1
LITURGICAL RENEWAL AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
Dedicated to the memory of Fr. Alexander Schmemann,
and to the monks of the New Skete,
pioneers in liturgical renewal in the Orthodox Church
The issue of Liturgical Renewal can be viewed from a liturgical, historical,
theological, ecclesiological, pastoral and missiological perspective. Without
neglecting all the above mentioned parameters, I have decided to concentrate
on the missiological dimension of it, focusing on the future of our Orthodox
witness. After all, we Orthodox believe that the Church does not exist for
herself but for the world, which means that without mission a Church is
simply not a Church. In addition, in the Orthodox Church Liturgy and
Mission are closely related, as the “Liturgy after the liturgy” clearly suggests .
Georges Florovsky in a historic statement to the world Christian
community1 has rightly claimed that Christianity is first of all a worshiping
community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second. The lex
orandi has a privileged priority in the life of the Christian Church. The lex
credendi depends on the devotional experience and vision of the Church, more
precisely on the authentic (i.e. liturgical) identity of the Church.2
It was this statement by Florovsky that made the issue of Liturgical
Renewal central to almost all missionary and pastoral concerns of the various
Orthodox Churches; almost but not quite, as one would naturally expect.
Later in my presentation I will explain the reason of the unwillingness of the
Orthodox Churches to undergo a brave and extensive liturgical renewal.
***
Liturgical Renewal, as an ecclesiastical desideratum is of course a relatively
new phenomenon in the Church’s life, mainly motivated by the stagnation
and the loss of the original meaning of the community’s liturgical communal
acts. Edward Farley, in his interesting and very relevant to our theme book
Deep Symbols, notes that "many of the problems of modern society are partly
due to the loss of "deep symbols”, i.e. those values with which each society
defines itself and fulfills its aspirations. These values define the faith, ethics
and action of community members, form the consciousness of individuals,
and maintain the cohesion of the society. In modern society these
1 Florovsky was addressing the 1952 “Faith and Order” Unit of the WCC in Lund. See next
note. 2 G.Florovsky, "The Elements of Liturgy", in G. Patelos (ed.), The Orthodox Church in the
Ecumenical Movement, Geneva WCC Press 1978, 172-182, p.172.
2
fundamental to the spiritual existence and the survival of humanity symbols
have been marginalized to such an extent that it is almost impossible to
reactivate them. For this reason modern people should either redefine these
symbols, or learn to live without them.”3 The Liturgical Renewal aims at
solving exactly this problem.
The connection between symbolic and actual reality is as old as the
history of our Church. It was indirectly proposed by one of the greatest
theologians of the past, St. Basil the Great. In his treatise On the Holy Spirit he
wrote: “Some of the beliefs and practices which are preserved in the Church –
whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined – are derived from written teaching;
others we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ (ἐν μυστηρίῳ) by the tradition
of the apostles.”4 With this explicit formulation St. Basil the Great perfectly
combined the sources of the Christian faith: Holy Scripture and Worship
(Λατρεία), apostolic tradition and the liturgical experience of the Christian
community, Gospel and Liturgy; in other words, Word and Mystery. The
first of these pairs led to the growth of theology and the Church’s devotion to
rational faith, and the second to the idea of communion. For the very word
λειτουργία (liturgy), is normally understood as the work of the entire people
(λεῑτον+ἔργον).
However, the problem of the relationship between Word and Mystery has
its roots in the beginning of modernity.5 In the academic community this
relationship was always examined in the framework of a Hegelian (in the
wider sense) analysis of history. According to this view, the history of
humanity is nothing but a battlefield for three conflicting conceptions of life
and reality in general: magic, religion, and science. Science testifies to the
progressive improvement of the human intellect, while the inferior
expressions – that is, magic and religion, which are primarily expressed
liturgically – fade away (according to Hegel and almost all modernist
philosophers, historians of religion and academics) before the superiority of
science. The famous anthropologist Georges Frazer, in his work The Golden
Bough,6 formulated the opinion that magico-religious and liturgical/
sacramental conceptions and ideas are nothing but erroneous theories, and
that cultic rituals constitute hopeless and desperate efforts to provide answers
3 Edward Farley, Deep Symbols. Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation, Valley Forge
1996, σελ. 3. 4 Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27:66 (PG 32, 188-9). 5 For the relationship between modernity and postmodernity, as well as between
Christianity and modernity, see my study Postmodernity and the Church. The Challenge to
Orthodoxy, Akritas Publications, Athens 2002 (in Greek). 6 The monumental work of James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and
Religion, was first published in 1922 (New York).
3
to natural and metaphysical phenomena. Frazer has even characterized
religious rituals as primitive science.7
These views became universally accepted in academia, until the end of the
last century, when Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his study entitled “Remarks on
Frazer’s Golden Bough,”8 completely reversed the modernist views on religion
and liturgy, restoring the importance of liturgy and the “expressive” dynamic
of all religious rites. The academic community’s perception that “religious
rites are the result of primitive or deficient convictions and beliefs” was thus
put into question, and it gradually became clear that the liturgy came out of
the need of a community not to explain, but to express something unique – in
Christianity to express vividly the experience of the Kingdom of God here
and now (albeit proleptically).9
***
Historically, however, the liturgical renewal was the result of three
developments in the areas of science and ecclesiastical life: (a) the
development of the science of "cultural anthropology"; (b) the catalytic effect
of the "liturgical movement" to all Christian denominations; and (c) the
emergence of a new discipline within the overall theological scholarship, that
of "Liturgical Theology", with a substantial Orthodox contribution.
