Services of the Orthodox Church

[Andreas Moran]

A point occurs to me following on from what has arisen in the thread, Episcopate of the Orthodox Church. Are the main services of the Orthodox Church fixed? Does it say anywhere what services are authorised for use? I was talking the other day with a friend who is a C of E priest and he told me this is the case in his Church; he can only use those liturgies prescribed by the Synod of the C of E. Thus he cannot use, for example, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

[Herman Blaydoe]

A point occurs to me following on from what has arisen in the thread, Episcopate of the Orthodox Church. Are the main services of the Orthodox Church fixed? Does it say anywhere what services are authorised for use? I was talking the other day with a friend who is a C of E priest and he told me this is the case in his Church; he can only use those liturgies prescribed by the Synod of the C of E. Thus he cannot use, for example, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

Each bishop is responsible for establishing proper praxis. I know that Metropolitan Philip has published rather specific guidelines for how he expects Divine Liturgy to be served in his parishes. My diocese has its "Blue Book" which lays out the Divine Liturgy as our Metropolitan expects it to be done. Our priest would not try and serve a western rite service without a blessing from the bishop. We serve the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom when the rubrics call for it and the Liturgy of St. Basil when it is called for, and the Presanctified Liturgy during Great Lent. We serve Matins when we can but only with the metropolitan's blessing. The priest does not get to decide what to do, that is the bishop's call. Or maybe I am simply misunderstanding the question?

Herman

[Andreas Moran]

Our priest would not try and serve a western rite service without a blessing from the bishop.

Would your bishop have the authority to sanction the use of a WR service? Are the services of the Orthodox Church fixed so that such sanction could not validly be given? There must be a clear answer to the question, are the services of our Church fixed? - they are or they are not. If they are not, what anarchy may ensue?

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is the vital point - would your bishop have the authority to sanction the use of a WR service? Are the services of the Orthodox fixed so that such sanction could not validly be given?

In that we are subservient to the Ecumenical Patriarch I don't rightly know. I imagine he would OK it with the EP first. Beyond that I do know that the Antiochians authorized its use and nobody in authority seems to be questioning their ability to do so and are still in communion with them so "res ipsa loquitur."

[Andreas Moran]

In Moscow, I was told that no bishop or local synod has the authority to authorise WR liturgies.

[Herman Blaydoe]

In Moscow, I was told that no bishop or local synod has the authority to authorise WR liturgies.

And that is probably true IN RUSSIA. But we are not in Russia.

[Anthony Stokes]

A point occurs to me following on from what has arisen in the thread, Episcopate of the Orthodox Church. Are the main services of the Orthodox Church fixed? Does it say anywhere what services are authorised for use? I was talking the other day with a friend who is a C of E priest and he told me this is the case in his Church; he can only use those liturgies prescribed by the Synod of the C of E. Thus he cannot use, for example, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

I have not completely read your other thread, so I'm just answering from this question, but the Typicon, as well as the service texts themselves, tell us what services to do. The Lit. of St. Basil is done certain times, etc. I am assuming that the Western Rite churches don't necessarily follow the same Typicon, but I'm not sure.

This is a question that I actually brought up to my priest, about whether or not our Bishop could give us permission to serve the Lit. of St. James on the feast of St. James or not. I know it is done in Jerusalem, but I have heard that it is done other places as well.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Andreas Moran]

And that is probably true IN RUSSIA. But we are not in Russia.

They were not speaking only for Russia but for the whole Church. They were absolutely clear that no bishop has authority anywhere to sanction WR liturgies. Not any local synod either. Period.

[Andreas Moran]

I don't want to focus only on WR liturgies - they are relevant here but we've had a thread about them. But I do want to know if the services are fixed explicitly? Metropolitan Kallistos, in 'The Orthodox Church', Part Two, says that the services are part of Holy Tradition. He describes the liturgy as an expression of the outward form of Holy Tradition. He says that what he terms the 'inner Tradition' (by which he means that which is not proclaimed as dogma and doctrine but 'which is just as binding as an explicit formualtion') is 'handed down in a mystery' and is 'preserved above all in the Church's worship. He goes on to say that the words and actions of the liturgy 'all have special meaning, and all express in symbolic or dramatic form the truths of the faith.' Lex orandi lex credendi.

