www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Pre-Nikonian Restoration?

Dear friends in Christ,

In a recent thread regarding � new Paschal rubrics � an esteemed participant of this forum posted the following See it here .

I responded by posting While looking at another source for another purpose I came across a bit of information that I think many participants of this forum will find interesting. In Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church by Nicholas Uspensky (SVS Press. Crestwood, NY. 1985) on page 199 we read Italics and parenthesis are in the original.

I decided to look at the Old Orthodox Prayer Book (Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ [Old Rite]. Erie, PA. 2001) second edition. On page 111 in the section of The Divine Liturgy one finds in English In Slavonic When examining the texts immediately preceeding and following the text in question one finds the following discrepancies between the pre-Nikonian usage and the current Nikonian usage of the Ruthenian Church. After the Creed is �Let us stand aright�� The response is �Milost�, mir, zhertvu i p�inije� not the currenty Ruthenian Nikonian usage. Further the � Holy, Holy Holy� is slightly different in that it uses �zemlju� in the accusative and not �zemlja� in the nominative.

It is interesting that in some places this isolated pre-Nikonian Slav usage has been restored yet is met with resistence. On this board the idea that the Ruthenian Liturgy is pre-Nikonian is sometimes espoused.

I wish all a blessed and peaceful continuation of the Fast.

Tony

Curiously, liturgicon published by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain in 1995 (Oxford University Press) gives it in brackets in both Greek and English. Raya does, too. Cabasilas does not mention it his commentary. I could see it as a Slavic accretion. I could also see it as something we got from the Greeks in the Nikonian reform that they later dropped because they had added it in error.

It seems to me that the reason that restoring the older usage is met with resistance is probably because it is one revision among many. Most of the rubrical and textual changes simply do not make sense and are unwarranted so it should not be unexpected that a possible legitimate restoration would also be rejected. I think that a scholarly study of the Ruthenian liturgy would show that it embraces most of the Nikonian reforms. If a change is going to be made to restore the older usage of �It is proper and just� it should be done by the entire Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox), as a minimum. My preference is that something that would affect all Slavic Byzantine Churches should be done at a pan-Slavic council (come the reunion).

Народът: Достойно и справедливо е да се покланяме на Отца и Сина и Светия Дух � Троица Единосъщна и Неразделна.

(posted for Tony who is having computer problems)

Friends,

I do not pretend that my findings are exhaustive. They are, however, not my opinions. I have offered substantiation and merely presented what I found. I have also pointed to some issue I think are puzzeling.

My initial post was simply in response to the claim that the referenced usage "is not done anywhere, in any tradition or usage, Orthodox or Greek Catholic" which in light of the initial and latter material presented needs to be re-assessed.

The Bulgarian Church is said to have an interesting possibly "mixed" usage. I found a link [pravoslavieto.com] to a Bulgarian language translation/edition of the Chrysostom Liturgy. For the text in question it has the longer form (I can't seem to get the Cyrillic to work).

Tony

One can't consider one text as normative to the pre-Nikonian usage. Some of the issues are due to differences in Slavonic versions of the pre-Nikonian texts.

For example, the Venice sluzhebnik of 1519 gives the response "mylost' myr zhertva pinija". The 1617 Mamonych sluzhebnik gives "mylost' myr zhertva chvalenija". Both are pre-Nikonian usage.

Not to contradict the eminent Nicholas Uspensky, but the 1604 Balaban sluzhebnik gives the longer response of "it is right and just to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial and undivided". This was in use long before 1655.

It is interesting that in the Mohylian 1629 Kyiv sluzhebnik gives the shorter "it is right and just" for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysystom but gives the longer response "it is right and just to worship" etc. for the Liturgy of St. Basil, again reflecting yet another variation in pre-Nikonian usage.

Really the only "complete" pre-Nikonian Greek Catholic usage is that blessed by Blessed Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky at the 1917 Sobor of the Russian Catholic Church for the Greek Catholic Old Ritualist communities. Metropolitan Andrey blessed both the pre-Nikonian and Nikonian usages for the Russian Catholics, as there were several Old Ritualist congregations present under his omophorion, but he discouraged admixture of the two rites.

The Bulgarian liturgical development is an entirely seperate story. Fun stuff! May God save us and bless our Great Fast.

Prudence needs to be exercized with regard to modifying this or that aspect of the liturgical usage. Reform should not be taken lightly or just because this or that represents an alleged "older usage".

