of the Trisagion (or Sanctus), which is also sung during Byzantine funeral processions today or embroidered on the orarion of the deacon. In sum, Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first to "link" the outward actions and texts of the Great Entrance and the heavenly symbolic with meaning.

MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR

The monks took on to this new way of interpreting the liturgy while in the shadows of the Hagia Sophia and its New Liturgy. In fact, there arose a tendency to interpret too much with the risk of losing sight of what was actually happening at the Liturgical celebration. So, a need was there to try to bind the two approaches, the Dionysian-Alexandrian anagogical approach and the Theodorian-Antiochene approach, and establish a happy balance. Maximus the Confessor responded to this call in his book "Mystagogy." He leaned to the Alexandrian tradition, Ps.-Dionysius as his lead, but worked in some down to earth Antiochene historical-salvation elements. His Mystagogy had a dual approach: the first concerned itself with the mystery of salvation to the cosmos in general; hence, it was more typological. Second, he also approached the mystery of the Liturgy in a more anagogical way. Maximus basically describes the symbolism of the rites as they effect the senses, hence the omission of any commentary on the anaphora. "In his view an image is not a sign of an absent reality but the reality itself somehow made present in the sign."

The Liturgy was now interpreted as "... the mystical ascension of the soul to the contemplation of God, and so to union, with Him" and likewise, the Great Entrance was the "... Revelation of the mystery of salvation hidden in God; a foretaste of life after the parousia, in the kingdom." Here was stressed the individual and not the corporate in the mystical ascension to God. The Council of Ancyra and the organic connection between liturgy and people was lost in the dust of meaning and the search for individual liturgical piety.

The simple act of transferring the gifts to the altar before the Liturgy of the Faithful now received its own hymn, the Cherubikon, which was introduced into the liturgy by Emperor Justin II. This hymn emphasized the "supertemporal" nature of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection. In reflection, the extraordinary amount of emphasis, interpretation, meaning and liturgical show made on this action caused anxiety with several Patriarchs. The point being made by them was that the gifts of bread and wine were NOT YET consecrated and, therefore, were still ordinary bread and wine not to be given so much glory and attention. In a sense, there was still that element of expectation of receiving Christ in communion, thus not totally undoing the real elementary nature and meaning of the offertory.

GERMANOS

After the triumph of Orthodoxy over the iconoclasts, there arose a greater need of the Church to accentuate the Incarnate element of Christianity. A mere "representation" of the Divine Economy was still second to the supertemporal nature the images and symbols that were being championed and thus became the popular motif in the understanding of the Great Entrance. That representation had to take on a more fleshy-incarnate ring. In his "Historia of the Church and Contemplation of the Mysteries," Patriarch Germanos set forth his classic sythesis of both traditions found in the Alexandrian and Antiochene genius. Patriarch Germanos was the first bishop to defend images used in the Church and was deposed from his see because of it. He later returned when Orthodoxy and its iconophiles won the day with the people.

Now we have the liturgical forms and symbols interpreted as "images" of both the economy of salvation and the "heaveanly realities." written in a catechism style. The liturgy was "... the Eschatological notion of heavenly liturgy" and also had details to the life of Jesus. The Great Entrance as Christ proceeding to his mystical sacrifice, now had two interpretations satisfying both traditions: first, according to the Antiochene tradition, it was the earthly economy of salvation (the burial of Christ); second, according to the Alexandrian tradition, it was the preparation for the mystery that was going to occur later, that is, the escatological and final consummation. This most satisfying interpretation became the unchallenged text of the meaning of the Great Entrance for 600+ years.

Imagery was hyped up in Germanos' interpretation of the Great Entrance. Everything had a connection with the historical account of our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection. The final preparation of the gifts at the skeuophylakion was Calvary; the diskos were the hands of Joseph and Nicodemus who took Jesus' body down of the Cross; the eileton was the shroud which they wrapped Jesus' body; the altar was the tomb; the divine table was the sepulchre; the aer was the stone which sealed the tomb they put Jesus' body in; and the fire, incense, smoke and fragrant air was the Holy Spirit.