The Orthodox Church has what Pomazansky describes as a 'common catholic consciousness'. The Church, as a spiritual organism with Christ at her head, has one faith, a common faith. This faith is expressed in her forms of worship. Where something is not explicitly stated as dogma in an Ecumenical Council, we can identify authentic Holy Tradition from the unanimous opinions of the Fathers. So it is with the services. The 'catholic consciousness' of the Church as regards its faith is expressed in the services. As Pomazansky puts it, 'by entering deeply into the content of the Divine service books we make ourselves firmer in the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church. The content of the Divine services is the culminating expression of the teaching of the holy Apostles and Fathers of the Church, both in the sphere of dogma and of morals' (my emphasis). "The preaching of the Apostles and dogmas of the Fathers have imprinted upon the Church a single faith which, bearing the garment of truth woven of theh theology from above, rightly dispenseth and glorifieth the great mystery of piety" - kontakion from the commemoration of the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. As Pomazansky points out, it was great Fathers who composed divine services, for example, St John Damascene.

Thus we worship in accord with the Church militant and triumphant. Is this as close as we can get to saying that the services are fixed or are there canons about them? Sbdcn Anthony has also pointed us to the Typicon which apparently does lay down what services to use and when. I would like to know the exact status of the Typicon - is it binding on bishops? Even thus far, I cannot accept that a bishop or local church has the authority to add novelties by way of services. No one has authority to add to Holy Tradition in such a way. Unlike secular law where a person can do everything except what is proscribed, is it not the other way round in the Church - what can be done is what Holy Tradition sanctions? I think it has been said that the Church which changes its liturgy loses its faith.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas,

The following is purely an 'I think it is like this...' response to your query, which I freely admit in advance may be in error, and which I offer solely as a first reaction without having looked into this. Those caveats stated, I think the answer to your query is that no, there is no canonical fixture of the services of the Church. I cannot think of any canon that expressly limits the 'sanctioned' services of the Church - though it is possible that one exists, that I've not seen. Most dicoeses and local Churches will have their own regulations on the whats and whens (e.g. if/when the Liturgy of St James is to be used, etc.); but I'm not off-hand aware of any canonical or widespread fixture of the services.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thus we worship in accord with the Church militant and triumphant. Is this as close as we can get to saying that the services are fixed or are there canons about them? Sbdcn Anthony has also pointed us to the Typicon which apparently does lay down what services to use and when. I would like to know the exact status of the Typicon - is it binding on bishops? Even thus far, I cannot accept that a bishop or local church has the authority to add novelties by way of services. No one has authority to add to Holy Tradition in such a way. Unlike secular law where a person can do everything except what is proscribed, is it not the other way round in the Church - what can be done is what Holy Tradition sanctions? I think it has been said that the Church which changes its liturgy loses its faith.

"Never take your typicon to another monastery." old monastic saying

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you, FR DCn Matthew. I have just noticed on the 'Pre-schism popes' thread something Olga wrote which is pertinent here. She wrote, 'liturgical texts . . . are in complete accord with the mind of the Church and are derived from scripture and the whole Patristic tradition.'

Can it be said, then, that through Holy Tradition, that in the services there is some room (maybe not a great deal) for variation, as Herman has indicated, but none for entire innovation? Can a bishop arrange services as he thinks fit? Could he, say, authorise the use of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom during Great Lent? Could he authorise the introduction of some novel form of service? If, as Metropolitan Kallistos says, 'inner Tradition' is binding, how could a bishop authorise such things?

What is the status of the Typicon and is it online?

[Herman Blaydoe]

They were not speaking only for Russia but for the whole Church. They were absolutely clear that no bishop has authority anywhere to sanction WR liturgies. Not any local synod either. Period.

So the MP is now the infallible Orthodox Pope? Has the MP broken off communion with the AP which has WR parishes? Has the MP sanctioned ROCOR for having WR parishes?

Perhaps you are making an erroneous extrapolation?

Just a thought....

Herman

[Herman Blaydoe]

Can it be said, then, that through Holy Tradition, that in the services there is some room (maybe not a great deal) for variation, as Herman has indicated, but none for entire innovation? Can a bishop arrange services as he thinks fit?

