www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology New Byzantine Catholic, concerned about Revisions of the Divine Liturgy

Some comments on the Revised Liturgy according to JD's list.

1. The prayer of the First Antiphon concluding the Litany of Peace MUST be recited aloud.

True

2. More than one verse of the antiphons is PROHIBITED.

True

3. The �little litanies� between the antiphons are PROHIBITED.

True

4. The Beatitudes are effectively PROHIBITED because they are not specifically permitted in the official directives.

False. In fact the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes will be included as an option on any Sunday other than those with special antiphons.

5. The priestly prayers before most of the doxologies MUST BE PRAYED ALOUD.

False. Most remain silent.

6. The traditional introduction (�Wisdom!� and �Let us be attentive!� to the epistle is PROHIBITED).

False. It is included.

7. The litany after the Great Entrance is PROHIBITED and the prayer of the litany MUST be prayed aloud.

Which litany? The Litany of Catechumens is included and called for if catechumens are present. The Litany of Supplication is suppressed here.

8. The introduction to the Creed �The doors, the doors�.� is replaced with �In wisdom let us profess our faith.�

False. "The doors the doors, in widsom let us be attentive" remains.

9. It is PROHIBITED to sing the full �It is proper and just to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity one in substance and undivided� according to the official books published by Rome.

Which one? Before the Creed it remains, before the Anaphora it is reduced to "It is proper and just." since The Anaphora is to be chanted aloud it is no longer necessary to continue with this Slav addition.

10. It is PROHIBITED to pray the anaphora quietly as directed by the official books published by Rome and as done by the Orthodox.

The official books published by Rome do not include any rubric that these prayers be taken quietly. Some Orthodox also take these prayers aloud.

11. The first several petitions of the litany before the Lord�s Prayer are combined together into the format of a prayer by the priest. The �Grant it O Lord� petitions are PROHIBITED. These do come to us from Vespers and have been an integral part of the preparation for Holy Communion for a thousand years.

Two petitions are combined and have no resemblance to a priest's prayer. The "Grant it O Lord" petitions remain as an option.

12. The priestly prayer before the Lord�s Prayer MUST be prayed aloud.

True

13. The litany after communion is PROHIBITED. It is reduced to the introduction petition and the prayer MUST be prayed aloud.

The Litany of Thanksgiving is not prohibited but shortened to "Arise. Having received..." The prayer is aloud.

Chrisht is Risen!
A few very quick comments:
The litany AFTER the Great Entrance, not one of the litanies before it
It's not a Slav addition ... it's sometimes used in Greece, and apparently was standard in Constantinople in Patriarch Nikon's day, and so found it into the Slavonic translation. But I've heard it bot ways in both Greek and Slavic churches, although it is, admittedly, far more common among Slavs.
Once again, let me note, that this done by a small fraction of a percent of Orthodox priests and is looked askance upon in the Orthodox Church as a whole. Time will tell if it survives, but my guess is it won't. And, nearly all Orthodox will look upon it as an innovation.

Photius

Forgive me for butting in. But, it seems there is a comparison of apples and oranges of sorts going on here.

James Damascene said Deacon Lance said Are you talking about the same thing? It doesn't look like it. The last time I was in a Passaic parish the introduction to the Epistle and the Creed, and Anaphora were as JD mentions it.

T

Tony,

JD stated: "The new text of the Divine Liturgy includes many of these changes. Worse yet, it includes some INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE, which should be condemned outright."

My post was pointing out where the revised Liturgy differs from what is current in Passaic.

Fr. Deacon Lance

You are right. Forgive me for butting in.

Thank you.

A few contributions:

The recitation of the Anaphora allowed in the Roman Mass was absolutely forbidden prior to Vatican II, with these exceptions:
a) the Preface was sung aloud during High Mass;
b) the phrase "Nobis quoque peccatoribus" was said in a low but audible voice, and
c) the Per Ipsum was sung aloud during High Mass.

However, people were encouraged to follow the Mass in missals, which would have meant that many people would have known the text of the Anaphora more-or-less closely from reading it.

Reader Photius raises a telling point: "As an Orthodox, I perceive these Latinizations as proof that Rome incapable and unwilling to let Eastern Rite Catholics retain their Rite intact; or, at least, any Eastern Rite under Rome feels some need, some compulsion, to bastardize its Rite".

