Liturgical, ahistorical fad

[In response to a letter circulated by an Orthodox bishop in the US.] It's too bad that people without a historical base try to use history without respect to the received tradition in order to support liturgical practices they personally would like to see applied, downgrading and ragging on flocks not under their pastorate.

First, I find the entire tone of the letter offensive. There is talk of 'the standard tradition which we have received from time immemorial' in reference to how 'our priests' celebrate the divine Liturgy in various parishes. It would be nice to know what 'standard tradition' the said respected writer has in mind; references don't hurt, in fact, a real reference to some monument of the Church's liturgical diataxis would go a long way in helping someone judge whether or not we're not really just dealing with _one_ writer's personal preferences in liturgical practice, but then that would be logical.

One point, no. 7, actually deals with practice and it is good to see that a distinction is made between concelebrated liturgies and liturgies served by a single priest. However, again, some actual reason or at least reference to sources would go a long way in dispelling the air of simple liturgical 'dictation'. _Why_ does a priest celebrating along not chant the entrance hymns, the phos hilaron, the apolytikia, kontakion, hagios ho theos, etc.? Is this where we are? Just tell us what we should do and 'we follow orders, sir!'? I think not.

Point 10 deals with the dialogue preceding the recitation of the Epistle reading in the divine Liturgy. Again, simple dictation is being applied here. If there is some 'standard tradition' regarding this dialogue it surely was not alluded by the writer. Do this; do this; do this and then do this. That's all it is. Not only that, but two prekeimenon verses are alluded to! What could they be? Any epistle I've ever opened have a prokeimenon with one verse before the epistle reading. Who knows? Maybe they've published another epistle book in that jurisdiction? If we're really talking about the received liturgical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church there is an established form of dialogue for the epistle reading from 'time immemorial'. Unfortunately, it's definitely not described in this document.

The real clincher, however, is point 19. Unfortunately, not only is the received liturgical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church ignored in this point, but even the canons of the church are set aside in favor of a 'policy of the Archdiocese [of the Greek Orthodox Church of America] from 1950! Not quite 'time immemorial', as suggested at the introduction. Most interesting is the use of the example of the kneeling service on Pentecost Sunday. The writer does not mention that the kneeling takes place _after_ the full dismissal of the divine Liturgy celebrating the great feast of holy Pentecost and even then only _after_ the entrance in the vespers of the next day, the Monday of the Holy Spirit, or first day after the feast of Pentecost.

Also not mentioned are the ancient canons of the church (which, by the way, have not been rescinded). Not only are we not talking about some local council canon, but we speak specifically of canon 20 of the first oecumenical council which states: '…it has seemed best to the holy Council for prayers to be offered to God while standing'. Hmm. My less than perfect reading of canon 90 of the sixth oecumenical council seems to find this issue clearly reinforced: 'We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays when honoring the Resurrection of Christ, since this observation may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, so that after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the evening of the Saturday in question, let none of them bend a knee until the evening of the following Sunday, when, after the entrance during the Lychnikon, again bending knees, we thus begin offering our prayers to the Lord…'. Sounds pretty clear to me. Here we even have mention of the specific point in the service after which we can again kneel: after the entrance in the vespers. Hmm. Interesting how our liturgical texts have preserved this very point in the vespers for the Holy Spirit. Imagine that?! The writer's comments betray a faulty reading of the most basic kind. I won't get into the fact that this very issue was the excuse used to 'rid' Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology of the famous 20th c Orthodox theologian, Fr G Florovsky; need I say more?

Maybe these canons aren't old enough, though? St Peter the Martyr of Alexandria who lived in the 3rd century also makes mention of the venerable ancient practice and true liturgical taxis 'from time immemorial' in his 15th canon saying, 'as for Sunday, on the other hand, we celebrate it as a joyous holiday because of His having risen from the dead, on which day we have not even received instruction to bend a knee'. A-hah: there's our 'time immemorial'.

So, according to this writer, if we choose to heed to the holy and god-bearing fathers of the oecumencal councils *and* ancient tradition as witnessed to from time even before the first oecumenical council we should be as those who see themselves as 'more orthodox than you are, people who see externals, outer trappings, as more essential than the fervent heart'. As if this is not enough, he also goes on to refer to what he calls 'a sad reality that the Orthodox people in Greece', who do not kneel at the epiklesis. He claims that they do not kneel because they 'do not find that special moment any different than the rest of the divine Liturgy'. Tell me. Where in any manuscript or printed edition of the eucholgion is the diataxis to kneel at the the time of the epiklesis offered?

Well, it doesn't stop there. Injury is followed by insult. The writer then goes on to condemn 'most Orthodox in Greece' for not receiving holy Communion, 'even monthly, and if they do, it is often after the divine Liturgy at the Deacon's doors, as sort of an afterthought'. Then he goes on to mock a priest serving the divine Liturgy in Greece who was 'simultaneously carrying on a conversation with another priest in the altar, while chanting the divine Liturgy'. This what why, 'of course, he did not kneel at the Epiklesis; it would have interrupted his conversation with the other priest'. How the one follows from the other I shall probably never know. I can, however, attest for the laxity of American piety with regards the preparation for the reception of the holy Mystery of Communion. Yes, dear writer, they do not feel comfortable in Greece approaching the holy Cup after spending the night out at a restaurant or movie theatre. Yes, most Orthodox in Greece will also not approach if they have not received a rule of communion from their spiritual father, either. I also do know how many times I was reprimanded while serving in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America when I even mentioned the word confession. How often did I hear the retort, from clergy and lay alike, 'this isn't Greece! We don't do that here!' Or, another 'faithful' of the American church who told me, 'Father, we have a family tradition. We have breakfast together on Sunday mornings and then attend Church as a family'. What would our writer say if he knew the faithful here in Greece don't even eat antidoron if they've put anything in their mouth before coming to church?!

I remember attending a diocesan clergy meeting with an American bishop that has since fallen asleep in the Lord. He chose a church somewhat central to most clergy and scheduled a celebration of the divine Liturgy with his clergy and then meetings throughout the day. I was there early enough to get to the church before the bishop. When I did, the 'highly respected' proistamenos of the cathedral church was in pants and a shirt having a smoke just outside the altar. Inside was the holy proskomide he had prepared for the arrival of the bishop--paten and chalice with the gifts already cut, placed and poured. Of course, he had not taken kairo before starting the service of proskomide, neither was he vested, but I guess I shouldn't go by externals.

Somehow, I'm not convinced.