Germanos' Passion imagery stopped in its tracks once the gifts were deposited on the altar. It was unnecessary to continue making the remaining rites of the liturgy images because "... the celebration of the mysteries themselves is the realization of the redemption Christians have already received by grace."

NICHOLAS OF ANDIDA

In the past, only a portion of the Divine Liturgy represented certain key aspects of the Life of Christ. With Nicholas of Andida's "Protheria" (or "Summary Meditation on the Symbols and Mysteries Accomplished in the Divine Liturgy"), the entire liturgy from Prothesis to the post-Communion rites represented the entire life of Christ from his Incarnation and the Virgin Birth to the Ascension and Pentecost. Nicholas' Protheria became the Mother of all symbolic interpretations in that now the entire liturgy became a Christmas story, a Life of Christ, and a Passion Play all rolled into one. The Prothesis before the Liturgy proper became Bethlehem, and popular tradition would even place the Icon of Our Lord's Nativity over the preparation table. The Entrance with candles signified John the Baptist; the entry of the bishop into the sanctuary was the beginning of Christ's public ministry; the reading of the Gospel was Christ's words; and, of course, the Great Entrance became the Christ's Entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. In a general sense, the liturgy was no longer a rite, but an act.

His interpretations had no connections with the texts or liturgical rites. His style was a didactic interpretation of a thesis. Most of Nicholas' interpretations were artificial and forced. Relying on the doctrine of images, the method used by Germanos before him, his main thesis was this: that the "sequence of the individual parts of the liturgy depicts the life of Christ from the incarnation to the ascension." Instead of the symbolism fitting into the Liturgical rites, the Liturgy was fitted into a "preconceived pattern of interpretation which does not arise out of the rite itself." A new interpretation of the Great Entrance was given. It was no longer our Lord's escort to his passion, but his Triumphal Entrance into Jerusalem on what Christians call Palm Sunday. Nicholas had to spread out the Life of Christ over the entire Divine Liturgy and having Christ entombed so soon would have left nothing more to interpret with for later liturgical rites. Christ's passion, death, burial and resurrection were pushed forward to the Elevation of the consecrated Eucharist at the altar after the Anaphora. We see the deacons now wearing the words of the Thrice Holy Hymn on their orarion. Such vestment elements reflect this new interpretation of Jesus entering the city of Jerusalem.

NICHOLAS CABASILAS

There was a backlash against Nichola of Andida's extreme form of symbolic interpretation. Whereas Nicholas of Andida stressed the symbol over the rite, Nicholas Cabasilas stressed the rite over the symbolism. This was due to his Antiochene tradition. The liturgy was "... the essential act in the celebration of the holy mysteries in the transformation of the elements into the divine Body and Blood." Here, Nicholas maintained the rite itself in its prime meaning. It was basically liturgical; "the essential commemoration of Christ is sacramental and real, not symbolic." But our liturgical commentator and interpreter allows some room for symbolic interpretation with the understanding that the Liturgy is meant to appeal to both our "conscious thought" but also our "emotions.� Yet both emotions and contemplation are inferior to the real act of receiving the Eucharistic myteries at Communion.

Since Nicholas Cabasilas permitted some symbolic interpretation in his commentary, he gave meaning to the Great Entrance by it being the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Passion Sunday. Since our Lord was led into Jerusalem with much fanfare of welcoming a King, the Liturgy naturally led to an increase in pomp and ceremony. Nicholas was mindful in setting things straight with the people regarding the difference between the Divine Liturgy - where the gifts were brought in 'unconsecrated' - and the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy - where the gifts were already 'consecrated.' It wasn't the symbolism that was dangerous but the confusion between consecrated and unconsecrated gifts and the ceremonious hype given to one over the other. Nicholas limits his explanation of the symbols to the work of redemption. He is also mindful to state up front that the reason for the Great Entrance was done for "practical reasons."