1. Cultural anthropology, and the social sciences in general, were those that
brought the humanities upside down. It was not only the recognition beyond
any doubt of the close relationship between liturgy and culture (cult-culture);
not even the underlining of the liturgical expressions of all religious
communities not as secondary and marginal, but as primary and essential
element; it was mainly the axiomatic position that the common worship, the
common liturgy, in all societies, from the most primitive to the most recent
and modern, always determines their identity and esse.
One of the most imaginative insights of modern Cultural Anthropologists
is their conviction that liturgy, and ritual in general, is a form of
communication, a “performative” kind of speech, and instrumental in
7 For an interesting comparison of Frazer’s views versus those of Wittgenstein, see the recent
exchange between Wittgensteinians. Brian R. Clark, “Wittgenstein and Magic,” in R. L.
Addington - M. Addis (eds.), Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Religion, London 2001, p. 12 ff.
and D. Z. Phillips, “Wittgenstein, Wittgensteinianism, and Magic: A Philosophical
Tragedy?”, Religious Studies 39 2003, pp. 185-201, and also Clark’s response (“Response to
Phillips, Religious Studies 39 2003, pp. 203-209). 8 Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough,” Philosophical Occasions,
Cambridge 1992 (edited by James Klagge and Alfred Nordmann), pp. 115-155, and in the
monograph Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough, Doncaster 1979. 9 It is obvious that an expressive understanding of the mysteries, without rejecting their
logical structure, puts an emphasis on their doxological nature and ecclesiological (and
consequently relational) attributes, with special significance given to communion.
4
creating the essential categories of human thought.10 Liturgy communicates
the fundamental beliefs and values of a community, outlining in this way its
“world view” and “ethos”.11 The liturgy (cult) is not only related to culture,
and of course does not only transmit culture; it also “creates a reality which
would be nothing without it. The liturgy, therefore, is to society what the
words are to thought. We first know and experience something and then find
words for it. Therefore, it is impossible to have social relations without
symbolic liturgical acts,12 without a liturgical performance.
In this line of thought, the liturgy does not only externalize, but also
modify experience.13 This double orientation is expressed in the certain
general functions the liturgy has for a certain religious groups. Some of them
contribute to the expression, maintenance and transmission of the values and
feelings of a given social system; some others serve as guardians of these
values and feelings, protecting them from doubts and rejections, while others
contribute to the intensification of solidarity between the participants.14
Keeping in mind all these, i.e. on the one hand that the liturgy creates a
reality, a “world view” and the “ethos” of a community, and on the other the
above classification of liturgy according to its function, it may be proved very
fruitful to try to think of the Liturgical Renewal in terms of its deep and
profound meaning and function.
2. The Liturgical movement was the outcome of this axiomatic finding. It
began early last century within the Roman Catholic Church, being
characterized as one of the major theological movements of the last century.
Dom Lambert Beauduin in his famous manifesto, released in 1909, underlined
the following three main axes of the movement: the liturgical, the
ecclesiological, and the ecumenical: more correct liturgical services, more
authentic ecclesiology and more ecumenically oriented worship. Common
10 E.Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (transl. by J.W.Swain, New York: Free
Press, 1965, reprint), p. 22. 11 P.L.Berger and Th.Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1966). C.Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected
Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 126-141. 12 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London:
Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1966), p. 62. 13 Ibid, p. 64.
14 One of the proposed by the social sciences division of rituals is the following: (a) Rites of
passage, which help the participant to accomplish a status change. (b) Rites of deference, which
acknowledge the super ordination, the subordination and the friendship preserving thus
the existing social structure. (c) Rites of intensification, being held during periods of crisis, in
order to increase the solidarity of the group and decrease the tension that exists,
counterbalancing in this way the crisis (More in Gould and W. L. Kolb [eds.], Dictionary of
the Social Sciences, Unesco, Greek transl. in 3 vols., Athens, 1972, vol. 3, p. 967).
5
denominator of all these was the active participation of the entire community
in the common liturgical worship of the Church.
The issue of the necessity of a theological interpretation of the ages-old and
agrarian liturgical acts of our Church, as well as a thorough reform of them all
to meet the needs of the modern men and women, was revived after Vatican
II in the scholarly exchange between the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, and
B. Botte and W. J, Grisbrcoke originally published in St. Vladimir's Theological
Quarterly.15 Schmemann rejected any thought of a reform, insisting only on
the necessity of an interpretation of them, thus coming short to a radical
rediscovery and reinforcement of the authentic liturgical identity of our
Church’s witness. Despite this many important liturgical re-adjustments took
place in the Orthodox Church universal.16 The only place, however, within the
canonical Orthodox Church that a radical liturgical reform took place is the
monastic communities of the New Skete,17 to which this study is dedicated.