Based on observed practice, I think yes, but it depends. That bishop must answer to higher and lower authority. Each church does establish its own typicon. That typicon is governed by established practice and what is accepted. Higher authority will rule as to whether or not the variation is inside the boundaries of acceptable Orthopraxis. Lower authority (the laity) will decide whether or not to accept it at the practical level. If the people say "no way!" then the bishop may have a revolt on his hands. For example you have the "innovations" that were introduced by Patriarch Nikon and the revolt of the Old Believers (Old Ritualists). Which group was "right" and which group was "wrong"?


Could he, say, authorise the use of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom during Great Lent? Could he authorise the introduction of some novel form of service? If, as Metropolitan Kallistos says, 'inner Tradition' is binding, how could a bishop authorise such things?

Does the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom constitute the entire totality of "inner Tradition"? It may well be the "best" expression, but could a "lesser" expression also be appropriate?

For example, there are differences between Russian and Greek practice during Great Lent. The Russian typicon calls for two Presanctified Liturgies on Wednesdays and Fridays. The Greek typicon calls for a Presanctified Liturgy on Wednesday but an Akathist to the Theotokos on Fridays. In the US, there is a growing practice of celebrating an "Unction" service on Great and Holy Wednesday instead of a Presanctified Liturgy which is celebrated elsewhere. Some might call this a "novel" form of service.


What is the status of the Typicon and is it online?

I would love to see this as well. Is there an universal Orthodox Typicon and is it available anywhere? Perhaps kept in the Orthodox equivalent of the Vatican? If you find such a thing please do share!

[Anthony Stokes]

"What is the status of the Typicon and is it online? "

I would love to see this as well. Is there an universal Orthodox Typicon and is it available anywhere? Perhaps kept in the Orthodox equivalent of the Vatican? If you find such a thing please do share!

Alas, there is no English version of the Typicon that I know of, at least not of the Russian Typicon. The closest book I know of is the "Order of Divine Services" bu Fekula that SJKP publishes. It is a very good book if you don't have a copy of the Typicon in the original language.

Of course, as has been noted, there are different Typicons, mainly the Typicon of the Great Church (Constantinople) which guides much of the Greek practice (festal antiphons instead of Typical, etc.), there is the Sabbaitic Typicon from St. Savvas Monastery, and the Russian Typicon.

To answer Andreas, the Typicon and the other Service books very plainly spell out what services to do when and how to do them. Now, that doesn't mean that economia can't or isn't used to change certain things sometimes, but it is usually for leaving things out, not adding to or changing. But, a Bishop does control how the services are done in his diocese. Especially in English speaking areas, bishops often define what translation should be used in their own diocese, or how certain parts of the service should be done.

I do not think that a bishop though could do something, like you said, of authorizing the Lit. of St. John instead of St. Basil on the Sundays of Great Lent, as the Typicon and Triodion specifically tell us which is to be done.

Herman brings up the point though of local practice with the Holy Wednesday example. Unction is not prescribed for Holy Wednesday, there is supposed to be a Pres. Lit. and Matins, but at least in the U.S., the Greek churches, and many others nowadays, do unction instead. Growing up in a Greek church using the little Greek/English Holy Week book, I didn't even know that there was a Holy Thursday Matins, because they don't even put it in the books.

Hope that helps a little,
Subdeacon Anthony

[Yuri Zharikov]

They were not speaking only for Russia but for the whole Church. They were absolutely clear that no bishop has authority anywhere to sanction WR liturgies. Not any local synod either. Period.

Could you provide a bit more on this. I am curious about the reasons behind this statement: no bishop has authority anywhere to sanction WR liturgies.

[Andreas Moran]

So the MP is now the infallible Orthodox Pope? Has the MP broken off communion with the AP which has WR parishes? Has the MP sanctioned ROCOR for having WR parishes?

Perhaps you are making an erroneous extrapolation?

Just a thought....

Herman

The men I spoke with ought to know about these things (one being an archimandrite who has an interest in liturgical theology). They were quite clear that no bishop nor local synod could introduce a new form of liturgy. They said that the Divine liturgy exists in and for the universal Church. Where could such authority come from? Only the universal Church can introduce such an innovation. I asked if they meant by this that only an Ecumenical Council could do this. 'That's exactly what I mean', said one and the other nodded. No 'erroneous extrapolation': what they said was exactly that, and partly in English as well as Russian.


