A report
presented by Father Steven Tsichlis at the APC meeting held in Dallas,
TX
March
1995
Our
liturgical life is in shambles. As
Father Thomas Hopko has remarked: “Our highly praised liturgical
tradition is for the most part unknown and unlived by great numbers of
our people, and all too often by the official teachers and professors
of our faith as well” (All the
Fullness of God, p. 186). In
an article written more than 30 years ago for the St. Vladimir’s Quarterly entitled ‘Orthodoxy in America: The
Liturgical Problem’, Hopko’s father-in-law, the late Father
Alexander Schmemann, offered a diagnosis of the malaise that afflicts
so much of our worship even today.
There is no substitute for simply reading that article and I
encourage everyone genuinely interested in the quality and meaning of
our worship to do so.
The
question of text and translation
Our
parishes need adequate (i.e., well-printed) and official (i.e.,
endorsed by the synod of bishops and required of all parishes in the
Archdiocese) bilingual texts of our services for the pews in order to
better enable our faithful to participate in the riches of our
liturgical life. At the
clergy-laity congress in Chicago this past summer, I was greeted with
yet another translation of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by a
priest in the South. Currently,
there are a dozen or more translations of varying quality in use
throughout the Archdiocese. While
I realize that as an Archdiocese we are still suffering from post 1970
clergy-laity congress syndrome, the simple fact remains that the
current variety of translations of uneven quality in use is
detrimental to our worship overall.
The establishment of official text, in Greek and English, of
our most frequently celebrated liturgies and services (particularly
Chrysostom, Basil, the Presanctified, the Memorial Service, Baptism,
Marriage, the Artoclasia, the Akathist Hymn, etc.) should be the first
priority of our seminary faculty, the national forum of church
musicians and synod of bishops. This
project should include our most commonly sung hymns: “Christ
is risen,” the resurrection apolytikia, etc. This will take 5-10 years to accomplish if it is to be done
well. Although we have a
basis from which to begin in the translations of Basil and Chrysostom,
etc. offered us by Holy Cross Press as well as the work of a number of
Church musicians, we cannot afford to wait any longer to refine,
solidify and complete the work that has already been done.
(I speak here only of our Archdiocese and leave aside the
attempt at a pan-Orthodox translation of the Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom undertaken some years ago which has, so far as I know, been
relegated to the dustbin.)
The
question of Great Week
Here again,
the question of an official text in both Greek and English is of
paramount importance. There
are currently three texts in use by the parishes of our Archdiocese:
Papadeas, and more recently, Vaporis and Contos.
These three “versions” need to be examined carefully at a
number of levels: consistency,
quality of Greek text and English translation, rubrics, etc.
Further, we as a Church need to throw open at an official level
the question of how we currently celebrate Great Week. Our current practice of worship “by anticipation”
throughout Holy Week is a vexing issue which Father Calivas calls “a
particularly peculiar tradition which circumvents, both normal
liturgical practice as well as the natural order of things” (Holy
Week and Pascha, p. 15). Is
it not ludicrous for us to be singing “O
Joyful Light” (“now that we have come to the setting of the
sun”) at 10AM on Holy Thursday morning at the vesperal
or evening Liturgy of
St. Basil? Are there not
services unique to Great Week, like the Washing of the Feet on Holy
Thursday following the Liturgy of St. Basil, that could be revived
across our Archdiocese to the benefit of our laity at a pastoral
level? Clearly, there is
much here that deserves discussion, debate and reform.
The
question of reviving other ancient liturgies
Father
Calivas reminds us that “according to local custom, three other
ancient liturgies are also used by the Orthodox Churches on the
occasion of the feast day of the saints to which their authorship is
traditionally attributed. These
are the liturgies of St. James (Iakovos), the ancient liturgy of
Jerusalem; St. Mark, the ancient liturgy of Alexandria; and St.
Gregory the Theologian, an ancient liturgy of Cappadocia and
Alexandria” (An Introduction
to the Divine Liturgy, p. 14). In my opinion, these ancient liturgies need to be revived and
celebrated here in America.
There is an
inadequate Greek/English text of the Liturgy of St. James that was
hastily prepared by Holy Cross Press a number of years ago to
celebrate Archbishop Iakovos’ 30th anniversary.
