www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Salvation Events in the Divine Liturgy Question

I understand that the parts of the Divine Liturgy correspond to events in salvation history, such as the Little Entrance representing Christ coming into the world, then moving through to His Sacrifice, etc. However, I would like to find a more detailed listing of these events revealed in the Divine Liturgy from beginning to end. Does anyone know of a web site that has a basic list explaining all the parts? Or, would anyone care to make a list to briefly share their understanding of how events in salvation history correspond to each part of the Divine Liturgy? Thanks

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Double_Eagle ]

Double Eagle,

This theory, that each part of the Divine Liturgy corresponds to a different event in the life of Christ, became popular when the laity ceased to understand the real meaning of the liturgical actions. Honestly, I don't believe that there is much theological substance behind it. It was an explanation created to meet a need. Fr. Alexander Schmemann has written about this at length in such books as "Introduction to Liturgical Theology."

Today there is a greater emphasis on educating the laity about the liturgical actions themselves, and therefore the previous artificial explanation (relating every action to the life of Christ) has been largely abandoned.

I hope that this helps.

God Bless,
Anthony

Dear Double Eagle, and Anthony,

Christ is Born!

With respect to Anthony, who is right of course about the meaning of the Liturgy being sometimes obscured, I would not be so harsh on this interpretation of the Divine Liturgy. Much like the "allegorical" interpretation of Holy Scripture, it has its place. Surely we cannot easily exhaust the mystery of the Liturgy and, we hardly go wrong associating its parts with the life of the Saviour.

It has been popular, and it is worthy of study. I would love to see a fuller discussion of the traditional devotion set forth here, by those who are more familiar with it.

One aspect I like, is the way this interpretation was focused not only on the life of Christ, but also on the whole unfolding of salvation history. In this way, from associating the creation of the world from the darkness, with the "clouds and mist and darkness" at the initial censing at Great Vespers, next at the closing of the doors, seeing the fall and the closing of the gates of Paradise, etc. etc., it tied together the great services of Vespers, Matins and the Liturgy.

This interpretation recognized the importance of these services and their essential relationship. I was always fond of this interpretation of the Night Vigil myself, and it meant so much in my own devotion. The internal link between these important services is another theme that would be worthy of study here, and something which we need to be reminded of often as we continue the Liturgical renewal.

So let us not be too harsh on "allegorical" interpretation, for it does have its place. No single method of study or reflection could exhaust the meaning or richness of our Liturgy.

Elias

There is room for allegory in liturgy. However, we must remember that the allegorical explanations all came long after the development of the liturgies. One of the great problems we have is the loss of the symbolic. Many liturgical actions are, indeed, symbolic -- but not specifically allegorical.

Yet, since everything we do has a teaching component, it is quite possible and permissible to develop teachings that derive from the actions of the liturgy. Problems arise, however, when the allegory becomes more important than the action itself. This was seen in the Latin Church when people objected to the simplification of the liturgy following Vatican II. Things like the "33 signs of the cross" that the priest made were claimed to represent the 33 years that Jesus lived. The problem is, of course, that there was only a short period of time in which there were 33 signs of the cross made during the liturgy.

So, while there is a place and use for allegory, it's more important to understand the action in its fullness instead of substituting some other explanation.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Can another monk (who is also named Elias!)add his thoughts?

I think it is important that one does not deconstruct the liturgy in an attempt to remove these allegorical "accretions." This mistaken notion is quite rampant in the Latin church where liturgists have evacuated all sacred meaning from the liturgy to replace it with totally mundane and utilitarian interpretations. For example, one of our professors tolds us that incense was used only as the "bug spray" of the anicent world. Since we don't live in that environment, and don't have the problems the worshippers in the ancient Mediterranean world had - hence it's meaning is lost on contemporary people. Why use a symbol that no longer serves any purpose? Also, along the same lines, the lavabo (washing of the priest's hands) has been eliminated from the Mass here because it is said that it was merely a sanitary practice necessary when live animals were brought forward during the offertory. Objections to this line of thought and a desire to keep these elements is seen as reactionary and a longing for a pre-Vatican II mentality. Even the meaning of the seven sacraments is recast in anthroplogical terms as the universally human needs for: cleasing, nourishment, joining, forgiveness, and closure at time of death. (Intertesting how Holy Orders does not seem to fit in this scheme - or is it intentional?) When I asked how do these things relate to the life and minisrty of Christ, I was told the old "method" of seeing sacraments as instituted by Jesus was discredited. Eucharist is NOT the Last Supper, etc.