Unfortunately, Photius is quite correct (and to those who regard "bastardize" as an offensive term, I respond that "hybridize" in this context is far too weak). There are two useful books on the subject: Cyril Korolevsky's *Uniatism*, and Jacob Vellian (editor) *The Romanization Impulse*. What's particularly depressing is that some local Churches which are otherwise remarkably free of such romanizations will almost invariably introduce at least a couple of them semi-deliberately, to "prove" something or other. Numerous examples could be cited.

As for the attempt to exonerate Rome itself from any responsibility, and lay the blame exclusively on the bishops: well, just who has appointed these bishops? In the case of the Syro-Malabar Church, who denied these Christians their own bishops for three centuries, and then saddled them with bishops who in the majority bitterly opposed the efforts to restore the Chaldean Liturgy? It is not true of all Bishops: Mar Joseph Powathil, Metropolitan of Changanacherry, is a joyful exception - but His Eminence is indeed an exception.

It is, alas, indisputable, that one can find specific instances of quite a few innovations in the Eastern Orthodox world if one casts one's net widely enough. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of Eastern Orthodox Church do not countenance these innovations. Photius has a strong consensus behind what he is saying.

[Along that line, I was appalled a few years back when a friend tried to tell me that "the Orthodox use the marriage vows, so why shouldn't we?" When I asked for a source of this amazing and false assertion, it developed that my friend's experience of Eastern Orthodoxy was limited to Ukrainian Orthodox in the USA; evidently he had never bothered to look in such inaccessible, out-of-print sources as Hapgood. ]

To no one's great surprise, I should like to welcome Photius's valued contributions. To those who feel differently, I would offer a wise observation from C.S. Lewis: it is not always the familiar truth of which we are most in need - it is the truth we do not like which is often most necessary.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

The Hapgood Service Book is far from out-of-print. It can be bought, for instance, at the SVS bookstore, online at www.light-n-life.com [light-n-life.com] and I imagine from a number of other sources. This makes it accessible, not inaccessible.

I have seen the Hapgood Service Book used on numerous occasions for ordinations, etc.

Tony

Dear Friends,
Christ is among us!
In all of the clamor over the taking of certain prayers aloud in the Divine Liturgy, it has been forgotten that ALL of the prayers discussed were originally taken aloud by the Bishop or Priest celebrant. Over various centuries, usually for reasons of shortening the Divine Liturgy, the various prayers were increasingly taken silently, and covered by the more extensive singing of the various responses of the Divine Liturgy.

The ONLY private prayers of the priest during the Divine Liturgy were the "Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn" and the priest's personal prayer of preparation before Communion.

Please do not infer herectical intensions for those of us Orthodox Christians (both EC & EO) who pray the various prayers aloud.

Christ is Risen!
Father, Bless!
This has been discussed many times already on this forum. I don't have time right now to address again all of my points opposing reverting to saying the prayers out loud. Briefly, please let it be noted that the notion that this came about to shorten the Liturgy is but one theory (the one which Schmemann was convinced of), but the opinions of some are that this came about for the same reason that taking Communion in the hand, which was suppressed at the same time, came about: It was no longer appropriate to the piety of the times. If so, it is much less appropriate today when piety is very thin, indeed, especially in the New World. Saint Symeon of Thessalonika thought well of it, commenting that the people have no need to hear the priest's words, since the priest addresses God directly.

Referring to the recitation out loud of the priestly prayers as "heretical" is, of course, laughable as well as ignorant and wrong; nonetheless, most of the Orthodox Church looks askance upon this, and it is an innovation in that it has not been done since there came into existence a distinct Byzantine Rite.