Each church does establish its own typicon. That typicon is governed by established practice and what is accepted.

Each church, not each bishop. The operative words are, 'governed by established practice and what is accepted' - i.e. in accord with Holy Tradition so as to be in harmony with the universal Church.


the variation -
"innovations"

These are very different as we agree. There are variations; but there cannot be entire innovations otherwise the 'mind' or conscience of the Church is not at one.


For example you have the "innovations" that were introduced by Patriarch Nikon and the revolt of the Old Believers (Old Ritualists). Which group was "right" and which group was "wrong"?

The answer is clear. The group is right which is the canonical Church in communion with the other canonical Churches to form the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The group which is wrong is the one which is not in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.


Does the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom constitute the entire totality of "inner Tradition"? It may well be the "best" expression, but could a "lesser" expression also be appropriate?

In almost all the Church, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom is used for all but those few occasions in the year when the liturgy of St Basil and the pre-sanctified are used. It is the core devotion of the Church; it is what the Church exists for. How could anything less do?


For example, there are differences between Russian and Greek practice during Great Lent. The Russian typicon calls for two Presanctified Liturgies on Wednesdays and Fridays. The Greek typicon calls for a Presanctified Liturgy on Wednesday but an Akathist to the Theotokos on Fridays.

Indeed. Such are the variations in practice we agree exist. The point is that they exist uniformly within each of those Churches. A certain scheduling of the accepted services for the season is one thing: an entire liturgical innovation is quite another.


In the US, there is a growing practice of celebrating an "Unction" service on Great and Holy Wednesday instead of a Presanctified Liturgy which is celebrated elsewhere. Some might call this a "novel" form of service.

The practice I know of in England is to have the Presanctified on Holy Wednesday morning and the service of Holy Unction on Holy Wednesday evening. There are variations but these are of scheduling not innovation. In Russia, the Unction service is usually not on a fixed day.


Is there an universal Orthodox Typicon

I don't know. It's just that people refer to 'The Typicon'.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The men I spoke with ought to know about these things (one being an archimandrite who has an interest in liturgical theology). They were quite clear that no bishop nor local synod could introduce a new form of liturgy. They said that the Divine liturgy exists in and for the universal Church. Where could such authority come from? Only the universal Church can introduce such an innovation. I asked if they meant by this that only an Ecumenical Council could do this. 'That's exactly what I mean', said one and the other nodded. No 'erroneous extrapolation': what they said was exactly that, and partly in English as well as Russian.

Hmm. That is nice and all, but do they have the authority to decide what is appropriate for ALL Orthodox Churches? Who is this infallible archimandrite with such absolute authority? Does it matter that the Moscow Patriarch seems (in practice) to disagree, since he evidently has not expressed any problem with the fact that ROCOR has parishes that do not celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?


Each church, not each bishop. The operative words are, 'governed by established practice and what is accepted' - i.e. in accord with Holy Tradition so as to be in harmony with the universal Church.

Yes EACH Church. The Church in Russia, the Church in Greece, the Church in Romania, the Church in Finland. Each church answers to each other but still are independent of each other. The Moscow Patriarch does not set the typicon of the Church in Finland.


These are very different as we agree. There are variations; but there cannot be entire innovations otherwise the 'mind' or conscience of the Church is not at one.

This is a very poorly supported and formulated conclusion. We are not talking about "innovations" but merely different ways of expressing the SAME THING. Just because something is expressed differently does not mean it is DIFFERENT. There are different ways of saying the SAME THING. We can be of one mind without necessarily using the exact same words.


The answer is clear. The group is right which is the canonical Church in communion with the other canonical Churches to form the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The group which is wrong is the one which is not in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Thank you, finally something I can agree with wholeheartedly but which unfortunately (for you) destroys most of your argument. Isn't ROCOR now in communion with the MP and both considered to be part of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church? Doesn't ROCOR have WR parishes? Therefore it must be right, according to your own reasoning. Glad to see we are now of one mind on the subject...


In almost all the Church, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom is used for all but those few occasions in the year when the liturgy of St Basil and the pre-sanctified are used. It is the core devotion of the Church; it is what the Church exists for. How could anything less do?

