| The liturgical tradition received by the Russian Church after the Baptism of Rus’ in 988 was of Byzantine origin. But it was not purely Constantinopolitan; rather, it relied on a corpus of liturgical and patristic translations into the Slavonic language made by St Clement of Ohrid († 916) and his co-workers, who were active in the first half of the tenth century in the Western Bulgarian lands, in a region of modern Macedonia and Albania 7 . There can be no doubt that the Byzantine formularies of the eucharistic liturgy held a prominent place in this corpus – just as the ordinarium and propria of the Latin Mass did in the late ninth-century corpus of translations made by Sts Cyril and Methodius 8 . In the oldest extant Slavonic manuscripts we find partly-preserved Slavonic translations of the two Constantinopolitan eucharistic formularies, of St Basil and of St John Chrysostom 9 , along with translations of different pieces from the Latin Sacramentary, and from the Jerusalemite formulary of the Divine Liturgy ascribed to St James 10 . The Slavs’ proper understanding of the eucharistic service was safeguarded by several didactic texts translated by the creators of Slavonic literacy. These included the set of Mystagogical Homilies of St Cyril (or John) of Jerusalem, the Historia Mystagogica (in the oldest manuscripts it bears the name of St Basil the Great, in the later ones the name of St Germanos I of Constantinople 11 ), and eucharistic miracle-stories from the Apophthegmata Patrum 12 . To these St Clement of Ohrid added a few homilies by himself, which witness to the perception of the Eucharist as seen through the eyes of a tenth-century Orthodox hierarch and ecclesiastical author 13 . The eucharistic formularies of St Basil and of St John Chrysostom translated by Clement and his associates contained regular prayers from the Euchologion of Constantinople, supplemented by certain additional ones 14 . Some of them are also found in the Greek Euchologia from Southern Italy, some others appear to have no Greek prototype. Thus, the oldest stratum of liturgical tradition of those Slavs who were adhering to the Eastern rite appears to be Western-Byzantine – like that of the South-Italian Greeks – and not purely Constantinopolitan. When Rus’ was baptized in the late tenth century, this stratum spread to Rus’ and formed the initial layer of its own tradition 15 . |
| Historical developments in the early Church considered to be formative to the sacrament of confession are many. Both the question of the Lapsi (Latin: “the fallen”) in the mid-3rd c. and the Donatist Schism (q.v.) in North Africa in the early 4th c. were important events that focused on the appropriate confession of faith for those who had denied Christ under persecution. Many local councils, often comprised of Christians who had been crippled or lost friends and family during imperial persecutions, legislated on the equity of accepting back into the Church members who had fallen away during persecution. The legislation of local councils continued on into the seven Ecumenical Councils (q.v.), and became associated with the Eucharist (q.v.) when the penitential ranks were institutionalized and assigned a place approaching, but not participating in, the Holy Mysteries (sacraments). During this same period asceticism and monasticism (q.v.) flourished publicly, and with it came selfless obedience and spiritual direction. As early as Antony (q.v.) and the ascetics of the desert, we witness a profound sensitivity toward obeying a spiritual guide who is capable of identifying the signposts of the way (q.v.) of the Lord, the spiritual journey of the wayfarer, the pilgrim. Over the centuries the parish tradition of liturgical confession in preparation for the Eucharist and the monastic tradition of spiritual direction were combined. In Greek such a confessor/director is called a geron and in Russian, a starets. Although the two functions of liturgical confessor and spiritual director are entirely separable, a combination of the two is considered a great gift. A well-known Russian spiritual father of the 19th c. was Fr. Joh n of Kronstadt, and of the 20th c. Fr. Alexander Elchaninov (qq.v.). The liturgical service of sacramental confession in the Orthodox Church, though popularly associated with the confession of sins, still has as its focus the confession of faith-namely the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (q.v.). It is notably devoid of the classical ego ab-solvo (“I absolve thee”) found in corresponding Western liturgy (q.v.) (except in a version of the Russian service); and is taken in form to be a public, rather than private, service. When administered privately, which is usually the case, the service is performed en face with the priest and penitent both standing before the Gospel and Cross, the priest standing as a witness for the whole Church. |
