www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Divine Liturgy Translation

The gifts of bread and wine are brought to the altar while the Cherubic Hymn is being sung. It is a hymn which was written to cover the action of the procession of the gifts. The IELC translation is:
Let us who mystically represent the cherubim, and sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now set aside all earthly cares, that we may receive the King of all, invisibly escorted by angelic hosts. Alleluia.
The hymn is broken into two parts by the commemorations of the priest for civil and ecclesiastical authorities, the founders and benefactors of the church and all true-believing ( = Orthodox) Christians. We shall return to his issue later. The Cherubicon is also one of the hymns that is variable. There is a particular cherubicon for the Presanctified, and also for Great Thursday and Great Saturday.
First, this hymn is one that can be dated, and we have records of its introduction into the Liturgy. It was introduced by the Emperor Justin II in the year 573-574. The Patriarch Euthyches (552-565; 577-582) witnesses to the ultimate motive for this hymn entering the Liturgy. He complained about the chanting of Psalm 23:7-10 (24 Hebrew numbering) during the entrance of the gifts. A refrain of this psalm is "Let him enter, the king of glory." For the Patriarch Euthyches this was a theological error - the gifts of bread and wine were not yet the body and blood of Christ, the "Kingof glory" is not entering. Euthyches said, �They act stupidly, who have taught the people to sing a certain psalmic chant ... the people say that they bear in the king of glory and refer in this way to the things being brought up, even though they have not yet been consecrated by the high-priestly invocation ( = the Anaphora)." Of course, some will take note that the Cherubicon is hardly less strong on this point, "That we may receive the King of all," and that faithful continue to honor the gifts that are being brought forth. Taft's opinion, and this seems reasonable to me, is that the Cherubicon was sung as an antiphon with Psalm 23:7-10 and that later the psalm verses were completely pushed out by the hymn itself. This also happened with the Trisagion. Euthyches' venting ("They act stupidly ... ") probably did not have much practical effect.
The over-all theme of the hymn is one common to the Byzantine Liturgy: that our earthly Liturgy is offered in union with the heavenly offering of praise by the angelic choirs. We see this also in the Prayer of the Entrance and in the Anaphora itself in the hymn of victory ("Holy, holy, holy .. Called in the West, the Sanctus). Many "modern" people, of course, dismiss the idea of angels, but I find there is a constant stream of interest in angels and their relationship with us "mortals." The hymn itself mentions the Trisagion ("Thrice-holy"), sung by the angels and its relationship to the Trinity. This hymn then brings us into the presence of the Trinity. Therefore, we must "set aside all earthly cares." Some have interpreted this to mean that our Liturgy is totally mystical, it is concerned with spiritual and heavenly matters, and that, therefore, the Byzantine Church is not concerned with social works and the mundane needs of the people. However, this has not been borne out in history, as the Church of the Byzantine Empire was quite concerned about issues of social welfare. The hymn itself uses the vocabulary of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 8:4-15). The "earthly cares" (Greek = merimnan) are the "seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life, and they fail to produce mature fruit." The hymn does not tell us to ignore charity to the needy, but warns us against a love of riches and pleasures that would choke off the life of the spirit, a message that we can truly hear in America today. The angels escort the King of all. Again some have pointed out a translation glitch here, that "escort" really means "to bear aloft on shields." This was the way a conquering king in antiquity was brought into the city. However, on this point, by the time the cherubicon was written, the Greek word "doruphoreo" had come to mean simply "to escort or accompany" despite its etymological roots. (see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 383) This is a common phenomenon, and I'm sure, given time, i could think of an English example.
The IELC only changed one word is the translation we've become accustomed to: in the second part of the Cherubicon, "Welcome" becomes now "receive." The word here literally means more than welcome, but to actually "receive," as "to receive in Communion." The Cherubicon, then, looks forward to the ultimate goal of the Divine Liturgy, that we are united to God in the reception of Holy Communion.