You keep saying this but beyond being a totally emotional appeal, I still do not see any reasonable evidence to support it.


Indeed. Such are the variations in practice we agree exist. The point is that they exist uniformly within each of those Churches. A certain scheduling of the accepted services for the season is one thing: an entire liturgical innovation is quite another.

Um, well, except for the fact that this is simply not true. Variations exist in the AP and ROCOR, as previously shown. You have yet to prove otherwise beyond stating your own personal preference.


The practice I know of in England is to have the Presanctified on Holy Wednesday morning and the service of Holy Unction on Holy Wednesday evening. There are variations but these are of scheduling not innovation. In Russia, the Unction service is usually not on a fixed day.

You celebrate the Presanctified Liturgy in the MORNING?! It is a Vesperal Liturgy which is clearly called to be celebrated IN THE EVENING by most typicons I am familiar with. Sounds like a dangerous innovation to me! {insert ironic grin here}.


I don't know. It's just that people refer to 'The Typicon'.

Except they are referring to different typicons when they say this. They are speaking about "The Typicon" that is appropriate to them which might not be "The Typicon" which is appropriate to you. When I say "the Law" I am referring to American jurisprudence, but when you say "the Law" you are referring to British jurisprudence, and while similar, they are not the same thing. Is that so hard to understand?

[Andreas Moran]

Hmm. That is nice and all, but do they have the authority to decide what is appropriate for ALL Orthodox Churches? Who is this infallible archimandrite with such absolute authority? QUOTE]

No archimandrite is infallible or possessing absolute authority as you know. I don't find this sort of hyperbole useful. He was expressing what he considered to be the true position and considers other positions to be erroneous. He is entitled to his view which others share; don't forget that Metropolitan Kallistos is on record as doubting WR liturgies. There can be factions in the Church, and they may be wrong. If the archimandrite is so sure of his position would you expect him not to express it?

[QUOTE]Does it matter that the Moscow Patriarch seems (in practice) to disagree, since he evidently has not expressed any problem with the fact that ROCOR has parishes that do not celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?[/

How does MP disagree? Things may be done in ROCOR parishes which would not be done in MP parishes. It doesn't follow that MP doesn't agree with him.


Yes EACH Church. The Church in Russia, the Church in Greece, the Church in Romania, the Church in Finland. Each church answers to each other but still are independent of each other. The Moscow Patriarch does not set the typicon of the Church in Finland.

As we know, the EP church in Finland is in grave error over keeping the western date for Easter. But EP is still in communion with the other Churches.


This is a very poorly supported and formulated conclusion. We are not talking about "innovations" but merely different ways of expressing the SAME THING. Just because something is expressed differently does not mean it is DIFFERENT. There are different ways of saying the SAME THING. We can be of one mind without necessarily using the exact same words.

Are you saying that WR liturgies are not an innovation and they and the Divine liturgy of St John Chrysostom are different ways of saying the same thing? That is not a tenable position. They are profoundly different. Even Met. Kalistos's thoughts make that much clear, but we've been through all this before.


Thank you, finally something I can agree with wholeheartedly but which unfortunately (for you) destroys most of your argument. Isn't ROCOR now in communion with the MP and both considered to be part of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church? Doesn't ROCOR have WR parishes? Therefore it must be right, according to your own reasoning. Glad to see we are now of one mind on the subject...

You often say, Herman, that one's statement destroy's one's argument - I don't follow your logic. On this point, what you say does not follow logically from what I said about MP and Old Belivers. What I've said about the Finnish church (RP) is an answer, namely, there can be error within a Church with which your Church is still in communion.


You keep saying this but beyond being a totally emotional appeal, I still do not see any reasonable evidence to support it.

I don't see how observing the fact that the universal Church uses the liturgy of St John Chrysostom on most occasions is 'totally emotional'. The evidence is the fact that this is so.


Um, well, except for the fact that this is simply not true. Variations exist in the AP and ROCOR, as previously shown. You have yet to prove otherwise beyond stating your own personal preference.

I don't get this - we have agreed the sort of variations which exist and which are not a problem for Church unity. Where have I stated my own preferences in this regard?


You celebrate the Presanctified Liturgy in the MORNING?!