This text needs to be refined and corrected, then reissued for
parish use. (I would add,
parenthetically, that in addition to October 23rd, it is
theoretically possible to celebrate this liturgy on the Sunday after
Christmas when we again remember St. James.)
Professor Foundoulis of the University of Thessaloniki has
provided Greek texts for St. Mark and St. Gregory which could be used,
with some editing, as the basis for an English translation of these
services.
The
spirit of joy
Given the
importance of establishing texts, translations and music, the simple
fact remains that liturgy is far more than any of these.
Quality liturgical books always remain means rather than ends.
At its most fundamental level, liturgy is indeed “the work of
the people”, the most intimate facet of the Church’s living faith
in Jesus Christ and a function of His life-giving Spirit within her.
Sadly, in far too many of our parishes, our people no longer
assemble to “work” but remain merely spectators while we – the
“professionals” – do their work “for” them.
As Father Schmemann remarked:
“It is not true that people do not come to Church because
they have no time. One always has time for what one enjoys.
People do not come to Church because they quite literally do
not enjoy it and they do not enjoy it because the very reality of joy
is absent from the way we present the liturgy” (The Liturgical Problem, SVTQ 8 1964 p. 181).
That joy must first be present in our hearts as presbyters.
If it is, I believe that it will find concrete expression in
the revival of a number of significant liturgical practices that we
have lost or abandoned, much to our detriment:
The kiss of peace – according to Chrysostom, was a full kiss
on the lips, men with men, women with women.
This kiss was so intimate a gesture that the early Church
fathers emphasize the need for it to be kept “pure”, but kept nonetheless. We
today kiss everyone and on all occasions except
during the liturgy.
The so-called “silent” prayers – particularly the
anaphora, must again be read aloud and not silently by the celebrant
“to himself”, for these are the prayers of the entire assembly,
or, to put it more accurately, of the Church herself.
They are the heart of the liturgy and the core of our communal
worship. In his Novella 137
the emperor Justinian decreed by law that bishops and presbyters
“say the prayers used in the Divine Oblation in a voice that can be
heard by the faithful that the minds of those who listen may be
stirred to greater compunction.” Those who did not do so were to be
fined.
The prayers for catechumens
– need to be restored, at least during Lent if we are preparing
catechumens for baptism and/or chrismation at Pascha, for we are a
missionary Church or no Church at all.
Further,
there are a host of liturgical gestures – the bowing of our heads,
the raising of our hands, etc. – which we continue to do as leaders
of worship, but which our people, relegated to the role of being
spectators, no longer do. How
disincarnate the prayer of our laity has become! These gestures need to be quietly, subtly encouraged in our
laity over the next generation in order to restore a bodily, physical
sense of participation in our worship.
There is,
of course, much more to be discussed.
However, I will limit this report to only a few pages.
My purpose in so limited a space is merely to promote
discussion and debate and indicate a direction for conscious
liturgical reform that reflects more fully our desire to worship the
Lord “in Spirit and Truth.”
After
sharing the above report with the clergy of the Diocese of San
Francisco at the annual diocesan clergy-laity assembly in May 1995
Father Tsichlis received the following letter from Father Demetrius
Dogias of the Annunciation Church in Sacramento, CA:
May 31,
1995
I read the
Liturgical Issues Committee Report of the APC with
much interest and would like to offer the following four
comments:
1.)
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for a common, approved
translation of our services.
2.)
I would further suggest that, in addition to a common
translation, there is a need to establish a common rubric.
I have served at weddings and baptisms with many priests and
each one seems to have his idiosyncrasies.
I am also concerned about liturgical innovations which are
unilaterally instituted by some priests in other sacraments, as well
as during the services of Holy Week.
Where do such “enlightenments” come from?
3.)
I agree there is a need for liturgical renewal – but also in
terms of having services at all!
I am always amused by priests who say they don’t have many
weekday celebrations of the Divine Liturgy because no one comes. Well,
of course they don’t come if there are no services offered!
We are in great danger of becoming a Sunday-only Church. Yet, people can be educated to come to weekday services.
Over my 14 years in Sacramento, I’ve tried very hard to serve
at least one weekday Liturgy every week; it isn’t always so, but it
is a goal for which I strive.