SYMEON OF THESSALONIKE

Totally disregarding Nicholas Cabasilas' "Commentary," Symeon of Thessalonike reacted differently to the extreme symbolism being rejected. Symeon tried to uphold the Alexandrian tradition - following both Ps.-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor - in his own commentaries, "Interpretation of the Church and the Liturgy" and "On the Holy Liturgy."

Symeon is creative at distinguishing between seen and unseen realities, between heaven and earth, and between realized and anticipated events. The temple becomes where heaven meets earth (or vice-a-versa). The nave or major room where the people worshipped and prayed symbolized earth; the sanctuary or altar became symbolic of heaven. This has become the common explanation given to visitors to Byzantine Churches. He quickly covers the entire economy of salvation in the first half of the liturgy, thus leaving the entire Eucharistic rite open for other interpretation. He makes these particular rites reflect those things that have both present and "anticipated" realities.

Since Christ's earthly ministry was already interpreted as happening symbolically before the Great Entrance, the entrance now symbolized the final coming of Christ. But, of course, this was all but symbolism that Symeon applied to the rite. He did not believe that it was a mere passion play or magical acting out of some mystery play. If he did believe that the gifts being transferred were already the Body and Blood of Christ, then he would have never argued along with Nicholas Cabasilas on the consecratory power of the Epiclesis with the Latins.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We cannot help but realize that all the major interpreters of the Byzantine Liturgy were influenced by their own social and theological conditions surrounding them. Many may agree with the critics of liturgical symbolism that such �crust� should be scoured to purify liturgical actions to enhance the purposes for what they were intended to be. But liturgy does not exist in a vacuum immune from satisfying collective needs. There is no such thing as a purified liturgy. Being the work of the people, the liturgical rituals will have a tendency to find a purpose in serving human life. Mark Searle lists three approaches to the definition of ritual: (1) Formalism, (2) Functionalism, and (3) Symbolic. The latter two approaches are of interest to this paper. Searle notes how psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists see �ritual� as a means to serve the needs of the individual or of the community. From a functional point of view, ritual serves the following functions: (a) the maintenance of group solidarity, (b) the rehearsal of group values, (c) the maintenance of social distinctions and categories, (d) the containing of social conflict, and (e) the facilitating of transitions between categories or states of life. These ritual-functions can be detected in the various symbolic interpretations given to the actions, the participants, and the roles they play in the simple act of transferring the gifts to the altar.

Searle�s third approach in defining ritual considers how meaning is communicated through symbolism. The attempts of the symbolic interpreters were not to totally eclipse the purpose of the liturgy, but to communicate meaning to that purpose when meaning seemed not to be present. Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J. states that, �� processions are icons of the Church�s mystical journey in this world and our liturgical rites should reflect our spiritual pilgrimage.� When frequent communion withered and the sense of �fear� of the �awesome� mysteries kept people looking from a distance, these interpretations filled in that void attempting to connect the people back to the liturgy. Whether that void was filled with Eastern Christian symbolic interpretations or Western �devotio monderna,� such fillers only kept separate the liturgy (or the Church�s prayer) from spiritual life (or the Christian). But should we have to wait until fillers are introduced to begin re-contemplating the real mystery going on at/in Liturgy?

Restoration of the unity between liturgy and spirtual life is possible only if the liturgy was purified of all such �extraneous elements, which were disfiguring its authentic shape� and that we re-establish a "... real correlation between what a member of the Church does in the life of the community and what he does in the eucharistic liturgy."

The above symbolic interpretations seem to have been eradicated through the constant updating and purification of liturgical actions as well as the silence of assigning such symbolic meaning in catechesis. Braso would be proud.

But some meanings die a slow death, especially when authentic meanings are lacking. In some cases, they continue to foster because some still find value in their ability to communicate meaning. We still find icons of the Nativity of Jesus or Abraham attempting to sacrifice Isaac over the table of preparation; a Star of David hangs attached to the asterix placed over the gifts; the words �Holy, Holy, Holy� is sometimes written on the orarion of the deacon; the Antimension lies on the altar; Byzantine Christians still sing the Cherubic Hymn and probably will never rid of it; and none of these have any bearing on what was once a simple liturgical act.