3. Finally, the liturgical theology is a theological discipline that essentially
stemmed, especially within the Roman Catholic theology, from the meeting of
Western theology with the authentic liturgical tradition of the East. As Fr.
Aidan Kanavagh has stated, the endemic crisis of Western culture is due to a
large extent in developing a perception of "cult" altogether different from that
of ancient “liturgy”. The liturgical theology looks not so much on the "how"
but on "what" the liturgical actions are all about. Its main objective is not to
make the liturgy an object of study - this is the work of a "theology of worship";
neither is it concerned with making the liturgy the source of the dogmatic
theology - this is the work of a "theology that derives from worship". Both in a
"theology of worship," and in the "theology (derived) from the worship”, the
liturgy is limited – sometimes even exclusively - to the liturgical expression of
faith, in other words it is exhausted in the liturgical ordo, i.e. only to the
structural component of the liturgical event of the community.18 This is why
15 St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 12 (1968) 170-74, and 13 (1969) 212-24). Cf. also Thomas
Fisch (ed.), Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann, Crestwood
New York, SVS Press 1990, 21 -41; and D. W. Fagerberg, What is Liturgical Theology? A Study
in Metlwdology, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990.
16 H. Wybrew, describes the gradual transformation of the Eucharistic practice in the
Orthodox world as follows: “The Eucharist from a simple public dinner became a ritual
practice; from the residential restriction it moved to a public splendor; from eating and
drinking it acquired the awe of the mysterious; from transparency and with everything
being heard by the people a sense of concealment and silence prevailed; from a Eucharist as
massive experience we moved to the Lord's Supper. Undoubtedly, Wybrew concluded,
substantial changes have been accomplished in the past century. It is indeed unlikely that
the Eucharistic practice will remain unchanged in the century and the millennium to come." 17 More in my Lex Orandi. Liturgical Theology and Liturgical Renewal, Indiktos Press, Athens
2005 (in Greek). 18 The Liturgical theology begins, of course, with the historical study of worship, but this
6
the “Liturgical theology” is useless if it is not accompanied by the “Liturgical
renewal”.
It is, therefore, obvious that without an ecclesiological understanding of the
Christian faith no Liturgical renewal can really exist. The latter is more
concerned with ecclesiology and less, I would say not at all, with the ritual.
After all “liturgy" in the original sense is completely dissociated from any
religious (cultic) and ceremonial (ritual) categories. As Christianity in its
original sense is the "end" of religion (the term in the biblical sense, cf. Rom
10.4), so the "Liturgy" is the end of worship in its conventional form, i.e. as a
mere ritual ceremony. The "liturgical theology" is the dominant theology of
the Church; it is a theologia prima, not a theologia secunda, as it was believed
previously in the scholastic theology. Pioneer in establishing the Liturgical
Theology as a primary theological discipline was the late Fr. Alexander
Schmemann, to whose memory this study is also dedicated with gratitude, on
the occasion of the thirtieth year from his death.19
***
In order to prove the importance of a liturgical renewal with radical
reforms to meet the demands of an authentic and effective Orthodox witness
to the world, we have to go back to the origins of the liturgical practice of the
people of God and explain what happened and the Christian liturgy from a
radical event of Christian witness became an end in itself, losing almost all its
dynamism.
The first Christians developed their liturgical behavior in accordance with
the idea of the covenant (or covenants), particularly through the commitment
of the people with God and with one another to the memory of the events of
the Exodus, when the Israelites experienced the liberating grace of God. The
liturgy, therefore, was originally understood as the obligation to worship
God, who had led them in particular historical circumstances to liberation,
salvation, justice and peace (šalôm). The liturgy, however, of the people of
God was also a constant reminder of a commitment to a moral and ethical life,
and an obligation for resistance against any oppression and exploitation of
their fellow men and women. In this sense, the worshiping community was
also a witnessing community.
When, however, the social and political conditions in Israel began to
change and a monarchical system was imposed upon God's people, a tragic
change in their concept of communion emerged, and consequently a complete
change in the meaning of their liturgy. The Law of God and the Covenant (or
successive Covenants: adamic, noachic, Sinai, etc.) have been replaced by the
law of the kingdom (and the Davidic covenant), and of course the federal
historical study is only the starting point, not its ultimate goal.
19 Cf. the special issue of SVTQ (53, no 2-3, 2009), dedicated also to his memory on the
occasion of the 25th anniversary of his death.
7
standing that manifested only with the worship of the one God was replaced
by the concept of the “nation”, the future of which was depended on political
alliances and social and religious syncretism, usually at the expense of the
“communion” with God, and never on trust in Him and the Law, expressed
in the traditional liturgy. The latter lost its communal character and was
gradually institutionalized.
With the construction of the Temple of Solomon the religious life of the
community turned into a cult incumbent with the necessary professional
priesthood and the necessary financial transactions. Jesus’ action against the
money changers is quite indicative of the new situation. His repeated appeal
to “mercy/ charity/ eleon instead of sacrifice is yet another reminder of the real
purpose of liturgy.