4.)
I am always leery of proposals such as those made in your
report, specifically your suggestions that we revive other ancient
liturgies and restructure the services of Holy Week along more ancient
patterns. In my opinion
there is a very serious question which we must ask before we step into
such dangerous waters: do
we do what we do now because we have been spiritually indolent and
perhaps not very loyal to the liturgical forms of the Church; or, do
we do what we do now because this is where the Holy Spirit has led us?
You can’t just return to the past without denying the
guidance of the Holy Spirit which guides us every day of every year.
Obviously,
these are very serious questions that demand much discussion and even
more prayer. However,
there is a good sign here: the
21st century is upon us and it seems that we’re finally
waking up!
Father Demetrius Dogias
The
Annunciation Church
Sacramento, CA
Father Tsichlis’ response:
July
24, 1995
Thank
you for your letter of May 31st!
I appreciate your comments and offer my apologies for not
responding sooner. First,
let me assure you that I agree, in substance, with virtually
everything you have said. I agree that there is need for “liturgical renewal…in
terms of having services at all!”
Like you, I am not always able to meet this goal of celebrating
“one weekday Liturgy every week,” but it is certainly an ideal
worth striving for. (Last week, I celebrated Liturgy for the feast of the Prophet
Elijah; this week, I am celebrating Liturgy on Tuesday and Thursday,
for the feasts of St. Anna and St. Panteleimon.)
I have also found it useful to pray a variety of services
around different events that I know people will attend. For example, we pray small vespers prior to each Bible study;
small Compline prior to our adult study fellowship; and the 3rd,
6th and 9th hours during retreats like the one
we hosted earlier this month with Bishop Kallistos Ware.
I
also agree on the “need to establish a common rubric” for our
services, although I am somewhat less concerned about liturgical
variety in minor things, provided they are within the overall scope of
our liturgical tradition. For
example, there is a wide variety of rubrics in the manuscript
tradition of the marriage service as it has evolved over the
centuries. As a case in
point, the earlier codices say nothing of the participation of the
groomsman or maid of honor in exchanging the rings or crowns.
Some of my parishioners from Cyprus inform me that there, as is
the more ancient custom, it is still the priest who does these things.
However, I believe we must ask serious questions about the many
“western” customs that have crept into our liturgical practice all
too uncritically. The procession of the bride and her father down the
center aisle to the tune of the wedding march from Lohengrin –
“Here comes the bride” – is certainly one of the most appalling
and completely foreign elements of our current liturgical practice
here in America. Finally,
I believe we must reconnect the sacraments of marriage and baptism to
the Eucharist when and where possible pastorally.
Your
question: “do we do what we do now because we have been spiritually
indolent and perhaps not very loyal to the liturgical forms of the
Church; or do we do what we do now because this is where the Holy
spirit has lead us?” is indeed a “serious question.”
I am probably much more confident of the answer than you:
in my opinion, we currently suffer from the worst kind of
liturgical nominalism and apathy and, more often than not, we are
interested only in the form rather than the content of our worship,
the letter instead of the Spirit. I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit has led us to our
current liturgical decadence. However,
I do agree that we “can’t just return to the past” simply for
the sake of returning to the past.
My proposals regarding the returning of the celebration of Holy
Week to its more ancient pattern, the revival of some ancient
liturgies to be celebrated on the feasts of the saints associated with
them, the revival of the prayers for the catechumens, etc. are a plea
for a return to liturgical sanity that I believe will better enable us
as a Church to face the 21st century. I only hope its true
that “we’re finally waking up.”
As
I mentioned at the end of my report, my purpose was primarily to
promote discussion on these issues.
I certainly don’t believe that I have the final word on such
matters. But this is, at
least, how things seem to me. Thank
you for the discussion!
Father Steven Tsichlis
In November, 1995 Father Alkiviades Calivas, then professor of
liturgical theology at Holy Cross Seminary in Brookline, MA was asked
to respond to the Liturgical Issues Committee report for the March
1996 issue of The Presbyter, the national newsletter of the
Archdiocesan Presbyters Council.
However, because of his appointment as president of Hellenic
College/Holy Cross by then Archbishop Iakovos, he was unable to do so.