Photius, Reader

Some food for thought:

But divine worship of the Orthodox Church is rightly considered by her members as her most valuable possession. The Russian services in particular are beautiful, with their harmonious chanting, the gold of the vestments and icons, with the burning candles and many colored lamps. But this treasure, so luxuriously decorated by the loving zeal of the Russian people, is more and more losing its real religious significance. It is becoming the expression of aesthetic emotions, the inviolable decoration of everyday life or even the means of forgetting oneself and resting from the afflictions of earthly life. Contemporary Russian worship can be compared with the ancient images of Russian iconography, which before the revolution were as if chained inside golden frames with precious stones, and the people praying before them had no idea of the face within and its severe beauty. Russians in general have also forgotten the worship which could be a united and immediate expression of their spirit of prayer. Artistic chanting, the solemn and little understood symbolic actions of the priest, the still less understood but melodious Slavonic language-all this has become for them worship itself, while the real face of worship has long ago become hidden in their ecclesiastical consciousness. The pre-revolutionary episcopate sensed the tragedy of our Church, and in their reports they fearlessly proposed to take up the fight against this evil.

"The people have no true prayers" writes Constantine, Bishop of Samara (I:440). "The people patiently stand [3] for whole hours through the worship in the church, but this is not prayer since the feeling of prayer cannot be sustained for whole hours without an understanding of the words of prayer, and the words of the service in the church are above the understanding of the people. Divine worship is incomprehensible to the people not only because it is celebrated in the Church Slavonic language and with hurried readings, but also simply because a certain measure of theological education is needed to understand it. Orthodox worship is a great treasure if we compare our Church's chants with the rather shallow Lutheran hymns, and if we speak of our enjoyment of this treasure. But nevertheless at present this is still a treasure �concealed within the village walls�, while the people are spiritually starving and impoverished, having no prayer within reach of their understanding, except the litanies and to some extent the acathists, which the people love so much just because they are understood. It is necessary to educate the people so that they will consider not just bows and the sign of the cross, not just mechanical readings or the hearing of the incomprehensible words of the psalter, troparia and stikhiras as forms of prayer. It is necessary that the corporate worship in the church, which in Greece was once such a perfect way of satisfying the spiritual needs of prayer, should again be turned into a truly prayerful attitude of worship."

This excerpt, if we think it over carefully, contains the answer to many very painful questions in the present; perhaps even Communism, sectarianism, the cruelty of the revolution, and the persecution of the Church can be explained by the fact that the treasure of corporate Christian prayer, the immediate communion of God and man, became for Russian members of the Orthodox Church a treasure `concealed within the village walls', a vessel sealed by seven seals. Other bishops speak no less decisively - on the same theme. Gurius, Bishop of Simbirsk, writes (II:20): "While the clergy are lifting up their chants, thanksgivings, petitions and praises, the people remain rather like casual auditors; hence the striking difference in the attitude of laymen attending Orthodox churches on the one hand and those in non-Orthodox churches on the other, a difference that is not to our advantage." Ioanniky, Bishop of Archangel, writes (I:335): "The Church building ought to be a school for the Orthodox layman, and the worship celebrated within it ought to be a series of individual lessons in Christian life, since here a man is taught to live, here he learns not only what he must do but also what he must think and feel. But what can be said for a school that conducts its classes in an incomprehensible language .. . The Orthodox Church in Russia is in this case in a worse situation than all the other schools for the people. Her worship, while it is magnificent in content, remains incomprehensible and as a result does not have the desired effect upon the common people"

The Bishop of Kaluga writes (I:42-43): "Our books of worship and in part our Bible are translated into a language in which no Slavic person has ever spoken or written . . . Many troparia and stikhiras are still incomprehensible even for people who have graduated from a higher theological school, for instance the Irmos: `So we must love that which is fortunate with fear' /lyubiti ubo nam yako bezbednoye strakhom/; other examples of the same sort of unsuccessful translation are such well used hymns as the Cherubikon /Izhe kheruvimy/ or the beginning of the petitions in the litanies in the words `In that so...' /vo ezhe/." "The language of our books of divine worship completely hides and often even distorts into heresy the sense and content of our prayer, liturgical readings and chants," says Kirion, Bishop of Oryol (I:520).

"Russian protestant sectarianism succeeds among the common people largely because it knows how to give the people a vital, conscious share in worship," writes Stephen, Bishop of Mogilyov. "In our Church divine worship is celebrated by the clergy, while the people, if they are praying at all during this time, are offering only private and not corporate prayer at the gatherings of sectarians everyone feels that he himself immediately as well as with all the others together is participating in common prayer."

This is also supported by Serafim, Bishop of Polotsk (I:176).

Many other passages could be quoted expressing the same thoughts and feelings. But perhaps now we are interested not so much in a criticism of the shortcomings of our divine worship as in the measures which the bishops proposed to take to fight this evil.