It has been convincingly argued that the Israel under the Monarchy slipped
into three dangerous situations that perverted the original meaning of liturgy:
(a) the greed of those in power led to financial exploitation of the weak; (b) a
hierarchical social order was imposed, which in turn led to the political
oppression of the weak for the sake of the emerging state; and (c), and most
importantly, the establishment of a formal and conventional worship, agreed
to serve the kingdom and its political allies.20 In chapter 8 of the First Book of
Samuel (LXX A Kingdoms) the conversation of Yahweh with Samuel is highly
instructive, underlining the implications of this radical change in the
relationship between God and his people, when they asked him to provide
them with a king.
All these were the consequence of the dominance of private property in
Israel, which, as it is well known, caused a strong protest and action by the
Prophets. Previously the governing principle was divine ownership of all the
material wealth, according to the Psalmist’s affirmation: “the Earth is the Lord’s
and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it” (Psalm 24:1). The focus, in
other words, with the imposition of economic injustice shifted from the justice
of God to the personal accumulation of wealth. Amos and Hosea in the
Northern Kingdom before its dissolution in 722 BC, and Isaiah, Micah,
Jeremiah, Habakkuk and Ezekiel in Judea, began to speak of the main
components of liturgy: i.e. Law and Justice, values that were lost because of
the new conception of ownership, which changed the traditional concept of
society and completely perverted the real purpose of liturgy.
For the Prophets of the Old Testament the abolition of justice and the
cancellation of the rights of the poor meant above all rejection of God Himself.
For example, Prophet Jeremiah insisted that knowing God was identical with
being fair towards the poor (Jer 22:16). Prophet Isaiah even carries further his
criticism against the introduction of individual property, when he spoke
about the greed and avarice as manifested by the accumulation of land: "Woe
20 See more in W. Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, Philadelphia 1978.
8
to those who add to their home and joins the field with the field, so that now there is
no other place for them to stay” (Is 5:8). The prophet himself does not hesitate to
characterize the greedy landlords "thieves" (1:23) and characterize the
confiscation of the land of indebted farmers grab at the expense of the poor.21
The liturgy as a social critique by the Prophets, combined with the call for a
return to the Law of Moses as an alternative conception of society, since the
faith and life of wandering in the wilderness was deeply rooted in a politics of
equality and an economy of the enough (cf. the story of the manna in Exodus,
ch. 16), needs to be constantly before our eyes when we examine the ultimate
goal of a liturgical renewal in our Orthodox Church.
***
In addition to the social prophetic dimension of liturgy, it is necessary to
also look at the teaching, life and work of Jesus of Nazareth, which of course
cannot be properly assessed without a reference to the eschatological
expectations of Judaism; the expectation of the coming of a Messiah in the
"last days" of history (the eschaton), who would establish his kingdom by
calling the dispersed and afflicted people of God into one place to become one
body united around him. The statement in the Gospel of John about the
Messiah's role is extremely important. There, the author interprets the words
of the Jewish High Priest by affirming that "he prophesied that Jesus should die...
not for the nation only but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered
abroad".22 An obvious reference to the Eucharist in this passage is inescapable.
Of course, not only in the 4th Gospel, but in all 4 Gospels Jesus identified
himself with this Messiah, as it is evident in the various Messianic titles he
chose for himself ("Son of man", "Son of God", etc., most of which had a
collective meaning, whence the Christology of "corporate personality"). The
same is true in the parables of the kingdom, which summarize his teaching,
proclaiming that his coming initiates the new world of the Kingdom of God;
in the Lord's Prayer, but also in his conscious acts (e.g. the selection of the
twelve, etc.). The missiological imperatives of the early Church and her
witness to the Good News in the liturgy, all point to bringing the Kingdom of
God "on earth as it is in heaven" (Mt. 6:10 par).23 One should never forget that
21 Is 3:14-15. See the detailed analysis of the problem by Ulrich Duchrow and Franz
Hinkelammert in their book entitled, Property for People, Not for Profit: Alternatives to the
Global Tyranny of Capital, London 2004; and above all in their most recent work, Transcending
Greedy Money. Interreligious Solidarity for Just Relations, Palgrave Macmilllan: New York 2012,
pp. 47ff. 22 Regarding this Messianic perception, see Is 66:18; Mt 25:32; Rom 12:16; Didache 9:4b; Marl. Polyc. 22:3b;
Clement of Rome, 1 Cor 12:6 etc.
23 See St. John Chrysostom's comment on the relevant petition of the Lord's Prayer: "(Christ)
did not say 'Your will be done' in me, or in us, but everywhere on earth, so that error may
be destroyed, and truth implanted, and all wickedness cast out, and virtue return, and no
difference in this respect be henceforth between heaven and earth" (PG 57 Col. 280).
9
the Apostles were commissioned to proclaim not a set of given religious
convictions, doctrines, moral commands etc., but the coming Kingdom, the
Good News of a new eschatological reality, the center of which was Christ,
understood as a “Universal Savor” (cf. later also the title “Pantocrator”) and
not as a religious leader in exclusive terms.