Though many liturgical �renewal� movements have been successful in fulfilling the first step of purifying the liturgy of all its �extraneous elements,� one wonders if the second step has even begun in reestablishing the �correlation� mentioned by A. Schmemman?

In the Byzantine Liturgy, the priest still �monopolizes� various liturgical roles not necessarily his. A lack of correlation between one�s role in the community and one�s actions during the liturgy can get confusing at times. Since there is no bishop or deacon at most of our parish liturgies today, the priest will oftentimes bake the prosphora, prepare it alone at the table of preparation, carry it by himself in the Great Entrance - which oftentimes mimics a �not so great� cuckoo clock entrance, deposit them on the altar and then offer it up to God, thus absorbing the diverse liturgical roles of the community and perpetuating the divorce between the meaning of liturgical actions and the roles the community members have in the Church. Add to this the remaining symbolisms just mentioned, we still have a liturgy which is in need of being reinvigorating and being brought up to date � a process that will have to be molded between the hands of the �purists� and those in search of meaning.

-------

I guess I should add here the point that all meanings, however noble or uplifting, WE assign to liturgical rites are still secondary to the reality of what GOD assigns to us.

Fr. Joe,

It seems that many despise the Eastern Vigil service of Holy Saturday Vespers and Liturgy of St. Basil. Some on these forums have claimed that this (too?) long service has chased people away.

Yet, when I used to occasionally attended the Latin Vigil service back in my dating days, their Easter Vigil service was just as long or even longer and standing room only.

Much of the disdain for our traditions may not come from the traditions themselves, but hatred of any change. Period.

You mention the issue of anticipation and those who wish to restore the services back to their rightful places/times. I cannot help but notice how those who wish such a thing "dictate" such restorations, but those who want to maintain the anticipation tradition as not so 'dictatorial.' A parishioner wanting his/her 'private' Baptism and wanting to include the Filioque in the Creed can be just as dictatorial or even more so.

When I was a young lad, the old babas and papas used to tell me how our Latinized priest ruined our liturgical traditions by introducing everything Latin but nothing Byzantine. Today, the old babas and papas are telling me how our Byzantine priests are ruining THEIR [emphasis mine] church traditions by introducing everything Orthodox! Times and things DO change, no? The babas used to kneel during the Great Entrance out of protest years ago because Father pastor refused to celebrate the Pre-Sanctified liturgy. I've witnessed some parishes where the people will still shout out the Filioque.

You wrote, "These practical and pastoral considerations are not merely ones of convenience of individuals, but really speak to the heart of the MESSAGE [emphasis mine] that is intended to be taken away from the service ..."

What message are you referring to? Like my article on the symbolic interpretation of the Great Entrance, some messages gradually disappear. The question is what message is now getting out? Liturgy or symbolism? Which speaks closer to the reality?

I agree with the idea that ONE of our goals is to create an atmosphere in which the sacred events of the life of Christ become alive and meaningful. Yet, it becomes confusing when Good Friday services are celebrated on Holy Thursday. The convenience factor here seems to have won out. If parishioners find it practically difficult, if not impossible, to attend morning prayers, then shouldn't we abandon them altogether?

It is, indeed, unfortunate that many miss out on receiving the Eucharist on Holy Thursday because Strasti is anticipated in its place. Though we cannot celebrate a Eucharistic liturgy on Good Friday (what exactly does one celebrate on Good Friday morning?), we find it totally acceptable to celebrate a Good Friday service in place of a Eucharistic Liturgy, especially the one commemorating the institution of the Eucharist.

I find it sad that some would consider moving the Passion Gospel Matins to Friday morning as an act of oblivion since no one will attend anyway. Unfortunately, that reasoning prevents the people from receiving the Eucharist. Here, one's attachment to a service is priority, not a special attachment/communion found in the precious and life-giving Body and Blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ. The hierarchy of liturgies has been flipped.

But we STILL act as though the Liturgy/Eucharist is STILL the most integral aspect of ANY sacred mystery. The Matins service that constitutes our funeral traditions plays second fiddle to the "Mass." Our Crowning service is a frame around the "Mass." In all other aspects of our received Ruthenian traditio, the "Mass" is prime, if not preemptive.