The primary and basic step of course is the immediate correction of the texts of our liturgical books. The bishops of Astrakhan and Nizhni-Novgorod point out what systematic work was done in this connection in the Russian Church in the 16th and 17th centuries, only stopping at the time of the Petrine reform.

The Bishop of Nizhni-Novgorod writes: "It is necessary to organize at once the task of correcting the Church's liturgical hooks, establishing the task on broad and free scientific principles, the work being verified by trained professors and pastors of the Church, and by educated and devout laymen. The main goal of this correcting ought to be to make the Church's 1liturgical books fully understandable for the contemporary Orthodox Russian people." (II: 462).

The majority of bishops concurred in the preservation of the Church Slavonic language, but a minority urged that it be in Russian (Bishop Sergius of Finland, Tikhon of Irkutsk, Vladimir of Kishinyov, Ioanniky of Archangel; Bishop Eulogius of Kholm permitted the reading of the Russian psalter only). But of course the mere alteration of the language of the liturgical books was not enough, and the bishops' reports contain a series of other very interesting suggestions. One which deserves special attention is the proposal to replace the now operative liturgical rubrics, intended for the monasteries, by new ones having in view the needs of the parish church. (The Bishops of Archangel, Astrakhan, Nizhni-Novgorod, Kaluga, Riga, Kholm, and many others write in detail on this point). The Bishops of Oryol, Kaluga and Riga point out the necessity of shortening the services, of freeing them from "tiresome length and frequent, monotonous repetitions" (I:529). The Bishop of Smolensk notes that the "rubric; now in effect are not the norm for laymen, they were designed especially for those in monastic orders � for the sole purpose of providing the least possible time free from prayer �in this way guarding against the temptations of thought, desire and idleness." (III:44).

Among other abbreviations one deserving attention is the proposal of the Bishop of Poltava to eliminate from the liturgy the litanies of the catechumens and what follows, according to the example of the Greek Church. His opinion was shared by the Bishops of Kostroma (II:544), Nizhni-Novgorod (II:461), Samara (I:444) and Kholm. Archbishop Tikhon of the Aleutians (the future Patriarch), the Bishop of Nizhni-Novgorod (55: 461) and Sergius of Finland (III:444) speak on behalf of the reading aloud of the secret Eucharistic prayers which, in spite of all their significance, remain completely unknown by the members of the Church.

Other measures proposed by the bishops were the introduction of corporate chanting, private instruction carried out inside the church building, the organization of special meetings which would allow people to listen more carefully to the Church's instruction, the lengthening of the Gospel and Epistle readings, which at present are so short that they often consist of not more than a few verses. It was proposed that the reading of the Gospel and certain prayers be moved to the middle of the church and that they be read in an especially clear voice according to the example of the ancient Church, so that those praying might hear the teaching being offered to them. Euthymius, Bishop of Yeniseysk, insisted on an increase in the number of churches and advised that one should not be discouraged by the possibility of their modest decoration, "since the Holy Spirit did not descend upon the apostles in a magnificent church, but in a poorly furnished upper room," he writes (III:498). In particular the bishops vigorously recommended introducing corporate chanting everywhere and furnishing the people with inexpensive editions of the liturgical services with explanations of everything that takes place in the church.

Such were the conclusions and suggestions, in general outline, of the pre-revolutionary Russian episcopate. At the present time we can only say that their fears were justified and their proposals reasonable. Perhaps much would have been averted in the tragic fate of the Russian Church if only even part of these reforms had been carried forward into life, but Imperial Russia did not decide to give freedom to the Church until the last moment of its existence. Instead of the expected renewal - of Russian Orthodoxy, the last years before the revolution brought only new trials and humiliations.

On the basis of the materials studied the following brief summary may be made of the general condition of Orthodoxy in Russia on the eve of the world war and the Communist revolution:

The Russian Church in the person of her episcopate clearly recognized the need for renewal and reforms. Her members, however, were deprived of the opportunity of realizing them, since the administration of the Church was taken out of the hands of the clergy and laity and placed at the disposal of bureaucrats headed by the ober-procuror of the Holy Synod.