No doubt, this initial horizontal historical eschatology by the third century
AD began (under the intense ideological pressure of Christian Gnosticism and
especially Platonism) to gradually fall out of favor, or at best to coexist with
concepts promulgated by the Catechetical School of Alexandria. The type of
spirituality and Christian witness developed around these circles did not have
the eschaton (the Ω omega), as its point of reference, but the Creation (the A
alpha), humanity's primal state of blessedness in paradise before the Fall. And
this change has affected the authentic understanding of liturgy, with this new
direction, as Metropolitan John Zizioulas emphatically noted, being "not
merely a change (τροπή), but a complete reversal (ανατροπή)."24
The Church ceased to be an icon of the eschaton and became an icon of the
origin of beings, of Creation,25 resulting in a cosmological approach to the
Church, to its liturgy, and to its mission, instead of a historical one, as in the
Holy Scriptures. Naturally, therefore, the close connection between liturgy
and mission disappeared, together with interest in the institutional reality of
the Church, whose purpose is now characterized, at best, as a sanatorium of
souls.26 The Church’s mission – and the purpose of liturgy - is now directed
not in bringing about synergicly the Kingdom of God, but toward the salvation
of the souls of every individual Christian.27 Under this peculiar mysticism,
24 J. Zizioulas, Θέματα Εκκλησιολογίας, Thessaloniki, p. 28. 25 The Alexandrians, under the influence of the ancient Greek philosophy, particularly
Platonism, believed that the original condition of beings represents perfection and that all
subsequent history is a decline. The mystery of the incarnation contributes almost nothing
to this system of thought. On Origen’s soteriology and its minimal salvific significance of
the Christ’s human nature see A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Atlanta 1975; also
R. Taft, “The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and
Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm,” DOP 34-35 (1980-81) 45-75 p. 62, n. 79. 26 This is the view of the late J. Romanidis and his school (Metr. Ierotheos of Nafpaktos, and
the entire group of conservatives, the proponents of the notorious Orthodoxe Omologia
Pisteos [against ecumenism], who oppose any idea of a liturgical renewal). 27 According to W. Jardine Grisbrooke, «The Formative Period-Cathedral and Monastic
Offices», C. Jones-G. Wainwright-E. Yarnold-P. Bradshaw (eds.), The Study of Liturgy, New
York (19881, 19922), 403-420, monasticism as a lay movement in its initial stages was not
only a detachment from, and rejection of, the world; it also believed that priesthood was
incompatible with the monastic order (ibid., 404). It is not accidental that during the first
stage of the development of Christian monasticism the monks cut themselves off from
common worship to devote themselves to continuous private prayer. Of course the notion
of continuous prayer (αδιάλειπτος προσευχή) was not new (cf. 1 Thes 5:17); what was
new, was its interpretation. Whereas the early Christians considered that every act or
expression could be regarded as prayer, now in some monastic circles private prayer as
10
salvation was no longer connected to the coming Kingdom, to the anticipation
of a new eschatological community of justice and peace with a more authentic
structure. Now, salvation is identified with the soul's union with the Logos,
and therefore, with the catharsis, the purification from all that prohibits union
with the primal Logos, including all that is material, tangible (αισθητά),
historical.28
From the mid-Byzantine period onward29 the original understanding of
Eucharist, and the liturgy in general, as a springboard for mission, as the
mystery par excellence of the Church, as a feast of eschatological joy,30 as a
gathering «επί το αυτό» of the eschatological people of God,31 as an authentic
expression of fellowship among people, lost its fundamental ecclesial
dimension, and with it all its missionary significance and power.32 And with
such has in fact replaced everything else, most notably mission (cf. A. Schmemann,
Introduction to Liturgical Theology, p.160 (of the 1991 Greek translation). This defection from
the original spirituality of the early Church resulted in the creation of new forms and
concepts of worship, which we see especially in the formation of what later came to be
known as the "monastic typikon". Within this important spiritual movement worship no
longer takes its meaning from the eschatological perspective of the Eucharist, but is
designed instead to be used primarily as a tool to carve deeply within the mind of the
monastics the principle of continuous individual prayer. As Grisbrooke points out, this
“has nothing to do with corporate worship, but is rather a helpful expression of individual
private prayer practiced in common” (p. 405). 28 The μαράναθα (the Lord is near) of the Pauline communities, and the έρχου Κύριε (come
Lord) of the seer/prophet of the Apocalypse, are replaced by continuous prayer and the
struggle against the demons and the flesh. These two basic understandings of ecclesiology,
spirituality, liturgy and mission, remained as parallel forces, sometimes meeting together
and forming a creative unity, and some other times moving apart creating dilemmas and
conflicts. Where can one find personal wholeness and salvation? In the Eucharistic
gathering around the bishop, where one could overcome creatively all schizophrenic
dichotomies (spirit/matter, transcendence/ immanence, coming together/going forth etc.)
and social polarities? Or in the desert, the hermitage, the monastery, where presumably the
effort of catharsis and healing of passions through ascetic discipline of the individual is
more effective? This was, and remains, a critical dilemma in the life of the Orthodox
Church, affecting to a certain degree the issue of liturgical renewal. 29 One should not, of course, direct all criticism only against the Alexandrian mystagogical
school. The Antiochian school, the other great school of liturgical interpretation in the East,
has also contributed, though indirectly, to the abandonment of eschatology by turning its
attention only toward history, without any eschatological perspective, thus interpreting the
Divine Liturgy mainly as a depiction of the Lord's presence on earth. 30 A. Schmemann, The Eucharist. Sacrament of the Kingdom, 1988; also his The Great Lent.