The Liturgy of St. James is not a true Byzantine Liturgy - it is the Divine Liturgy as celebrated in the Syro-Antiochean tradition. When a portion of the Syrian Church remained faithful to the Council of Chalcedon, supported by the Emperors (they were called Melkites from the Syrian word for "king"), they were eventually led to adopt the Byzantine Rite of the Constantinopolitan capitol. However, they retained their Antiochean Liturgy for certain occasions - one of which was the Paschal Vigil Liturgy. This is how the Antiochean Cherubicon "Let all mortal flesh keep silent ... " entered the Byzantine tradition. And the celebration of the Liturgy of St. James passed over to other branches of the Byzantine Church also. Of course, it is a witness to the variety of Eastern Liturgy and that not everything must always be the same.

During the singing of the Cherubicon, the great Entrance takes place. The Cherubicon is a hymn that was introduced to "cover: this liturgical action. In its origin, the great Entrance was truly "great." At least in Haghia Sophia, the gifts were brought in from an outside building called the "Skeuophylakion," ( = "tabernacle"). The gifts were then brought in through the center of the church. At first, the deacons alone brought the gifts into the church, where the celebrant met them before the Holy Table and placed them on the Table. To this very day, the Bishop maintains this custom in the Hierarchial Liturgy. He waits at the Royal Doors and receives the gifts from the priests and deacons. Later (I think about the ninth century), the priest began to take part in the Entrance. As the priest went through the center of the church, the people asked them to pray for their intentions. Later, this was formalized into a particular series of commemorations for the church and civil authorities in order to bring order to the process. Also when this happened, the commemorations began to be said aloud. (I guess the process from loud to silent was not universal.) This was the most recent place in the Liturgy that commemorations for particular people was added, the first place was the anaphora (the diptychs), the second the litanies, then the great Entrance. The recitation of the commemorations aloud now interrupts the Cherubicon. The Presanctified Liturgy retains the original custom of no loud commemorations. I think, in fact, that the great Entrance of the Presanctified Liturgy is the one place in the Byzantine Liturgy were there is a built-in period of silence. I don't think there are any special translation issues connected with this part of the Liturgy.

This is truly a fascinating thread, thank you so much, Father!

This question probably ranks as liturgical trivia, but it's made me curious. I've noticed that different traditions (Ruthenian vs Ukranian vs. Romanian vs. Melkite, say) treat the commemorations during the Great Entrance a bit differently. The Ruthenians run them all together, with one "Amen" at the end. Even if it's a concelebrated Divine Liturgy & the commemorations bounce between two bishops and a dozen priests, there's still only a single "Amen" at the end (leaving aside clueless & enthusiastic congregations!). My limited exposure to Melkite and Romanian Divine Liturgies suggests they do it otherwise, with the celebrant commemorating someone or a group of someones, then pausing for the "Amen" then going on to commemorate more folks, then another "Amen," et cetera. And some priests (seemingly no "tradition" link here) seem more likely to include "special intention" type commemorations as well. Could you comment? (Or is this entirely too trivial? )

I am also delighted to know that "setting aside all earthly cares" doesn't mean ignoring all temporal needs. My children (especially as babies) have an uncanny knack for needing IMMEDIATE attention for one crisis or another just as we chant "..set aside all earthly cares."

Sharon

"Euthyches' venting ("They act stupidly ... ") probably did not have much practical effect."

Fr. David,

I guess such negativity wasn't so well accepted by those adopting newly organic developments.

I found the history of the symbolic interpretation of our liturgy fascinating but also disturbing. Fascinating for it shows how the liturgy is not static; that it can find meaning through the ages. Disturbing for it shows that that which is accepted so readily is either to "fill a void" whereby the rite itself has lost touch with its purpose and extraordinary means of understanding meaning are sought out which build a house of cards of liturgical theology. What else is there a worshipper to do when so much is taken silently?

Dear Cantor Joe,

I think that silence can be great on certain subjects.

Don't you?

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father David,

But doesn't the way in which Byzantium obligated the Syrians in union with it to use its liturgy over and above that of St Jacob of Jerusalem show that our Byzantine tradition is as bad as the Roman tradition in these respects?

Alex

In reply to Sharon (it was good to see you at the Cantor's Institute) - there is a great variation in the commemorations of the great Entrance. This is because it was added so lately into the Liturgy. The more recent a practice is, the more local variations it will show, because, of course, the different national traditions became stronger over time.