In a brief letter to the editors of The Presbyter at
that time, Fathers Steven Tsichlis and Chris Margaritis, Father
Calivas said:
January
9, 1996
I
agree with much of what is said in the Committee Report on Liturgical
Issues. It is true that
we have not accepted the challenges of the times in a systematic and
creative way. Good
translations of our liturgical texts are a case in point.
Fortunately, SCOBA has appointed a pan-Orthodox liturgical
commission to address this issue.
The progress has been slow and full of difficulties, but –
nevertheless – hopeful. The
report is correct, also, about the text of the Liturgy of St. James.
You will also find me in agreement – with proper
considerations – about the kiss of peace, the priestly prayers (and
especially the anaphora) and the petitions for the catechumens.
I
thought the enclosed copy of an article on liturgical reform that I
wrote – “The Penthekte Synod of 691-692AD and Liturgical Reform”
– and which was recently published in the Greek
Orthodox Theological Review would be of interest to you.
You may wish to quote parts of it for the newsletter.
What
follows is a brief excerpt from the above mentioned article by Father
Calivas that appeared in the GOTR 40:1&2, 1995:
The Process of Liturgical
Reform
The
worship of the Church is neither a relic of the past nor a lifeless
object of research. Worship
is the fundamental activity of the Church.
It is her faith in motion.
In worship, the church encounters the living god, while through
it God is present to the Church. Through her worship the Church conveys, recommends, instills
and imparts a particular vision of faith and way of life. Through dogma and prayer, the Church invites us to discover
continually, and to experience and realize as well, our true and
eternal mode of being.
True
worship is dynamic. It
develops and changes. However,
authentic, effective and lasting liturgical changes do not flow out of
emotional responses to a given situation, condition or crisis but are
the result of genuine, commonly shared and pastorally proven needs as
authenticated by the Church.
Liturgical
reform is a complex process. It
operates on many levels and may involve one, several or all of the
elements that constitute a particular rite or service.
The reform process, first of all, must be mindful of the
authentic liturgical ethos of the Church and be guided by its
foundational principles. Also,
liturgical reform must be well informed, orderly and systematic.
Furthermore, it must retain a certain ascetical tension in
relation to the Church’s cultural milieu, lest she fall victim to
one or another ephemeral trend. Moreover, reform must emanate from the conviction that the
liturgical assembly provides the essential means by which the members
of the faith community achieve their most authentic identity.
Thus, the rule of prayer with all its varied components must
not simply be admired and honored. Above all it must be loved, studied, analyzed, learned and
lived. This latter
activity constitutes the essence and meaning of liturgical renewal,
which in turn is the mother of genuine liturgical reform.
Thus,
liturgical renewal, which aims at making worship dynamic, effective
and relevant in the changing and developing process of history, is of
paramount importance to the Church.
To facilitate the process of liturgical renewal, the Church
must advance three fundamental activities.
First, the critical examination of the inner meaning of
worship, which applies an awareness and an appreciation of the living
tradition of the Church. Second,
the critical study and analysis of ritual activity and date, which
implies an appreciation of the significance of rite and symbol, as
well as a respect for cultural and historical situations.
Third, the encouragement of liturgical creativity for a more
conscious, active and deeply personal participation of the people in
liturgical worship, which implies a faith community which is seriously
engaged in catechesis and social outreach.
This third activity is, in actuality, the goal of the other
two.
The
Church, therefore, through her theologians and pastors, is bound to
continually probe the depths of her liturgical prayer, song, action
and symbol, in order to sustain the vitality of liturgy, inform
liturgical piety, improve liturgical practice and ensure both the
interior and exterior participation of the faithful in worship.
More importantly, the sustained analysis of the inner meaning
of worship allows us to see and appreciate the connection between
dogma and liturgy, liturgy and life and liturgy and social justice.
In addition, we discover meanings previously overlooked; learn
to give accent to those aspects and truths of the tradition which may
have greater value to the present generation; provide more adequate
instruction about the inherited rites; and measure the efficacy of
their structures and content in the present historical and cultural
context.
The
invitation to examine critically the inner meanings of worship also
entails a certain risk as well as a challenge.