Journey to Pascha, 1974. 31 N. Afanassieff, “The Church Which Presides in Love,” J. Meyendorff (ed.), The Primacy of
Peter. Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, SVS Press Crestwood 21992, 91-143, 11963,
57-110. Ibid, “La doctrine de la primauté à la lumière de l’ ecclesiologie”, Istina 4 (1957) 401-
420. Ibid., “Una Sancta”, Irenikon 36 (1963) 436-475. 32 Paradoxically the liturgical (corporate/historical/eschatological) spirituality was preserved
to some extent within the consciousness of the Orthodox. But this was predominantly
11
this our Orthodox Church’s witness as the Liturgy after the (conventional)
liturgy completely lost its profound meaning.
***
In addition to the loss of the eschatological character of the liturgy another
factor that led to a strong opposition to any idea of a liturgical renewal within
the Orthodox Church was a misconception of what an authentic (Orthodox)
liturgy is all about. There are two major understandings of Liturgy: according
to the first one, the liturgy is a private ceremony, in order to meet some
particular religious needs. On the one hand the need of the community to
exercise its power and supervision on the members, to judge them for
violations of norms and Laws, and to impose the appropriate punishment, in
order to preclude repetition of the violations in the future and to maintain the
authority of a given ethical code, and on the other the need of the individual
for personal decriminalization, expiation, justification and “sanctification”. I
have labeled this kind of Liturgy juridical. According to this understanding of
liturgy there is no need for a liturgical…renewal. All work automatically, and
any reform or re-adjustment may cause the collapse of the entire system!
According to the second understanding the liturgy functions as a means
for the up-building of the religious community, which is no longer viewed in
institutional terms or as a cultic organization, but as a communion (koinonia)
and as a way of living. I have labeled this second perspective communal.
The juridical understanding of liturgy presupposes a religious system,
which in terms of ecclesiology treats the Church as an institution with a rigid
hierarchical structure, and an authoritative code of ethical principles. This
entails a number of objectified obligations, which all the members within the
religious system have to fulfill. Consequently, all the liturgical acts
(Sacraments proper, sacramentalia, rites of various kinds etc.) are the necessary
means for the individual to acquire the divine grace and finally salvation by
means of personal expiation, justification and psychological relaxation.33
It is worth noting that the “juridical” understanding of liturgy encourages
and in effect promotes a sharp distinction between the various segments of
the religious society (clergy and laity, monastic and secular, spiritual gerontes,
starets etc and ordinary subordinates [ypotaktikoi], thus underlining the
dimensions of super- and sub-ordination), and in this way contributes to the
outside the actual life of worship, in the daily life of a largely enslaved Orthodoxy, in the
secular communities and guilds. The source of this unexpected and happy ending is that
the main core of the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy, in spite of all the exaggerated symbolism
and some unnecessary additions, remained untouched in its communal dimension
(eschatological, but vigorously historical and in many ways anti-pietistic) and continued to
reflect the understanding of the Eucharist primarily as a corporate act of mission that
embraces the entire society and the whole created world. 33 Moreover, God is no longer the loving Father who shows compassion to the sinful, but the
sadist father, as Sigmund Freud noted, who demands the indulgence of His justice.
12
maintenance of the social structure not only within the religious community
itself, but also by extension within the wider social life.34
And one final remark: the communal understanding of liturgy emerges at
the edges of structure, and from beneath structure, in inferiority.35 It
presupposes an anti-structural kind of ecclesiology. In a theological level this
means priority of communion over structure; yet in a practical level it does
not mean the abolition of every kind of structure in the community. As Victor
Turner insightfully remarked, there is a dialectic between structure and
communion (or communitas), for in an authentic liturgy “(wo)men are released
from structure into communitas, only to return to structure revitalized by their
experience of communitas”.36
***
In order that a renewal in Christian witness be achieved in our Orthodox
Church, it is necessary as a basic presupposition to turn our attention to
necessary steps in liturgical renewal, in order that our local eucharistic
communities regain their authentic “Orthodox” outlook.37 Only if these steps
gain wider acceptance within all our autocephali Churches, especially the
metropolitan “mother” Orthodox Churches, can one hope that the Orthodox
witness to a hungry and thirsty world can be both “Orthodox” and effective.