| The symposium will feature new music which is being written for the event by the noted American Orthodox composer, the Archpriest Sergei Glagolev. “I’m excited about this opportunity, and very happy to work on a setting of the post-communion troparia,” said Father Sergei. “The text for these two troparia “We have seen the true light…” and “Let our mouths be filled…” serve as the ultimate thanksgiving of the liturgy and of the Eucharist which we receive.” The ISOCM is also pleased to announce that the vocal ensemble Cappella Romana will present a special concert of Orthodox liturgical hymns in Minneapolis as part of the symposium. The concert, under the direction of Father Ivan Moody, will feature the extraordinary Opelo (Requiem) by Stevan Hristi, Peter Mirolybov’s Exapostilarion for the Dormition, and works by Fr Ivan Moody himself, Kurt Sander, Fr Sergei Glagolev and Tikey Zes. The program will showcase the breadth of creativity found in Orthodox liturgical music from the Byzantine and Slavic traditions to more modern settings from Finland and America. The selections which Cappella Romana will perform reflect the sense of creativity and diversity reflect the mission of the ISOCM and the success of its conferences and gatherings. “Past ISOCM events have proved that bringing together church musicians from different traditions and different countries is a uniquely effective way of effecting a pan-Orthodox witness both to the universality of the faith and the diversity of its traditions,” said Father Ivan, who noted the symposium being planned for June 2016 in Minneapolis should provide church musicians in the English-speaking world with an opportunity to share in that witness and diversity, and even help grow the church on a number of continents. In addition to Dr. Sander and Father Ivan, the symposium will feature presentations by other international and US-based specialists in the field of Orthodox liturgical music. Information about all of the presentations, workshops, practica, and rehearsals, along with the full schedule, presenter biographies, registration fees, and hotel reservations are available at www.orthodoxmusicsymposium.org |
| While relatively fixed in form, the eucharistic liturgy will differ somewhat according to the liturgical year, chiefly in the hymns sung during the liturgy of the catechumens, and in the liturgy of the faithful depending upon whether Chrysostom’s or Basil’s liturgy is prescribed (see Liturgies). Additional differences may derive from the choice of a system of liturgical colors adopted under the influence of the Latin rite, which is particularly the case in Russia (e.g., purple for Lent, red for the Cross and martyrs, etc.), or the presence or absence of a deacon and/or bishop. In the case of the former’s presence, the priest’s part is limited to the exclamations (ekphonesies) concluding each litany and the prayers of consecration, etc. An episcopal celebrant will considerably modify the form of the service in the direction of greater length and formality. The bishop is, however, always theoretically or symbolically present in that no Eucharist is celebrated without an antimension, the cloth that bears his signature and upon which the bread and wine are placed at the Offertory. The recent influence of liturgical movements in 19th-c. Russia with Joh n of Kronstadt (q.v.) and in 20th-c. attempts to “rediscover” the character of the sacraments as celebrated in the early Church (begun in Roman Catholic [q.v.] circles), together with the influence of the Kollyvades’ (q.v.) monastic and ascetic renewal, have led several areas of the Orthodox oikoumene (q.v.)-e.g., Russia, Greece, and America-to some further modifications: more frequent communion by the laity, the reading aloud of the “secret prayers” of the anaphora and elsewhere, a reduction of the iconostasis (q.v.), a return to the traditional canon of iconography, etc. Referring now to the offices, the current liturgical practice of the Orthodox Church seems to have taken its more or less present form by the last two centuries of the Byzantine era (q.v.). While it appears that the morning and evening services of the Church (as well as the Eucharist, or at least the synaxis) drew upon the Temple and synagogue liturgies of the first centuries, the public celebration of these offices and of supplementary daily services such as the Hours (Prime, Terce, etc.) is not clearly attested until the 4th c. By that time, however, and particularly in the Church of Jerusalem (see Cyril of Jerusalem), one finds the daily cycle and much of the paschal cyle well established. Further developments over the next four centuries resulted in the Octoechos (q.v.) and the elaborate commemoration of the saints systematized in the Menaia and Synaxarion. |