Yet, during Holy Week, when we have a chance to participate in a Liturgy on Holy Thursday in commemmoration of the Institution of the Eucharist, we celebrate only Matins.

Is inconsistency a trait of our Ruthenian tradition?

I understand how the blessing of Paschal baskets is being done on Holy Saturdy before we had the chance to welcome the Resurrection. Our culture of parties has also taught us to celebrate marriages before the wedding day. The same goes for anticipating Christmas with all those X-mas parties during times originall meant for fasting. We love to anticipate, because when the 'day' finally arrives, it can then die a quick death like tomorrow's X-mas wrappings on the tree lawn.

Christians follow a different perspective on celebrations. Just as many still enjoy the family recepton and then the honeymoon AFTER the wedding rites have been realized, I would think that enjoying the Paschal food AFTER first welcoming our Lord at the Resurrection is a good thing. Should we be able to fast after the feast and celebrate it beforehand?

I think we have syncretized pagan cultures with Christian principles a bit too much, almost to the point where many cannot make the distinction. The 'logic' and 'theology' of fasting times, post-festive ordos, and the times and places for liturgical happening make a good argument that God, not us, is the standard that we measure things by.

Fr. Robert Taft makes mention of how many prefer to choose other standards, which is why the worn out argument that one will leave the church because one "doesn't get anything out of it" seems foolish, if not selfish. And isn't that what we are dealing with alot of the time? Taft states that what we "get out of it" is the "privelege of worshipping God." Does the Typicon "dictate" priveleges or set some order in how we as church worship? Isn't this, and not personal spiritualities, an apostolic directive?

But there is a difference between those who wish to bring the Liturgy in contact with their lives and those who only want to "dictate" how liturgies are to comply with their well-wishes and matters of convenience. The argument that they will only run away is sad. I know of people who made a fuss when the church wasn't too convenient for them (read: too far away for winter driving) and left, but didn't find it a problem to keep plowing snow in the parish parking lot for money every day during the week when necessary.

Your article seems to have accepted the argument that academics and historians are enemies of the people. But what do you call it when clergy and people totally disregard any of our Byzantine traditions and adopt others freely simply to suit their personal spiritualities?

Joe

Father, bless!

Lots of good stuff.

Let me first heartily agree with your view of the "fusion" of the Saturday Vespers/St. Basil Liturgy with Resurrection Matins. It is an Unnatural Act. I have always loved the observation that Holy Saturday is "the day that lasts forever" - not in a "gee, will this thing ever end" sense, but in the sense of Christ in the tomb and the world in hushed and expectant silence. I have only attended the "fused" service once (we generally take St. Basil some time in the afternoon, then pull out all the stops with Resurrection Matins & Divine Liturgy around 10-ish) and it was bizarre. Forgive the flip-ness, but my thought was "Christ in the toaster." He's in the tomb...DING! He's risen! AAARRRGHHHH!!!

Back to St. Basil.... those 16 Old Testament readings..... it's been my STRONG suspicion for a long time that this particular service is one that's so well documented that they could follow lineage and practice all the way back to Hagia Sophia, so they did. This is great, 'cept those 16 Old Testament readings seem to be there to keep the faithful occupied while Father, the deacons (and deaconesses?? ) and the cohort of fifty catechumens paraded off to the Baptistery out back, did their thing, then hiked back enlightened and robed. We tried doing it "as written" one year, and it was a total liturgical train wreck. Since our baptismal font is thoughtlessly located IN the church, it meant that our poor reader was stuck in the center of the church, doggedly chanting the readings, while everybody craned their necks to see (and hear) the action at the font. We've not done it that way again....

About processions - when our new pastor arrived recently, he asked me how they were customarily done at our parish. "Three times 'round the church" sez I, "except when there's lightning or hail - then it's just once."

Thanks for a great topic!

Christ is Risen!

Sharon
(who also loves Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Nebuchadnezzar And His Orchestra on Holy Saturday)

Great article, Fr. Joe! You raise a lot of good points, especially about the uniqueness of Ruthenian traditions and pastoral considerations.