The most significant of these steps are:38
34 According to the “communal” understanding, the scope of Liturgy is not a restoration of
the faithful to virtue, nor to an individual psychological self-sufficiency. If we may speak
about Ethics in the Church, this Ethics aim to the realization of Truth rather than of virtue
(cf. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Thalassius, PG 90, 369A; also J.Zizioulas, Being as
Communion, pp.67ff). In such a process a liturgical renewal is not an option but a sine qua
non of the ecclesial community. 35 V.Turner, The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press, 1969), p. 128. 36 Ibid, p. 129. 37 Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas in his article “Eucharist and Kingdom,” Synaxis
vol. 49, 51, 52 (1994) pp. 7-18, 83-101, 81-97 respectively, has convincingly shown “how
unacceptable is to undermine and overshadow in many ways the eschatological character
of the Eucharist both in academic theology and in our liturgical practice” (vol. 52 [1994] p. 95,
italics mine). 38 Most of what follows has already been applied with great success, as I indicated earlier in
this paper, in the liturgical life of the Orthodox monastic communities of the New Skete
(Cambridge, New York), the great motives for the foundation of which was their “deep and
passionate interest in liturgy and its intimate place in Christian life” (The Divine Liturgy,
New Skete 1987, p. xiii). Their uniqueness lies on the fact that they “have done a great deal
of experimentation...listened carefully to the scholars... (and struggled to) find ways and
means of liberating the treasures of Byzantine worship from the paralysis that has tried to
suffocate it over the last several centuries” (ibid., pp..xiiif). The brothers (and sisters) of the
New Skete are well aware that “the eastern churches...are not, generally, prepared to take
the necessary plunge into a long-needed liturgical renewal...there seems no way in which a
concerted, official movement toward liturgical renewal is about to happen. Individuals and
individual communities, therefore, would seem to be the ones to embark on this
13
a. The restoration of the catholic participation in the eschatological table of
the Kingdom; this means participation of the entire community to the holy
communion (not just frequent communion) with no juridical or legalistic
preconditions (such as worthiness, or strict preparation of the individual
faithful),39 i.e. without any subordination of the sacrament par excellence of the
Church (Eucharist) to other sacraments (repentance, priesthood etc.,40
certainly of lesser importance from the point of view of Orthodox theology).41
b. Return to the early Christian status of full and inclusive participation of
the entire people of God (special/ordained and general/lay priesthood, men
and women) to the actions, processions and singing in our liturgy
(λειτουργία=έργον+λαός=act of the people),42 and if possible rehabilitation of
the “Cathedral Office”.43
c. Step by step replacement of the normal choir, (at least of the solitary
church singer, the «ψάλτης»), by the entire laos (as the original and authentic
orthodox tradition, according to all liturgical rubrics demands), until all these
intermediary and by all means assisting factors of our liturgical life are done
away, or better become leading factors rather than substitutes of the
participating in the Eucharistic drama community.
d. Intensive care that the Eucharist, as well as all other connected to it
liturgical services (both those of the Divine Office, and the sacramental ones,
i.e. the Holy Mysteries), are celebrated in a form (symbolic, linguistic,
renewal...Historically, monasteries have enjoyed the prerogative of such renewal in
developing their own usages, and most frequently, their forms were adopted and adapted
by the church at large” (ibid., pp..xvff). 39 Only then will the Sacrament of Repentance and the traditional institution of fasting
acquire again the significant place they deserve in the spiritual life of the Church. 40 This is what is actually missing from X.S.Papacharalambous’ thorough yet strictly legalistic
treatment of the subject, as it is clearly indicated by the title of his (yet unfinished work),
“Conditions and Preconditions for Participating in the Divine Eucharist from an Orthodox
Perspective,” Scholarly Annual of the Theological School of the University of Athens 28 (1993), 29
(1994), 30 (1995), especially vol. 30 pp. 475-546 (to be continued). It is quite interesting how
the author is struggling to reach a balanced and compromised solution to the problem. This
is yet another example of the necessity of establishing criteria of what actually constitutes
an “orthodox viewpoint”. 41 P. Meyendorff in his article (“The Liturgical Path of Orthodoxy in America,” SVTQ 40
[1996] 43-64) vividly reports how successful the experiment has been in the Orthodox
Church in America (with the introduction of the general confession) during the last two
decades. 42 More and more local priests have realized the importance of this for a meaningful worship
and the revival of the Eucharistic communities. The most painful of all is the exclusion of
women (especially in the Greek speaking Churches) even from Church singing. 43 For the last attempt by St. Symeon of Thessaloniki in the 15th century cf. I. Fountoulis, The
Liturgical Work of Symeon of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 1966 (in Greek).
14
dramatic etc.) profitable to the grass root faithful and understood by the entire
community, the natural co-celebrants of the Holy Mysteries of the Church.44
e. Complete abolishment of all the secretly read by the presiding celebrant
common prayers, especially those of the anaphora to its entirety,45 as well as of
all other later developed liturgical acts, such as e.g. the restriction only to the
higher priestly orders of the kiss of love («αγαπήσωμεν αλλήλους, let us love
one another).