Some of our favored ideas, widely accepted notions and
explanations, and familiar customs do not now or may not in the
future, stand up well under the scrutiny of historical research and
sound, prayerful, theological reflection.
What do we do when we come up against a deficient liturgical
practice, text or custom? Do
we simply stay the course with an appeal to an uncertain tradition? Or, do such findings become a catalyst for the release of new
power and energy in the body of the church, for a greater appreciation
of the tradition as well as a creative response to emerging needs and
circumstances through the gradual enactment of decreed, planned and
carefully considered reforms?
Liturgical
actions generally beg for an explanation.
“Why do we say this or do that…?
Lacking sufficient information, the tendency is to invent and
supply the action with one or more arbitrary symbolic interpretations,
which may well defy both the structural laws of liturgy and the
historical evidence. Such
poor interpretations tend to be “survivors” because they are often
enveloped in an aura of inauthentic “mysticism” even though they
cannot express adequately what they are supposed to signify.
One such action is the waving of the “aer” over the
eucharistic elements. The
custom of raising and waving the aer over the eucharistic elements as
the creed is being recited first appeared in the 15th
century. The practice of
holding it over the head of the presiding bishop at an episcopal
liturgy appeared later, around the 17th century.
The custom, however, has a long history and may have first
appeared as early as the 6th century in Syria.
Initially, the practice may have served the same function as
the liturgical fans, which were waved over the eucharistic gifts in
order to keep insects away. Today,
the most often quoted symbolic interpretation of the waving of the aer
has to do with the resurrection of Christ. The aer is said to represent the great stone that covered the
Tomb and was rolled away at the time of the Resurrection.
However, such an interpretation is unrelated to the text of the
Divine Liturgy.
Encouraging the Active
Participation of People in Worship
Each
parish is responsible for providing suitable and effective liturgical
experiences capable of inducing the inner and exterior involvement of
the faithful. Worship is
most attractive when it is performed with faith and is characterized
by simplicity, beauty, clarity, directness, solemnity and joyful
dignity.
Many
factors contribute to the creation of a healthy liturgical environment
and meaningful experience. An
inspired priestly celebration and a coherent and persuasive homily are
basic factors. The reading of Scripture lessons and other liturgical texts
with care and conviction is another.
The graceful and dignified performance of liturgical actions is
also important. The prayerful attentiveness of the congregation and
its ability to respond gracefully with voice and bodily posture is
another. The quality of liturgical singing is fundamental.
People
love to sing. Songs fill
our lives. They intensify
speech, heighten action and evoke memories.
Because singing is so central to the liturgical tradition of
the Orthodox Church, we are obliged to pay special attention to the
quality of our liturgical music and singing.
Therefore, we have an obligation to both train and secure the
services of qualified and competent chanters and music directors.
More importantly, we must recognize the need and find the ways
to return to the assembled worshippers their ministry of song.
True worship is an act that involves the whole Body of Christ.
Worship is a work of the whole people of God, clergy and laity
alike. The whole Church
celebrates the divine services and mysteries.
No one is a mere spectator.
The revival of the roles and the redefinition of the functions
of historically grounded and useful institutions (such as the male and
female diaconate and the so-called minor orders) will help increase
our appreciation of the communal nature of public worship and our
awareness of the varied gifts and talents of the members of the faith
community.
Conclusion
Liturgical
forms, structures and patterns, like old habits and favored articles
of clothing, are not easily discarded or abandoned.
They grow on us and become part of our life experiences.
Therefore, I am aware that simply talking about liturgical
changes and innovations is sufficient to cause feelings of distress in
some people and arouse the deep displeasure of others.
However,
the liturgical tradition we so honor, respect and love was never
fixed. The structures,
patterns and forms of our worship have been evolving gradually through
the centuries. Some
changes have even been planned and decreed.
The quest for the inner meaning of worship, the critical
analysis of the received tradition and the search for new forms and
fresh approaches to liturgical involvement are not irreverent
endeavors. They are, rather, signs of a community committed to the faith
and to the incarnation of the authentic living tradition of the Church
in the circumstances and realities of the present age.
Father Alkiviades Calivas
Top of This
Page
Back to "Orthodoxy"
Page |