I think Blessed Andrey's guidance in keeping the integrity of the Old Rite and post-Nikonian liturgical usages intact and distinct was very wise.

The whole comparison between pre-Nikonian, Nikonian and Ruthenian texts is always a fascinating topic! I believe that the Nikonian reformers often consulted the Kievan/Kyivan (take your pick) editions prepared by mah' main man St. Peter Mohila, and I sometimes wonder how much his books influenced both the Ruthenian and the Nikonian rescensions, at separate times, but in similar ways.

I think that the adoption of singing "It is proper and just" in the original/shorter (take your pick) form is a good liturgical decision in light of the larger liturgical change/restoration/renewal (again, take your pick) of praying the Anaphora aloud. The addition of "...to worship the Father..." was probably made to fascilitate the praying of the Anaphora silently; if that is the case, should we continue to sing the additional phrase? Sure, it only takes a few extra seconds to sing the "whole" piece, but does it make sense? At this particular moment in the Liturgy, we say "it is proper and just" to give thanks to God in the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving. While it is definately true that we worship the Trinity, that is not our main focus at that time.

This issue, more than many others, touches upon a change in music. The Prostopinije "Dostojno i pravedno jest" (the whole Anaphora music, really) is indeed beautiful; there are also many wonderful choral compositions that would have to be "chopped" for this change, and would probably "ruin" a particular work. Yet, these are probably poor reasons to maintain something.

I find, especially in my own life, that there is a great tension between preserving current liturgical practices, restoring past (at times more meaningful) practices and having a liturgy that is meaningful to us, here and now. A kind of "middle road" is definately needed, one that is tread on carefully, but not lightly and definately not by those who lack love, faith, understanding and courage.

And now I go to sleep.

S'Bohom!

-Dave

Thank you, Diak, for sighting the Mohilian use! Truly fascinating (at least to a crazy guy like me who loves this stuff)!

Dear-to-Christ Diak,

"One can't consider one text as normative to the pre-Nikonian usage" which is why I wrote above " I do not pretend that my findings are exhaustive."

A quick glance at Meyendorff's Russia, Ritual and Reform will substantiate the claim that the longer form was indeed in use before 1655 (at least in written form) for the Chrysostom Liturgy as well as the shorter. The issue of the dialogue is also discussed by Meyendorff. This can be found on pages 180-182 of the 1987 ediditon.

Again, the claim that the shorter form is not used by any jurisdiction anywhere was the impetus for my post.

Lastly I imagine you mean "chvalenija" (khvaleniya) and not "chvakenija"?

Tony

Ah, the typographic pitfalls of trying to transliterate Old Slavonic at midnight on a computer without functioning Cyrillic fonts...

On a tangent, we should discuss the Bulgarian liturgical development sometime which has its own truly fascinating history which has had some not insignificant spillage over into the Kyivan/Ruthenian usage. Musically in the Ukrainian/Kyivan liturgical usage the "Bulgarian Tones" are alive and well. I just used some of them for stikhera at Forgiveness Vespers a few weeks ago.

But this whole issue of "liturgical reform" really is a loaded gun. De-latinization is one thing and should go forth full steam ahead. But we have to be careful with modifying liturgy simply because of some romanticizing with older usages or because this or that liturgist has documented that certain texts or practices are "older" and should thus be changed.

To make a gross generalization, as Father Alexander Schmemann wisely pointed out, "restoration" has to occur when something has fallen into disuse. Thus any "restoration" will always at least initially involve a certain amount of artificiality because while this or that scholar may say they understand or have researched the texts no one living has directly experienced and thus "knows" that which fell into disuse. As we have seen from our Roman brethren over the last 40 years, it can be a slippery road.

I am a definitely a firm and very ardent supporter of the restoration of the Old Rite in the UGCC, but support it integrally as the Old Rite and not a modernized semi-random admixture of pre-and post-Nikonian usages which depart from upwards of 500 years of developed Ruthenian/ Kyivan liturgical usage.

I think there are bigger fish to fry in the short-term with such more pressing issues as restoring ommitted or abbreviated antiphons (which are already present in the Liturgikon and are used in only a few parishes), working on congregational singing and cantor training, and getting back to a fuller celebration in Greek Catholic parishes of the cycle of services of already existing Ruthenian/Kyivan recensions of Vespers and Matins.

Diak, subdeacon and sinner