Just one question, though. You note 16 readings at the Holy Saturday Vigil Liturgy; are you including the Epistle in the total number? I believe there are only 15 Old Testament readings at this service.

Also, the hauntingly-beautiful Canon of Lamentation of the Mother of God, found in Grigassy, is used on Great Friday during Small After-Supper/Compline. Russians will often serve this Small After-Supper immediately after Great Vespers, while people venerate the Plas^c^anica.

Now, regarding the Paschal Vesperal-Liturgy, I throw this one out to the whole group. Given the historical changes and modern situation, would it be wrong to give the option (not a mandate, just an option ) of celebrating Great Vespers, sans St. Basil's Liturgy, on Holy Saturday afternoon (or morning if you prefer)? Diak noted in another thread that this was an option (or, perhaps, an exception) in one Typikon, and I know of at least one American monastery that does/did this. I may go into this further, but now it is lunch time.

Christos voskres!

Dave

While it is standard Ruthenian usage to hold the procession during Vespers and not Matins, I am curious as to variations in how this is carried out. From my experience, Rusyns typically have the priest (or priests, if there are many) carry the Plascanica by himself. I have heard (but not seen first hand, only in pictures) that Western Ukrainians have laymen carry it out, with the priest walking near it with the Holy Gospel. Are these generalizations pretty accurate?

I do recall that Mikita mentions four gospel readings during the procession with the Plascanica. Can anyone comment on this? Is this done anywhere today? The only time I saw this in print was in an "unoffical" booklet prepared by an ACROD parish in PA some years back. How would this be done if the priest is carrying the Shroud?

I have always felt that processing during Vespers makes much more sense. Once we place Christ in the grave, His Sabbath rest begins, and thus we don't take Him out for a stroll during Matins.

Dave

In my cradle pairsh which had, at the time, a parochial school of over 100 students in grades 1-8, the procession involved the priest and ALL of the school children. The plashchanitsa was carried by the priest. The older boys carried the censers and incense and took turns censing, the Gospel book, candles etc. Some of the school girls carried implements of crucifixion, lance, sponge, etc.

I suppose it was a bit over the top perhaps, but it was a good thing.

Dave, there is also a Canon of Lamentation for Small Compline on Great and Holy Friday contained in Bishop Kallistos' Triodion. We sang it this year while the faithful were venerating the Plashchanitsya after the Vespers of Entombment.

The Canon of Small Compline for Great and Holy Friday is such a moving piece of liturgical poetry, forming a wonderful continuous stream of lamentation and if you have to anticipate Jerusalem Matins it forms a very nice transition.

I also was wondering about the 16 readings, as every Typikon I have seen calls for 15 OT, the Epistle from Romans and the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Fr. John,

May I ask what parish you serve?

Joe

Dave, you bring up an interesting point. Generally, in Ukrainian parishes I have been at on Great and Holy Friday the priest is last in the Great and Holy Friday Vespers procession, carrying the Cross while he is preceded by four men carrying the Plashcnanitsya.

But I have seen both ways done in both churches over the years, i.e. four men carrying the Plashchanitsya in Ruthenian parishes and the priest alone carrying the Plaschanitsya in Ukrainian parishes.

Also I think it is curious why in the last Ruthenian Pittsuburgh booklets I saw for Vespers of Holy Friday (from the Seminary Press sometime in the 80s as I recall) "Yehda ot dreva" is abbreviated and not sung during the procession when that is precisely the tone and nature of the processional stikhera, such as at a Litya. Only "Noble Joseph" is sung repeatedly during the procession. To me that doesn't make great sense liturgically singing stikhera (and most sitting at that) in the church that were meant to be sung in procession.

Generally in my experience the Ukrainains have the procession during the stikhera with all of the the Yehda ot dreva/Koli ot dreva stikhera, re-enter the church singing Nyni Otpushchashe and the conclusion of Vespers. Then the "Blahobrazni Iosif" is sung once by the priest and several times by the congregation before the Plaschanitsya with prostrations as the concluding Troparia of Vespers.