| 156 Этот тип обычно именуется Богородица Агиосоритисса, поскольку Агиос Сорос (Святой Ракой) назывался реликварий, где хранился пояс Богоматери в храме Богородицы Халкопратийской и, по ассоциации, сам придел, в котором находился реликварий. См.: Andolor о М. Note sui temi iconografici della Deesis et della Hagiosoritissa//RIAS A. n.s. 17 (1970), p.85–153, особ. 85–92, 118–143; Der Nerrsesian S. Two Images of the Virgin in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection//ДОР. 14 (1960), p.77–81; Mango C., Hawkins E.J.W. The Hermitage of Saint Neophytos and Its Wall Painting//DOP. 20 (1966), p.l60–162, 201–204; Walter C. Further Notes on the Deesis. I. The Eleousa Icon at Saint Neophytos, Cyprus//REB. 28 (1970), p.l62–168. 157 Der Nersessian S. Two Images, p.81–86. Лики Богоматери в Лагудера и Асину (1332–1333) именуются «Елеуса»; обозначение paraklesis явно не применялось к этому изображению до XIV в., например, 158 в храме св.Николая Орфаноса в Фессалониках (Xyngopoulos. с.15, fig.76, 80, 183; Walter C. Two Notes on the Deesis//REB. 26 (1968), p.311–336, особ.322. Der Nersessian S. Two Images, p.81–86. Лики Богоматери в Лагудера и Асину (1332–1333) именуются «Елеуса»; обозначение paraklesis явно не применялось к этому изображению до XIV в., например, в храме св.Николая Орфаноса в Фессалониках (Xyngopoulos. с.15, fig.76, 80, 183; Walter C. Two Notes on the Deesis//REB. 26 (1968), p.311–336, особ.322. 159 Фреска в южном приделе нартекса (Der Nersessian S. Two Images, fig. 12). Это событие изображено также в Студенице; см.: Winfield D. Four Historical Compositions from the Medieval Kingdom of Serbia//BSL. 19 (1958), особ.251–278; Djuric V. Istorijske Kompozicije//ЗРВИ. 8.2 (1964), c.69–90. 160 Cp. типикон монастыря Эвергетиды (Дмитриевский A. Описание, I, c.554; Joneras S. Le Vendredi-saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine//Studia Anselmiana. 99. Analecta Liturgica, 13. Rome, 1988, p.427–428; Pallas D. Die Passion, S.31. 161 B инвентарной описи монастыря Елеусы (1449), основанного в XI в., указана Богородичная икона пресбейи, стоявшая рядом с почитаемой (проскинесис) иконой Богоматери Елеусы (Petit L. Le monastere de Notre-Dame de Pitie (см. прим.7), 119.9). Можно предположить, что икона пресбейи была выносная, а проскинесис – закрепленная на иконостасе. |
| At about the same time that the parish in New Orleans was established, a number of Orthodox Christians in San Francisco gathered to organize the Greek Russian-Slavonic Church and Philanthropic Society. In 1867, the state of California granted a charter to the society, which intended to establish an Orthodox church. Among the members of the society were Martin Klinkovsterem, who was the Russian consul, and George Fisher, who was the Greek consul in San Francisco. On 13 June 1868, the society requested the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia to assign a priest. In September of the same year, Father Nicholas Kovrygin was transferred from Sitka to San Francisco, and regular liturgical services began to be held. From 1868 to 1872, the building in which the liturgical services were held was known as the Prayer House of the Orthodox Oriental Church. The liturgical services were conducted in both Slavonic and Greek because the congregation was composed of persons from various backgrounds. In 1872, a new building was purchased, and it became the cathedral and diocesan center of the Russian Orthodox bishop. 66 More than 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from San Francisco, another parish was established in New York City in 1870. Unlike the other two parishes, this one was not organized by merchants or diplomats. Rather, the parish in New York was founded by Father Nicholas Bjerring with the authorization of the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia. A former Roman Catholic professor of theology, Father Bjerring was an American of Danish background. Following the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, he left the Roman Church. Father Bjerring then traveled to St. Petersburg, where he joined the Orthodox Church and was subsequently ordained a priest on 9 May 1870. 67 Upon the direction of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Father Bjerring returned to the United States and established a parish in New York City in the same year. Although a permanent church building was never constructed, Father Bjerring celebrated the liturgical services in his home. The sign over the door read, «Greek-Russian Church.» The congregation was composed chiefly of members of the Greek and Russian consulates, as well as about one hundred other Orthodox Christians who lived in New York. Records indicate that Father Bjerring also received into the Orthodox Church a number of persons who were raised in other religious traditions. After slightly more than twelve years of existence, however, the Russian government withdrew all financial support, and Father Bjerring had to close the chapel in 1883. While the actual reasons for this decision are not known, it may be assumed that the Russian government at that time did not appreciate the missionary value of the chapel and the activity of Father Bjerring. 68 |