In reply to Orthodox Catholic,
I have heard some complain, usually privately, that the Byzantines were as pushy in the Liturgy as the Romans. However, I think we have to be careful in judging the liturgical - political - cultural attitudes of the ancient people in light of our own modern attitudes. We really aren't able to put ourselves back in the total environment of an ancient time. One might observe that both Rome and Constantinople were imperial centers and they did at times behave - well - imperially. It is a historical fact that some groups of Christians welcomed the Moslem Arabs as liberators from Byzantine imperialism in one of the sad episodes of the Christian story.

Fr. Dave

Some of the translation issues are in the private priest's office of the Liturgy. The chanting of the Cherubicon is a people's hymn that covers the bringing in of the gifts of bread and wine. As such, it is a part of the Gospel Liturgy (Jesus "took" bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to his disciples."). The Great Entrance is the "taking" of the bread. Certainly though this does not mean that every ceremony connected with it is apostolic. During the chanting of the Cherubicon, the priests with the other ministers:
1) Say the Prayer of the Cherubicon (by the priests, with upraised hands)
2) the deacon censes the Holy Table (altar) from the four sides, and the gifts on the altar of preparation (the incensation of the icon screen and people have been added later)
3) the priests and deacons say the Cherubicon three times (because of their actions at this time, they cannot sing with the people). The deacon holds the censer at this time, but almost all of the priests have forgotten this, because we haven't restored the diaconate until recently
4) the priests, deacons and other servers go to the altar of preparation where the gifts are
5) on the way the priest says, "O God, be merciful to me, a sinner." There are many points in the Liturgy where the priest proclaims his unworthiness
6) the priest censes the gifts at the altar of preparation - note that if there is no deacon, the priest also does the deacon's incensation, which is then a kind of duplication
7) at the altar of preparation, the deacon says, "Lift up, Father," and the priest replies, "Lift up your hands to the holy gifts and bless the Lord." This was a long-discussed translation issue. This is a citation of Psalm 133 (Heb 134): 2, but the Greek itself is indeterminate, it says, literally, "lift up your hands to the holies" It is most often interpreted as "holy place," but this shows the difficulty of translation, for we are dealing here with something that was left vague in the original. Here the Commission chose "holy gifts," since the priest says this as he reaches out to take the gifts to the Holy Table, but this is an interpretation.
8) the priest gives the deacon the diskos and aer. The celebrant takes the chalice and the concelebrants other holy objects
9) the entrance is made with the commemorations said aloud
10) back at the Holy Table, the priest places the chalice there and takes the diskos from the deacon. He removes the small veils (this removal is also forgotten by many priests, who still follow the Latin custom of keeping all the veils on until the Anaphora), he then takes the censer, censes the aer and places over the gifts, saying the Troparion of Good Friday, "The noble Joseph took down your most pure body from the cross. He wrapped it in a clean shroud and with fragrant spices laid it in burial in a new tomb." This opens up a whole new question, which would require a treatise in itself - that is the allegorical interpretation of the Liturgy, where each moment of the Liturgy corresponds to a moment in our Lord's life. These interpretations may be an aid to piety, but they may also obscure the presence of the Liturgy in our lives now, as well as the future dimension, the future coming of our Lord. The Liturgy looks to both the past and the future. Most of the allegorical interpretations do not find an explicit mention in the Liturgy, but this troparion at this point canonizes one of the most ancient allegories - the Great Entrance as the burial procession of our Lord. This interpretation is already found in Theodore of Mopsuestia at the end of the fourth century. The Troparion, of course, is about the burial of Jesus. "Noble" here means that Joseph was of the nobility, it is not simply a virtue attached to him.
11) The priest then censes the gifts saying the end of Psalm 50, "In your goodness show favor to Zion ..." The deacon said Psalm 50 during his incensation. The very last words give the meaning, "then you will be offered young bulls on your altar." The Christian altar fulfills the sacrifices of the Old Law, the offering is now bread and wine which are to become the body and blood of Christ.
12) There is then a dialogue between the priest and the deacon. This was originally a dialogue between the celebrant and his con-celebrants. The celebrant first asks for a remembrance in prayer, and the concelebrants answered "May the Lord God remember your priesthood in his kingdom." Then the celebrant said, "Pray for me, my concelebrants," and they replied in the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," (Luke 1:35). The celebrant answers with an ancient formula found in the Liturgy, and adapted from Romans 8:26, "May the Spirit himself concelebrate with us all the days of our lives." For many centuries the nature of this dialogue has been forgotten, and was relegated to the priest and deacon. However, the sense of it is a dialogue betwwen the celebrant and concelebrants. This has been restored as such in the Archieraticon (Bishop's Liturgicon) of 1973, and the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission, with Rome's approval, also restored it here. Taft noted that it parallels the Roman rite, "Orate, fratres."
The great Entrance is not yet complete, there is yet a prayer of the priest to explain the whole action, which I will turn to next.