The diseases with which the Church's organism has been stricken did not touch secondary questions, in the opinion of the bishops, but the very foundations of the Church's life. The corporate prayer of the Church was impaired, the spiritual bond and trust between pastors and their flocks was destroyed, parish life was to a large extent brought to nothing.

The direct consequence of all these wounds was the falling away of the Church's members into schism and sectarianism, the religious ignorance and superstition of broad circles of believers, and the general weakening of the Church.
But in spite of all this Russian Orthodoxy did not lose its sacred power and it has showed that it is capable of fulfilling its mission even in the circumstances of a persecution which, in its determination and intensity, exceeds anything that the earthly Church has ever had to suffer. This persecution again raises with special force the problems touched on in the replies of the pre-revolutionary Russian episcopate, and it lays a special responsibility on those of us who are members of the Church living outside the sphere of immediate struggle. Of course we are deprived of the opportunity of deciding any question whatever which concerns the whole Russian Church, but in the conditions of freedom and security which have been granted to us we are able to think over and work out ways of reviving the conciliar principle in Russian Orthodoxy.

This is the task which has been set before us by life itself, and the whole glorious and at the same time tragic history of our Russian Orthodox Church summons us to its fulfillment.

from: The Reform of the Church and the Pre-Revolutionary Russian Episcopate* by Nicholas Zernov

http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/the_reform_of_the_church.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Gury of Simbirsk offers a similar description:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Nazarius of Nizhni-Novgorod added:

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

At the Vigil:
The Opening Psalm "Bless the Lord, 0
My Soul" (104)

First Kathisma (Blessed is the Man)

Polyeleion Psalms (Praise the Name of the Lord)

Praises, before "Glory to God in the Highest"

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

At the Liturgy:
The Antiphons (Bless the Lord, 0 My Soul and
the others)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop John of Poltava wrote:

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

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

Bishop George of Astrakhan added:

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

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

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

Bishop Constantine of Samara wrote about congregational singing:

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

Congregational singing can begin most easily with the
singing of psalms, using melodies that are not very
complicated and fairly well known. The text could be
published with divisions into musical phrases (as
when the stichera are published) so that all churches
would be able to utilize it in worship. After the psalms,
one could use some of the various hymns that make up
daily worship and whose melodies are known
throughout the whole church. For example: "0
Gladsome Light," "St. Simeon's Prayer," "Only
Begotten Son," "Glory to God in the Highest," "Holy
God," and "Come, Let us Worship" (I, pp. 440-441).

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

It is desirable to introduce the practice of singing
some of the psalms such as "I will bless the Lord at all
times," Ps 34) and "Have mercy on me, 0 God,
according to Thy great mercy," (Ps 51) so that those
parishioners who would like could sing them during
Holy Communion . . . In addition, it would be good to
teach all parishioners the following hymns: "The
Creed," "The Anaphora - It is meet and right;
Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth!; We praise Thee,"
"It is Truly Meet," and "Our Father." These hymns
should especially be taught to school children, who will
be able to continually sing them as they grow older (I,
p. 339).

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

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

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

http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/russian_bishops_of_1905.htm

And finally:

http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/liturgical_practices.htm

The discussion is about much more then the taking of certain prayers aloud in the Divine Liturgy. It is about mandating revisions that are totally unnecessary and unpastoral, and which separate us further from the Byzantine Orthodox.

But, since you spoke in support of mandates to take the quiet prayers aloud, the idea that these prayers can be mandated to be taken aloud without really affecting anything else is specious. Simple logic demands that an argument calling for the taking of traditionally quiet priestly prayers aloud (the need for people to hear) be paralleled with an argument for removing the icon screen and having the priest face the people (the need for people to see). With our eyes we glimpse the awesomeness of what is occurring in the holy altar through the holy doors of the icon screen. So, too, we glimpse with our ears the awesomeness of what is occurring in the holy altar.

I do not believe that even a single poster has inferred the idea of �heretical� to describe the proposed revisions. I � and many others � believe that the proposed changes to the Liturgy that will effectively removes us from the Ruthenian Recension are wrong. To suggest that our description of these proposed revisions as wrong equates to a cry of heresy is totally unacceptable and beyond the pale. I � and others - have gone to great length to acknowledge that the Revisionists are well meaning. Well-meaning people can be wrong.