| At the same time, from hagiographic sources one cannot expect the precision of official dogmatic formulae. But a belief in the consecratory significance of the moment of elevation can also be found at the highest levels. Response 9 of Constantinopolitan patriarch Nicholas III Kyrdanites Grammaticus (1084–1111) states: It is fitting to elevate only one prosphora, as everyone does, when the «One [is] holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ», is proclaimed. The rest [of the gifts] set out [on the altar] are blessed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, which we believe happens at this time 104 . Commenting on this text, Taft calls the belief in the consecration through elevation «seemingly unorthodox» 105 . This is true – but only from the post-Byzantine perspective. For it would be a mere projection of our own post-Byzantine mindset to evaluate the genuine Byzantine sources on the grounds of later confessional definitions. Since the seventh and eighth centuries this belief was embraced by the Byzantines, and it is witnessed not only in the hagiography and the rubrical casuistry concerning the actual performance of the Eucharistic elevation 106 (the quoted passage from Response 9 of Nicholas III Kyrdanites Grammaticus belongs to this category of texts), but in the Byzantine liturgical commentaries as well. When Taft wrote that «the classical Byzantine commentators are blissfully unaware of the problems in Eucharistic pneumatology raised by Nicholas III’s views» 107 , he was not entirely accurate – unless the criterion of a differentiation between the «classical» and the «nonclassical» Byzantine commentaries would be the presence of them in the well-known study by René Bornert 108 . For Bornert has ignored a whole family of the Byzantine and then Slavonic liturgical commentaries, which could be characterized by two distinct features: they follow a popular form of a dialogue, and their overall plot is built around a vision of angels taking a direct part in the liturgical celebration. The latter motif betrays a quite traditional nature of these commentaries, because the idea of the angelic concelebration is so ancient that it is firmly established in the official liturgical prayers themselves – cf. the Byzantine prayer of the Little Entrance or the Roman prayer «Supplices te rogamus». But in the Byzantine and Slavonic commentaries I am talking about how this motif is developed into a whole story. |
| In the Church some of these new insignia were “spiritualized” and given a Biblical meaning. Thus, the mitres became signs of Christian victory, for the saints receive their crowns and reign with Christ (Rev 4.4). The eagle became the sign of the flight to the heavenly Jerusalem since it is the classical Biblical symbol of Saint John and the fourth gospel (Rev 4.7; Ezek 1.10 ). The staff became the symbol of Aaron’s rod ( Ex 4.2 ), and so on. It should be understood, however, that these particular insignia of the bishop’s office are of later and more accidental development in the Church. In relation to the bishop’s service in the Orthodox Church, the use of two special candelabra with which the bishop blesses the faithful also developed. One of these candelabra holds three candles (trikiri – on right) while the other holds two candles (dikiri – on left). These candelabra stand for the two fundamental mysteries of the Orthodox faith: that the Godhead is three Divine Persons; and that Jesus Christ, the Saviour, has two natures, being both perfect God and perfect man. Bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church also wear other special garments. There are, first of all, two pieces of cloth: one square (nabedrennik) and one diamond-shaped (epigonation or palitsa). The former is worn only by priests as a sign of distinction, while the latter is always worn by bishops and is given to some priests as a special distinction of service. Probably these cloths were originally “liturgical towels.” Their symbolical meaning is that of spiritual strength: the sword of faith and the Word of God. They hang at the sides of their wearers during divine services. There are also clerical hats which carry special meaning in some Orthodox Churches-the pointed hat (skufya) and the cylindrical one (kamilavka). The kamilavka is normally worn by all Greek priests, but only by some clergy in other national Orthodox churches as a special distinction. The kamilavka may be black or purple; monks, and by extansion all bishops, wear it with a black veil. The skufya is worn by monks and, in the Russian tradition, by some of the married clergy as a special distinction, in which case the hat is usually purple. Also in the Russian tradition certain married clergy are given the honor of wearing a mitre during liturgical services. In other Orthodox churches the mitre is reserved only for bishops and abbots of monasteries (archimandrites). Generally speaking, especially in the West, the use of clerical headwear is declining in the Orthodox Church. |