The Cherubic Hymn is sung while a liturgical action takes place: the bread and wine to be used in the eucharistic Liturgy are brought to the Holy Table. This liturgical action ends with a litany and a prayer. The litany is problematical - the "Litany the Angel of Peace" is used in Vespers and Matins for leaving the service and going back into the world. In fact, it usually begins with some variation of "Let us complete our prayer to the Lord." The fact that we ask for "an angel of peace" as a "guardian." The idea that we are returning to our daily lives is implicit in the petition, "that we may live the rest of our life in peace and repentance." Why is it here? Taft's opinion is that "the litany should be suppressed completely." (The Great Entrance, p. 426) His opinion is that the Litany entered the Divine Liturgy from the Presanctified Liturgy, since it is the Litany that concludes Vespers, and in the Presanctified the Litany after the great Entrance and before the Our father is the same litany. Could it also be that this litany was a dismissal of those faithful who were not going to participate fully in the eucharistic Liturgy? We have no printed evidence, but I agree with Taft that this litany is now misplaced. At the same time, all prayers were introduced by a diaconal invitation, it would be proper to introduce the prayer with a litany, but rather with the small litany, or with the simple, �Again and again in peace let us pray to the Lord." What the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission decided was to leave one of the petitions as an introduction to the prayer, "For the precious gifts placed before us, let us pray to the Lord." The older translation "here offered" is too strong, the Byzantine Liturgy has no "offertory,"

The whole action of bringing the gifts of bread and wine to the Holy Table is summed up by the prayer the priest says after the Great Entrance: "Lord God Almighty, who alone are holy and receive the sacrifice of praise from those who call upon you with their whole heart, accept also the prayer of us sinners; bring us to your holy altar; enable us to offer you gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our sins and for the people's failings. Make us worthy to find favor in your sight that our sacrifice may be pleasing to you, and that the good Spirit of your grace may rest on us, on these gifts here present and on all your people."
It is a hinge prayer - we have broght the gifts and now must ourselves come to the Holy Table to pray the Prayer of Offering (the Anaphora). The priest, therefore, says:
"accept our prayer"
"Bring us to your Holy Altar"(the word used here is "thusiasterion", and not "trapeza")
"enable us to offer your gifts and sacrifices"
[Unfortunately, this phrase has been the bane of translators. In the Greek the word "prosagage" - "bring" demands an object, but what the object is is unclear. Most translators refer it to the "prayer of us sinners", but Mateos showed it more probably refers to "Us," that is, bring "us," the priests (most early Liturgies were concelebrations) to the altar. The mistranslation occurs because we have forgotten the original intention of this prayer.]
May "the good Spirit of your grace descend on us - the gifts present - the people."
The prayer makes a clear distinction between the priests con-celebrating and the laity attending. The priest prays for the forgiveness of his own sins, but for the people's "failings," the IELC's translation of "thoughtless or negligent deeds." The priest indeed is able to accuse himself of sins, but cannot ascribe the same guilt to others.
The priest asks for the Spirit to work in this liturgy to come on the priests who shall pray the anaphora, upon the gifts - to transform them - and upon the communicants - to sanctify them.
That the role of the priest was to invoke God for the Spirit (a gift received in ordination) was common to the ancient Church, East and West. Pope Gelasius (492-496) asks how a priest who is reprobate - full of crimes - could "come to the consecration of the divine mysteries invoking the heavenly Spirit." This prayer, then, is a perfect complement to the epiclesis, which is an invocation of God the Father to send the Spirit upon us, the gifts, and those who are about to partake of them.
The rubric before this prayer calls it a "prayer of offering." However, there is no "offertory" in the Byzantine rite, and this rubric refers to this prayer and the presbyteral prayers that follow it. It refers especially to this prayer - the "hinge" between the Liturgy of the Word and the Anaphora, the Anaphora itself (which means "prayer of offering") and the Prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion is received. These prayers, of no others, should be said aloud. I do not believe that this in any way violates the mystery of the Liturgy, but instead reveals it, for it is indeed our acknowledgment that we are truly completely dependent on God, who alone works in the Liturgy in a manner beyond our mere human understanding.
In the books today, the prayer comes in the middle of the litany, though it clearly is connected with the doxology that ends the litany. This was simply for the sake of convenience - if there was no deacon, one priest read the first four petitions and another the remianing petitions. That way, the priest reading the first four could stop and go directly into the prayer and the priest proclaiming the remaining petitions could read the pray and then finish the litany. Obviously, in the IELC translation, the prayer will be rejoined with its doxology.