Anyways, I agree that the allegorical or spiritual sense must not be lost or else our liturgical worship will REALLY be without meaning. I mean who wants to get up early on a Sunday morning to reaffirm the universal human need for nourishment in a community of fellow believers, when one can just go to the kitchen and get a sandwich?

P.S. On the Sunday of the Forefathers I attended Divine Liturgy at a Byzantine Catholic parish. It was meaningful to me and I couldn't help notice the 2 rows of young Latin church seminarians who were also there. Guess they found it meaningful too. I wonder if their liturgy prof. knows?

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Slava Isusu Christu!

I totally agree that this deconstruction-criticism of the Divine Liturgy is absolutely foreign to the Eastern Mindset. It is preposterous to even discuss it seriously when addressing the Eastern Church's Liturgy and praxis. I would first like to check one's agenda for doing so. It seems to me that anyone who would work so hard to discredit, essentially it is a dis-creditation, and "de-mytholize" the Church's Traditions has a far more devious and heretical motive behind his actions, whether consciously or unconsciously; and since all heresy comes from the Evil One such interests are probably due to his influence. The Protestants during the time of the Reformation tried the same thesis, that the Church was full of supersitious "papistic designs" such as the Sacrifice of the Mass, the use of sacramentals, the use of numerous crossings and genuflections during the Liturgy et al and these abuses needed correction based on, the fact that the Catholic Church had become the "Apostate Church of the Anti-Christ", and the use of ,purer,earlier forms or totally new liturgical creations which stripped the traditional liturgy of all its "Catholic tendancies" became the solution for correcting the "corrupt and blasphemous" Roman Mass. How un-Orthodox to try to reduce the liturgy to a rite of passage or to overemphasize horizontal liturgical theology at the expense of mystery and reverence with all its amenities.

Again some modern Orthodox theologians have noted a need to reform the Divine Liturgies, and modernize the typikons, of our Eastern Churches, usually using the same premises of the modern Latin liturgist party line: "Less is more, use modern American English (dumbed down) translations, take out the iconostasis or lower it significantly, modify/modernize the vestments, reduce the ektenias to one, remove the "Catechumens depart let no catecumen remain" and "The Doors the Doors" etc. But again these theologians are products of the Western mindset or should I say the modern mindset. The Latin Patriarch has full authority to change the liturgy and praxis in his own Church, but in our Churches we don't change unless our Sister Churches change and that will not happen unless a general Orthodox Council in convened.