Dear-in-Christ Diak,

XB!

I would greatly appreciate it if you would elaborate on some points above which I address below.

The aposticha (I take "Yehda ot dreva" for that), called "Hymns at the Praises" on pages 29 of the 1976 Seminary Press "Solemn Vespers for Holy and Great Friday" are the same in number in other Slavic sources I have consulted. Do the Ukrainians have more, or what exactly do you mean by "abbreviated"?

Which "processional stikhera" do you refer to "not sung during the procession when that is precisely the tone and nature" of them?

Your point about the Litija is interesting. However if when you say "Yehda ot dreva/Koli ot dreva stikhera" you mean what the Ruthenians call the aposticha, which seems to be the only possibility, how exactly does that work? The people carry their books and sing? What happens if the procession is long as happens in a large community? There are only five "stichera" at the aposticha. The Noble Joseph/Blahoobraznyj Iosif is short and the Ruthenian melody at least is rather easily sung. I just can't imagine how people or a choir walks around with books singing.

In the case of the Russians and the Greeks both sing the Trisagion Hymn during the procession at Matins on Holy Saturday.

It seems that in the case of the Litija the movement is usually from the porch (or narthex) which is a rather shorter distance and in modern practice does not involve the whole congregation nor are anything other than candle, censer, book, etc., being carried usually.

I look forward to your reply.

Tony

Tony, yes, I was referring to the Apostikha for Great and Holy Friday Vespers (as Joe would say, "brain fart"). I have cantored in Ukrainian language parishes for a long time and these are often referred to in the Triod/Molitvoslov as "stikhera na stikhovni" and that comes out literally sometimes. Jehda ot dreva/Koli z dreva are the Slavonic/Ukrainian introductory phrases for the first Apostikha verse "When Joseph of Arimithea".

Since the booklets for this service in both Ruthenian and Ukrainian usage are generally service-specific and small, I haven't really found them to be difficult to carry and sing.

And even in Ruthenian parishes where only "Noble Joseph" is sung in the procession, people seem to often take the booklets with them. I had never thought of that as a difficulty before, or really ever thought about that much at all, as at many processions I have been part of people just seem to carry their booklets with them.

In larger parishes urban parishes the priest and servers often conduct the procession within the church.

And regarding the Litya, which really should have its own thread to discuss, the Litya was historically a much longer and elaborate procession than the current Orthodox and Greek Catholic usages which do proceed only to the narthex. There are enough Litya stikhera for most feasts to take a procession around the Church during the Litya instead of just going to the narthex.

The processions with the Epitaphios singing the Apostikha (not Noble Joseph) around the church is common amongst the Greeks. The Ukrainian usage is similar to the Greek in this regard.

By "abbreviated" I was referring to the length of the sung melodies (settings), not the texts themselves as during a procession these need to be metred out to make it through the procession, or repeated. If you have ever been through a Greek procession on Good Friday with the very somber and slow Byzantine melodies sung to eison you will see what I am saying. It is the funeral procession of all funeral processions.

I agree as far as modern usage that the Ruthenian usage, like the Ukrainian usage, and most all Byzantine usage today for that matter, contains four apostikha, a Glory, and a doxasticon. But some older Greek sources do have more text to be sung during the procession (I have not actually seen the texts but read commentary), reflective likely of longer processions.

In at least one Russian parish I have seen on Great and Holy Friday, the priest carries the Plashchanitsya over himself (and I have also seen where the priest carries the Gospel and the Plashchanitsya was carried over him) from the Holy Table through the north door during the singing of the Noble Joseph after the final Trisagion, and there is no other procession. Then Glory and the Angel Stood were sung as the priest censed the Plashchanitsya, sometimes followed by a sermon, which was then followed by "Wisdom" and the conclusion.

As with most things Byzantine, there is plenty of variation in particular and local practices. Personally, weather permitting, I prefer the longer processions like the Greeks for Great and Holy Friday. Something about seeing that shroud be carried, walking with our Lord to His burial and eventual rising.