| On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox dogmatician Christos Androutsos represents a different position. He makes the following statement in his Symbolics: acceptance of the Tradition as source of the same value with the Holy Scriptures is historically and logically correct and necessary». 77 The explanation for the difference can be found in the two directions that divide Orthodox dogmatics in the twentieth century. Androutsos represents the older direction, which is a form of Orthodox scholasticism of Roman-Catholic origin, having its roots in the theology of the counterReformation. This explains its lower view of Scripture and the respective higher view of tradition, as a reaction on the Reformed insistence on the principle sola scriptura. The other direction, more apophatic, represented by Sergius Bulgakov and other Russian theologians, in Russia and in the Diaspora, as well as a number of other writers such as Dumitru Staniloae, John Zizioulas and Kallistos Ware, stands under the influence of Pseudo-Dyonysius, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas. Even if this group of theologians is more inclined than the others to affirm the supremacy of Scripture over tradition, at the same time, because of their sacramentalism, they tend to give an exaggerated importance to the liturgic use of Scripture, which is considered by far the most important one. 78 The result is a neglect of the private use of Scripture in the life of the Orthodox believer. Fr. Ion Bria formulates in his bookDestinul ortodoxiei [The Destiny of Orthodoxy] a number of principles governing the dynamics of Scripture and tradition. 79 They are an excellent summary of the Orthodox position on this issue: a. reveals His presence, His grace and His works through His Incarnated Word and through His Spirit, in and through His People, the Church.« b. Word and the Spirit of God cannot be separated; therefore the Holy Scripture and Tradition are inseparable in the life of the Church.» c. testimony of the Holy Scripture and that of Tradition form a unified whole; therefore they are complementary and concomitant for doctrine and praxis in the Church.« |
| From the beginning of Bishop Nicholas» episcopal oversight, Toth also had to struggle against Russian Orthodox prejudices, all the while furthering the faith of the Russian Orthodox Church. In many ways, the source of this tension was Russian prejudice against Carpatho-Rusyn liturgical practices and culture. In parishes that converted, the Carpatho-Rusyn plainchant was replaced by the Russian liturgical, musical tradition. Even Toth had made passing remarks how he knew the parishioners in Bridgeport «would like their children to go to a Russian school and learn to sing, read, and write as their delegates heard and saw it during the conference at Wilkes-Barre.» 143 Toth himself personally suffered from the Russification efforts of the Russian Mission. In Minneapolis, an assistant was assigned to Toth in order that the parish would have the services of a priest when he needed to be absent to pursue evangelistic ventures among Eastern Catholic Carpatho-Rusyns. 144 For this purpose, Bishop Nicholas assigned Fr. Sebastian Dabovich. According to Toth, Dabovich immediately began instituting changes in order to adhere more strictly to Russian practice, changes Toth noted ought to have occurred slowly over time. Toth claimed Dabovich then proceeded to instigate ill-feelings toward Toth, only to pull back from the fray later and feign innocence. 145 In addition, the Russian Mission " s periodical, the Russian Orthodox American Messenger, included essays that contained negative assessments of Toth’s Eastern Catholic background and of Eastern Catholics more generally, written by two prominent clergymen, Alexander Hotovitsky and Benedict Turkevich. 146 Hotovitsky criticized liturgical differences between the Carpatho-Rusyns and the Russians, argued against longer sermons (which at least one converted priest, Fr. Hrihoryi Hrushka, suggested fit the American context better), and even went so far as to claim that a newspaper recently started by Toth (Svit) had no right to exist. Turkevich, for his part, had a different view than Toth regarding the Carpatho-Rusyns place in America. |
|
|