No, I don't - I'm not a priest. But in the monastery here it is at 6am on Wednesdays in Lent.


Except they are referring to different typicons when they say this. They are speaking about "The Typicon" that is appropriate to them which might not be "The Typicon" which is appropriate to you.

Thank you for making that clear.


When I say "the Law" I am referring to American jurisprudence, but when you say "the Law" you are referring to British jurisprudence, and while similar, they are not the same thing.

I hadn't seen where you had mentioned 'the law' in the sense of American jurisprudence. I mentioned 'secular law' to make a point I believe is valid. US and English jurisprudence (there is no such thing as 'British' jurisprudence) are sufficiently similar for the allusion to stand.


they are not the same thing. Is that so hard to understand?

It is regrettable that you see fit to address me in this way in this open forum.

[Herman Blaydoe]

No archimandrite is infallible or possessing absolute authority as you know. I don't find this sort of hyperbole useful. He was expressing what he considered to be the true position and considers other positions to be erroneous.

Doesn't most everybody? How does this make his (their) opinion more valid than mine or others in this forum?


He is entitled to his view which others share;

While on face value this is a true statement, it is NOT an argument. Those who favor the WR are also entitled to their view which others share.


don't forget that Metropolitan Kallistos is on record as doubting WR liturgies.

Doubting. OK, fine. Hardly irrefutable proof of anything, now is it? Should we perhaps discuss WHY he has doubts? Mayhaps his doubts are groundless?


There can be factions in the Church, and they may be wrong. If the archimandrite is so sure of his position would you expect him not to express it?

Well, technically speaking, he is not expressing his position, YOU are. He is obviously not here to defend or support his alleged position, whoever he may be. What we have here is pure and simple hearsay which is not proof of anything.


How does MP disagree? Things may be done in ROCOR parishes which would not be done in MP parishes. It doesn't follow that MP doesn't agree with him.

Maybe, perhaps. But often silence is acquiescence. It is certainly an established principle of governance that a law unenforced can cease to be a law. If this is such a dangerous threat to the well being of the Holy Church, shouldn't he speak up?


As we know, the EP church in Finland is in grave error over keeping the western date for Easter. But EP is still in communion with the other Churches.

My point precisely, thank you once again for backing me up.


Are you saying that WR liturgies are not an innovation and they and the Divine liturgy of St John Chrysostom are different ways of saying the same thing?

Yes. They are no more "innovation" than the changes that Patriarch Nikon introduced.


That is not a tenable position. They are profoundly different. Even Met. Kalistos's thoughts make that much clear, but we've been through all this before.

Yes, we have and you still have not made a convincing case. How is it not a tenable position? Because allegedly some anonymous archimandrite in Moscow thinks so? Because Metropolitan Kallistos is not settled on the issue? To have doubts is not the same thing as to be against, now, is it? Sorry but these continue to be very weak arguments, no matter how vehemently you feel about them.


You often say, Herman, that one's statement destroy's one's argument - I don't follow your logic.

That is certainly obvious. I am content to leave it to our gentle readers as to who has presented the more cogent case here, however. I suspect at least a few may come to a different conclusion than you have so far.


On this point, what you say does not follow logically from what I said about MP and Old Belivers. What I've said about the Finnish church (RP) is an answer, namely, there can be error within a Church with which your Church is still in communion.

For you the "logic" might not follow, I can only explain so much. Yes, "some" disagreement can exist and not destroy communion, but sorry, the mere fact that disagreement exists is not prima facie evidence that "error" exists.


I don't see how observing the fact that the universal Church uses the liturgy of St John Chrysostom on most occasions is 'totally emotional'. The evidence is the fact that this is so.

Except that it doesn't, unless thee and mee have totally different definitions for universal Church, but somehow I wouldn't find that surprising.


I don't get this - we have agreed the sort of variations which exist and which are not a problem for Church unity. Where have I stated my own preferences in this regard?

To be honest, everywhere, except you have evidently confused your own preferences with "facts", many people have this problem, so don't be too concerned.


No, I don't - I'm not a priest. But in the monastery here it is at 6am on Wednesdays in Lent.