Thank you Fr. David for these wonderful commentaries on the Divine Liturgy.

This remains my favorite thread.

While it may seem out of place and probably of little importance or controversy, I found this great explanation in, of all places, Yves Congar's I Believe in the Holy Spirit. He was quoting form W.C. van Unnik Dominus Vobiscum: The Background of a Liturgical Formula, found in New Testament Essays, Studies in Memory of T.W. Manson, ed. AJR Higgins (Manchester, 1959),

"The Lord be with you--and with your spirit... can be compared with statements made by Paul in Gal 6:18; Philem 25: 2; Tim 4:22. The words do not simply mean: 'and with you', which would be no more than an exchange of religious wishes helping to create the spiritual space of the celebration. They mean more than this. The Lord is (be) with..." is frequently used in the Old Testament and it is often connected with the presence of the Spirit in the one who has to perform this action. In the New Testament and early Christianity, the Spirit is particularly active in prayer and the worshipping assembly. In the bried dialogue between the minister and the community recorded by Hippolytus ( Apostolic Tradition, 4;7;22;26), the presence of the Spirit has to be ensured so that the liturgical action can take place; hence the words: The Lord be with you, gifted as you are for that purpose with the charism of the Spirit. According to the Fathers, the necessary charism was conferred on the priest at ordination. Nothing, however, takes place automatically, and every spritiual activity requires an epiclesis."

John

In continuing this "every liturgical event requires an epiclesis" concept from my previous post, I have a question regarding the New Translation.

At "Bow your heads to the Lord." another epiclesis event occurs. My question is: why is this taken inaudibly? It seems to me, that the salvific message contained within it, is essential to the lay calling.

To see what I mean, the prayer that follows this command is:

"We give you thanks, O King invisible, Who by Your immeasurable power have fashioned all things, and in the greatness of Your mercy have brought all things out of nonexistence into being. Look down from heaven, O Lord, upon those who bow their heads unto You, for they do not bow to flesh and blood, but to You, awesome God. Therefore, o Master, make straight for our good, the present way, according to the need of each: sail with those who sail, travel with those who travel, cure those who are sick, O Healer of souls and bodies."

The subsequent doxology is taken aloud:
"Through the grace, the mercies and the loving-kindness of Your only-begotten, and Whom You are blessed, together with Your all holy gracious, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and forever."

This is then followed by another great "epiclesis moment", also taken silently:

"Look down, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, from Your holy dwelling-lace and from the throne of glory of Your kingdom, and come to sanctify us, You Who are seated on high with the Father, and dwell here invisibly among us, and deem it proper to impart to us, with Your mighty hand, Your most pure body and precious blood, and through us, to all the people."

There is no end to the beauty of our liturgy.

John

Father Dcn John, I believe that the prayer at the bowing of the heads is taken aloud in the Passaic eparchy. It has been in our parish for at least the last 5 years, whether at the DL or at Vespers. This is a recent change (within the time of Bishop Andrew's coming to Passaic). Is it instructed to take it silently in the "new" translation? Thanks! John