f. Return of the Orthodox Church Building technique (ναοδομία) to its
original form, by underlining all those elements which characterize both the
ancient basilicas with their missionary orientation (remember the tern Nave
from ναυς sailing toward the eschaton), and the pioneer and revolutionary
byzantine Church Building technique of Hagia Sophia, such as: (i) the
illumination of the space, in contrast to the later dim and dull technical style
(a result of later and not always theologically healthy, as we pointed out
above, influence), which instead of directing the community toward the light
and joy of the Kingdom, unconsciously contributes to a rather
individualization of the salvation event; (ii) the abolishment of all later (and
certainly of western influence) elements that transform the worshiping
peoples from active co-celebrants to passive attendants of the liturgical
actions.
g. Emphasis on all processional, liturgical and participatory elements of
our Orthodox Liturgy, starting with (i) the re-establishment of the ambo, and
transfer around it, i.e. outside the sanctuary, of all related parts of our
liturgical praxis, such as the “Sacrament of the Word” at the Divine Liturgy,
and the non-eucharistic services (vespers, matins etc.), according to our
ancient canonical order (which is fortunately preserved even today, but only
during the hierarchical services, in which the bishop «χοροστατεί» (stands by
the choir, by the ambo, i.e. by the community); (ii) the return of the Great
Entrance to its original form, i.e. with a symbolic participation of the entire
community at the transfer of the gifts of creation (represented by the deacons
alone, this intermediate order between the lay people and the priesthood
proper), so that the presiding celebrant simply receives and not himself
44 This is quite evident in those Churches which have just regained their freedom and still
use the old Slavonic, and which realize that the invaluable richness of the eastern
eucharistic tradition has minimal effect to the Orthodox communities and to the world at
large. This applies mutatis mutandis also to the Orthodox communities using the ancient
Greek. 45 It quite a promising sign that a traditional center of Orthodoxy, like Mount Athos, has been
responsible for a corrected edition of the text of the Divine Liturgy, which among other
important details has replaced the established erroneous indication that all eucharistic
prayers are to be read secretly (μυστικώς) with a neutral one “the priest prays = επεύχεται”
(Ιερατικόν, Monastery of Simonos Petras, 1990ff; cf. also I. Fountoulis, Divine Liturgies,
Thessaloniki 1985).
15
transfers the offerings of the community (cf. again the traditional order of the
Eucharistic celebration with a presiding bishop), and of course return of the
rite of the proskomide back to its original place, i.e. immediately before the
Great Entrance.
h. Abolishment of the later structure of the iconostasis, a development that
has had an unfortunate effect and has further intensified the existing barrier
between the clergy and the rest of the people of God. In my view, it would be
extremely beneficial for both pastoral and missionary purposes to return to
the architectural status immediately after the triumph of the icons, with the
only dividing elements between the sanctuary and the nave being high
columns (στήλοι, hence αναστήλωσις των εικόνων) and short θωράκια on
top of which small portable icons will be placed, in the place of the gigantic
ones. Finally,
i. Underlining of the exclusively eschatological character of the Sunday
Eucharist (as the mystery/sacrament of the Kingdom, and not as one religious
rite among others (Matins), and of the Eucharistic gathering as a glimpse and
manifestation of the eight day) by the return to the sabbaitic typikon, i.e.
attaching the Sunday matins to the Saturday evening’s Vespers.
All these absolutely necessary preliminary actions are only the first step of
a meaningful liturgical renewal. The ultimate purpose of it will always
remain the transformation of the world, the Liturgy after the liturgy.
***
The problem of overcoming or combating the evil in the world, in other
words the ultimate objective of our Church’s witness, is not primarily and
exclusively a moral issue; it is basically an ecclesiological one. The moral and
social responsibility of the Church, both as an organization and regarding her
individual members, is the logical consequence of our ecclesial self-
consciousness vividly expressed in our liturgy. The Orthodox liturgy, and
particularly its center and connecting bond, the Holy Eucharist, as the
reflection of God's Kingdom and the authentic "image" of the "truth" to be
revealed in the future, requires constant redefinition based on the authentic
Orthodox ecclesiology. Otherwise, it runs the risk of becoming a false idol of
the ultimate reality.
If the Orthodox liturgy does not faithfully represent the properties of the
Kingdom of God, in other words if the elements of the full and equal
participation of God's people are not apparent; if the Eucharistic gathering is
not a dynamic expression of unity, equality, justice, brother(sister)hood,
sacrifice, and above all true communion, a reflection of the perfect
communion that exist within the Holy Trinity; and if it does not prevent
phenomena of perishability, mortality, and division of the human, historical
and created reality; then we need to think seriously and ask ourselves with
courage what is the real problem of our failure, and who is to be blamed.
16
Secularism and worldliness in our Orthodox liturgy especially in the
Eucharist, the very place of the ontological (in terms of theology) and
universal (in terms of massive participation of the people) expression of the
Kingdom of God, can only be prevented by a courageous program of
liturgical renewal. If, instead, on the pretext of fidelity in the Orthodox
tradition (actually misusing the Tradition) the Eucharistic services remain as
they are – in some cases as sacramentalistic/magic ceremonies of an
“unreasonable worship” (μη λογική λατρεία) – then undoubtedly all the
aspects of the Church’s life (pastoral, social, monastic, missionary, scientific,
theological, etc.) will naturally crawling toward the antipode of the
eschatological status of the Church, namely secularism.
Top Related