The problem with Eastern Christians in the West is the lack of availability of faithful liturgical commentaries on the Divine Liturgy for the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic faithful. There is training in rubrics and typikon, but far less in the Mystical Theology of the Divine Liturgy. There is a very rich tradition in the Eastern Church on what the priest, by virtue of his priesthood, makes present in the Divine and Holy Liturgy or Sacred Synaxis of the People of God. The first thing one must do before one tries to analyze the Liturgy is to not analyze the Liturgy. The key word in the East is Mystery and it is from that theology of Mystery that all our actions, thoughts, and words must proceed. Again in the East a "theologian is one who prays." And it is in this vein that one must approach the Liturgy even in its translation or in writing about it. In the East one does not give holy things to the unholy; one does not cast the things of God before swine and give pearls to those who cannot appreciate them. This notion of critical-analysis of the Divine Liturgy is a novel pagan and anti-Orthodox way of de-sacralization of our Church to further the aims of the Devil; for who would benefit the most from such a reduction of our Holy Rites to mere celebrations of human transitions of life or presented as outdated archaisms that are not only no longer relevant, but also have no salvific character based upon being created by the superstitious and ignorant peasants and the imaginations of hallucinating monks and priests who imagined the Divine could manifest itself in rites created of their own making. For the record: in the Divine and Holy Liturgy we are made to be mystically present with God the Son as the Logos before the foundation of the worlds and at creation, during the Old Covenant, in his life on earth, and in his life in Heaven, and his Second and Glorious Coming, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. In a state of Grace we are made partakers of the life of the Trinity, by our participation in the Divine Liturgy. For those whose souls are infected with grevious sins the Divine Liturgy makes present the Judgement Seat of God and even though they be ignorant of it they are receiving a fore-taste of their condemnation especially if they recieve of the Mystical Supper in such a state, but repeatedly in the Liturgy God calls out to them and offers mercy in the presence of Judgement. For those who are washed by the laver of Repentance they may receive all of the Graces that flow from the entire life of Christ, not just his Passion. We mystically represent the cherubim in the sublime worship of the Holy Trinity. All of the Divine Liturgy is a Mystical Communion with God the Holy Trinity, the Theotokos, and all the company of Heaven, along with the faithful here on earth and in purgation. In this matter catechisis is vital. Just teaching laypeople about the litugical actions themselves is of no use to their souls unless they understand the Eastern theology of the Divine Liturgy. Just training people on how to do the tones and to perfom the formal rudiments of participation in the Liturgy and in liturgical services will not by itself sustain them. They need to understand that when they enter the temple they mystically are present in the Temple of God in Heaven and they are to behave as such. And that Christ is enthroned upon his altar waiting to intercede for them for all of their needs and to pour out Grace into their seeking and wanton souls. They must see ikons not as mere symbols in the western sense, but that mystically the ikon makes present that saint or whose image is written upon it. So when they enter the temple they must do so with an Eastern mindset. All of these utiliarian liturgists belong most appropriately in the Protestant traditions, where they can experiment all they want with their novel and almost commercial and faddist liturgical innovations, but to use their philosophies in our Catholic and Orthodox Churches is to have no understanding of the Sacramental paradigm of our Apostolic Churches. It is rather unfortunate that this has happened to our Latin brothers and sisters in most of their parishes. This was primarily due to maverick liturgists,whose agenda was and *is* far from promoting the Catholic Church's teaching on the Sacraments. It is funny that they used every justification for their innovations. Even saying that they borrowed from the East on many things such as freestanding altars and communion in the hand and standing during the consecration, uggh what utter academic dishonesty and moral depravity. To state such things betrays ones dis-belief in hell, for if one where to believe in God's judgement one would never touch the Sacred Liturgy to experiment and lower it to some sociological-liturgical event whose only real "grace" is that it brings people together "to celebrate our diversity and communion of love with one another." Uggh...How can one have the fulness of Truth and then dissect it under the microsope of science and historical-critical modalities of analysis. Some would argue that we can find the historical Jesus and the ancient Church, according to them a much purer form of Christianity (again the Protestant thesis)through such scientific work. The fruits of such work can be seen. Take Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong as a good case in point. The Eastern Church has always taught that one finds the historical Jesus through a direct supernatural and substantial relationship with Him as a Divine Person, through the Sacred Mysteries and all the means the Church has provided not to mention the unlimited ways God can work in Creation and according to His good pleasure. Considering the apophatic nature of the Eastern Church in her theological focus one would betray oneself as either not eastern or very poorly catechised if one were to bring up these issues of modern criticism et al anyway. For the Eastern Church these are essentially non-issues except on the periphery of of the Church, where those in the upper echelons of academia or pseudo-academia try to relate Orthodox theology to Western paradigms, again uggh.

So again these are non-issues for Eastern Christians. To theologize in the Eastern Church one essentially must become a hesychast. Prayer does not help one come up with new theology, but rather makes present the realities of the subjects of Orthodox Dogma. In the East our theological apologies are the Hymns of our Church, the Liturgy, the Office et al. All birthed out of a supernatural relationship with God, not out of some aristotelian abstration from things created to prove the realities of the Divine Mind, but rather a more patristic and platonic mode of divine dispensation as a way of knowing. What we need is good Eastern Christian catechisis and pastors who are willing to lay aside the sophistries of latinists and western modernists and teach and rightly divide the word of Truth according to our authentic Traditions and praxis. Amen.