So morning is evening? Yes I am being facetious, I understand the idea of "anticipation" but I also appreciate the implication which you have missed. The typicon calls for Matins in the morning and Vespers in the evening, however, some typicons reverse this order. You might be surprized (consternated?) to know that this is a relatively RECENT practice (read CHANGE!?).


Thank you for making that clear.

You are welcome. I try.


I hadn't seen where you had mentioned 'the law' in the sense of American jurisprudence. I mentioned 'secular law' to make a point I believe is valid. US and English jurisprudence (there is no such thing as 'British' jurisprudence) are sufficiently similar for the allusion to stand.

All "law" is similar in principle I think, but not all law is the same, that is my point. You still haven't proven that the WR teaches a "differrent" Gospel or promotes heresy, other than express an opinion, no doubt vehement and sincere, but I contend may possibly be vehemently and sincerely wrong. Or you may be right, you simply haven't been very convincing.

[Andreas Moran]

I shall make just one point:


Quotation:
I don't see how observing the fact that the universal Church uses the liturgy of St John Chrysostom on most occasions is 'totally emotional'. The evidence is the fact that this is so.

Except that it doesn't, unless thee and mee have totally different definitions for universal Church, but somehow I wouldn't find that surprising.

You are saying that the liturgy of St John Chrysostom is not the usual liturgy of the Orthodox Church? Don't reply - readers will draw their own conclusions.

[Olga]

In the US, there is a growing practice of celebrating an "Unction" service on Great and Holy Wednesday instead of a Presanctified Liturgy which is celebrated elsewhere. Some might call this a "novel" form of service.


The Greek church (in Greece, and elsewhere, including Australia) has long allowed an Unction service in place of the Bridegroom Matins on Holy Wednesday evening. It is actually a quite fitting service for this occasion.


Is there an universal Orthodox Typicon and is it available anywhere?

There is no one "universal" Typicon. There are several Great Typica, including the Jerusalem and St Sabbas, and local typica essentially derived from one or other Great Typicon. The differences are not great, and certainly not of the sort which interfere with the doctrines of the Church or their transmission, nor with sacramental validity. Excerpts in increasing quantity are becoming available in English in online form.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Olga,

Here in the U.S.A. the Greek Orthodox Church also has the Unction service in place of the Bridegroom Matins on Holy Wednesday evening. This year thanks be to God I was able to attend those services. I must say the Greek chanting was heavenly, mystical and utterly moving. It was obvious that the chanters really knew what they had been doing as they poured their souls into the service, I think they must have been "trained" on Athos. The drone was simply moving within the prayers, just beautiful, everything sounded right or Orthodox, the text of the prayers fit right is the only why I can say it. The learned tell me it is even more so in ancient liturgical Greek as the language is poetic so to speak. Additionally, the Priest had a booklet printed with the text in Greek and on the opposite page the english translation which was very helpful. It is a profound service and my brother suddenly became very fond of the chanting and the tradition.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

As a meagre contribution to this ongoing discussion, I thought I might offer just a few thoughts on a question Andreas expressed earlier in the thread, namely on the question of 'authorised' services (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=63890&postcount=1) in the Church. In my brief response (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=63933&postcount=10), I noted that -- to my knowledge -- there is no canonical listing of strictly prescribed services; and I wish to expand a bit further on the idea.

One of the reasons that the Orthodox Church is rather disinclined to issue proscriptive listings of services, prayers, practices, etc., is because it has a rather different conception of development in the liturgical sphere than do other traditions. As Fr Meyendorff once wrote, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is one of the most developmental of all liturgies known from history, inasmuch as it has undergone radical changes throughout the course of its history. Many of these changes, if they were undertaken en bloc today, would undoubtedly raise the hackles of many, if not most, as utterly innovative and against the tradition expression of the Church's worship. But change the Liturgy has. The Liturgy ascribed to St Gregory, a.k.a. the Presanctified Liturgy, is late on the scene altogether, in some sense introduced into common practice as the typika for Lenten practice became firmly codified.

The Church tends not to travel down the road of 'authorising' services, as if a stamp of approval or imprimatur gave validity to liturgical expression. Rather, this validity is the confirmation of organic growth in liturgical practice -- which explains both why there is great variety in certain elements of liturgical practice in Orthodoxy, yet substantial uniformity as well. An attempt to say, 'Here is the definitive list', would be to deny something quite essential in the fact of liturgical 'validity' (an ugly word) residing in living experience and encounter, rather than legalistic prescription.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

The Orthodox liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil are where God 'manifests His glory by the offering and self-emptying of His Son, and the faithful confess the trinitarian truth by their love for one another'; outside the liturgy, 'it is impossible to understand Orthodox faith and theology'. (Archim. Vasileios.) It is the liturgy which expresses the truth which has been revealed since Pentecost. When necessary, the truth was expressed by the Church in dogma which is in turn expressed in the service books. The liturgy manifests the truth and our faith and so unites Orthodox Christians: we come together 'in one faith' (St Ignatius).

The liturgy evolved over many centuries. To use a simile from Bishop Augustinos (Kantiotes), it has been built like a great work of architecture, a masterpiece of the Holy Spirit. It was built slowly over the centuries by Fathers who built and embellished it with prayers. This process of development ensured that it grew in spirit and not mechanically from 'en bloc' assembly. Christ is the cornerstone of this edifice. The faith expressed in the liturgy remained the same; the expression of that faith evolved.

Wybrew writes that this period of growth reached its full term by the fourteenth century, mainly through the work of Patriarch Philiotheos in his 'Diataxeis'. The number of variations reduced and uniformity spread to the Greek and Slav Churches. Thus, 'the Liturgy in the mid-fourteenth century had, in all save a few details, acquired the form in which it is celebrated today'. The liturgy as described by Nicholas Cabasilas and Symeon of Thessaloniki is that we have today. The form of the liturgy has existed for well over six hundred years. That the liturgy did achieve its form in the early to mid fourteenth century is surely no accident. With the fall of Constinople, the faith of the Orthodox was preserved in and by the liturgy. Similarly, during the nightmare of communism, it was the liturgy which kept the flame of faith alight when no other activity was possible.

In our times, perhaps the last times, we also need the liturgy in the form in which the Orthodox faith has been expressed for so many centuries, not from nostlagia or inflexibility, but from the urgent need to keep the faith in unity. Such variations as exist do not detract from the liturgy as the vehicle and expression of our faith. So central are these liturgies to the Church - which exists to celebrate them - that for these no 'listing' is necessary. We have also the Pre-Sanctified and the St James liturgy. We can see what has ensued in those churches which have 'modernised' their liturgies. We indulge in liturgical innovation at our peril. The Church by the Holy Spirit has given us the 'priceless gift' of the liturgy; Holy Tradition has given us what we have and what we have had for over six hundred years. We need its unifying power to defend ourselves now in our times.

[Father David Moser]

This is a little off topic for this thread, I know, and if necessary we can create another thread to follow this rabbit trail...

The statements below have been gnawing at me for a while:


In Moscow, I was told that no bishop or local synod has the authority to authorise WR liturgies.


They were not speaking only for Russia but for the whole Church. They were absolutely clear that no bishop has authority anywhere to sanction WR liturgies. Not any local synod either. Period.


The men I spoke with ought to know about these things (one being an archimandrite who has an interest in liturgical theology). They were quite clear that no bishop nor local synod could introduce a new form of liturgy.

This goes against what I have always been taught about the authority of the local ruling bishop. In his own diocese the bishop is the final authority, he has the competency to authorize whatever practices he deems necessary for the spiritual welfare of his flock. To say that he does not have the authority to do so somehow diminishes who he is as the archpastor of his flock and ruler of his diocese.

I agree that no one bishop has authority to authorize a practice for use outside of his own diocese or for universal use. The local synod (for a self governing - autonomous or autocephalus - church) has that authority for its own flock, but again it is not universal authority. The only group that could universally sanction any practice would indeed be an ecumenical council. However, to say that no bishop has the authority to approve the use of a new service (whether that be a sacramental service or otherwise) within his own diocese is, I think, foreign to the traditional practice of Orthodoxy.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

This is a little off topic for this thread,

But it would be on topic for the thread on the Episcopate of the Orthodox Church. This is a very interesting point, I think. If a bishop is the guardian of 'the deposit', may the notion that he can introduce novelties conflict with that? It is an area, though, which requires the greatest care in terms of supporting authority. I thought discussion of the extent of the authority of a bishop was important.