In Christ and the Theotokos:

Robert

Dear Double Eagle:

Like Monk Elias I find tremendous value in the symbolic interpretation of the liturgy. Rather than a "deconstructive" exercise, this type of liturgical exploration is like an archeological dig. Rather than find the essence of the liturgy, we find that it is imbued with layer upon layer of meaning all of which have relevance, all of which add to our overall understanding of the Divine Reality.
Alternatively, we can consider it as comparing it to studying the individual notes of an orchestral score. These notes merge with all of the other "notes" like the architecture, the iconography, use of light and dark to make the symphony that is the liturgy itself. So with that in mind, I will attempt to answer your question. I am doing this off the top of my head but I think I am staying pretty true to the theology of Nicolas Cabasilas.

1. The Prosphora--This is the part of the liturgy perforemed before the public liturgy by the priest and the deacon. This represents the Nativity of Christ, and the private portion of his life. One can easily interpret it to represent the birth of creation itself, Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac, the descent down Jacob's ladder

2. This is followed by the great incensation, akin to the cloud of Moses in the desert, God's presence and promise to his chosen people.

3. This is followed by the first set of litanies and the antiphons. These are reminiscent of the words of the prophets of old.

4. The little entrance follows--the introduction of Christ into his public life.

5. The thrice Holy Hymn comes next and reminds us of the Trinitarian nature of God as revealed by Christ.

6. The prokimenon again alludes to the OT but this time as a reminder of God's promise fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

7. Then the readings, God's Self-revelation in Christ himself.

8. Another set of litanies follows, this time linking us to the living Christ himself.

9. The Cherubic Hymn--This reminds us that the salvation in Christ links all creation, seen and unseen.

10. The Great Entrance--This reiterates Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem about to fulfill His destiny.

11. Another set of litanies and the creed, links us to the Christ about to be crucified. We "are baptized into His death."

12. The Anaphora, the transformation of the elements into the very Body and Blood of Christ unites us to the Last Supper, Death, and Resurrection. In the Eastern sense, the Last Supper, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are inextricabally linked as one unified whole that cannot be separated into individual pars. Simultaneously the Pentecost is enacted, the Holy Spirit is invoked.

12a. The Mother of God is then remembered ("It is truly proper...") whose own role in the Divine Economy links us to Christ and to each other. Her closeness to her Son reminds us that such a relationship is not only possible, it is already completed.

13. The singing of the "Our Father" recognizes our true calling, theosis, the divinization, our filial adoption in which we can approach the Godhead and truly say "Our Father." We have now remembered our Mother, the parent of our human nature and our Father, the parent of our divine nature. Our ancestral past is completed in our own existence.

14. The dispensing of Eucharist completes this adoption as we become one Church, the bride of the bridegroom.

15. The dismissal fills us with the Pentecost where we go forth in order to transform the World in the image of the resurrected Christ.

Again, the beauty of the liturgy is that each of the above can also symbolically represent other aspects of God's Revelation. These multiple simultaneous images create the harmony and, yet, only part of the symphonic score.

If you need the classic text on this I refer you to Cabasilas' Commentary on the Divine Liturgy

Fr. Dcn John

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Petrus ]

As I prepare for this coming weekend's festivities, I realize that I made a minor error above. The Thrice Holy Hymn (The Trisagion) comes prior and during the Little entrance. It marks the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. In my mind, this is the unveiling, the first public demonstration of Christ's divinity, and the first public demonstration of the Trinity. While this is going on, the laity are singing the Thrice Holy Hymn in honor of the Trinity, thus the Baptism analogy.

I actually find it more satisfying to consider various icons participating in these portions of the liturgy. When I get more time, I will elucidate.

John

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Petrus ]