Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy: Part 8

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I have enumerate many of their desired reforms, and then explained why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.  This article is a bit different, in that it addresses two points which are in fact valid problems, although one cannot trust modernists such as the monks at New Skete to be able to provide meaningful solutions

Suggestion no. 8: Addressing The Preaching Deficit

"The word of God is also made present through the sermon, which is an integral part of liturgical worship. But all too often the sermon is of poor quality or simply omitted. Our churches should devote special attention to this critical need."

What should be done about this:

The splendid, mystical, ethereal atmosphere of profound holiness that dominates the Divine Liturgy is almost palpable; given that the Orthodox alone have preserved a Eucharist the reality and validity of which is beyond question, this has a distinct impact on the environment within the liturgy itself.  It has thus become challenging for even the most aggressive Orthodox priests to offer a compelling homily in the thickness of this atmosphere, fully vested and with the great spiritual presence of the Cherubim and Seraphim pressing down upon them.  The natural urge for a brief, spiritual homily in the Divine Liturgy is instinctive and should be followed; the Priest should not drone on as if he were Calvin, but rather should deliver a message that is spiritual, above the petty concerns of this world, and beyond the purely rational exploration of the faith.   Brief patristic homiles might be recited, or metrical homilies intoned.

However, the atmosphere in the Divine Liturgy itself does not abrogate the need for proper catechesis.  I propose to revitalize the languishing Sixth Hour as the forum for preaching, following the restatement of the daily scripture lessons during the Third Hour, with both hours forming one continuous service, with a 30 minute break between them for purposes of hearing confessions.   In this manner, the opportunity for longer, more intellectual sermons for the purpose of inspiring the congregation and catechizing them in the faith exists, and the Orthodox might better compete with the Protestants and better live up to the standard set by St. John Chrysostom.

Suggestion no. 9: Restoring Daily Prayer

"Other aspects of liturgical worship should not be overlooked. In 20th century Orthodox parish life, the daily office as a communal activity has been virtually abandoned. A Sunday-only church is a church deprived of much of the power of Scripture and most of the treasures of Orthodox hymnography. Our churches must explore new ways in which the discipline of daily prayer can be restored."

What should be done about this:

This is surely the most valid suggestion of the monks at New Skete, one which might be said to sincerely lack any trace of the impiety or disastrous ecumenism and modernism that characterizes the rest of their article.   By cutting back services to just a Sunday morning service, which is de rigeur in many Antiochian parishes, and is even advocated by some, we alienate those who, for whatever reason, are unable to attend the primary liturgy, and also fail to maintain our obligations to celebrate both the Divine Liturgy and the Divine Office to the fullest extent possible.   The more services a parish offers, the more opportunities it provides for laity to attend.  

The Church of England in recent years has saved many parishes in the City of London, which would otherwise be white elephants, by repurposing them as places of prayer during the lunch hour, for the tens of thousands of office workers in the Square Mile, which nowadays has a mere 900 residents.   Americans and those unfamiliar with London should note that I am not referring to Greater London, which is one of the most densely populated cities in the world, but rather to what one might consider its "downtown" or "financial district," an area surrounding St. Paul's Cathedral that represented the original extent of London proper (the rest of London consisting of other boroughs such as Westminster, Kensington, Southwark, Greenwich, and Lambeth; many years in the past, these were distinct villages surrounding the City of London, but now all have been amalgated into one great city; the City proper however refers to an area of just one square mile, which once had a large residential population, but which today consists almost entirely of office space).

This idea, like black vestments and four part harmony, originated outside the Orthodox church, but is nonetheless a very good one; Orthodox parishes in urban areas can serve their congregants on weekdays by providing noontime prayer services.   I would suggest that the Divine Liturgy be celebrated on Wednesdays, Fridays, and feast days, the Typika on Mondays, and the Hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays, except in Lent; if an evening service of the Presanctified is not well attended, then this is the time to do it.

In like manner, suburban congregations have already had great success providing services in the early morning, available to parishioners before work, and services in the evening, after work; this is the manner in which most midweek feasts are actually celebrated these days.

Orthodox parishes should improve their offering of recreational and family events, and couple these with weekday services.   Tired parents coming home from work, who want to spend time with their children, should be offered a strong incentive to do so in the church; Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has argued passionately that the atmosphere in the Orthodox church is, and should be, that of being at home, rather than the rigorous feeling of "soldiers on a parade ground" one encounters in Catholic parishes; to this end, let us make attending evening services as appealing as sitting on the sofa watching television, by coupling them with various forms of family friendly activity, and by providing within the nave itself comfortable seating; not obstructive pews, but movable chairs, that can be rearranged and that will not obstruct the pious who have the strength to stand, but that will allow the tired to rest, and bask in the holiness.   One should look to the church as a second home, a home away from home, and a place to escape all worldly cares, not just on Sunday morning, but every day of the week.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy, Part 7

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 7: "Re-examining" the Lectionary

"In the Divine Liturgy, we receive spiritual nourishment not only through reception of communion but also through the hearing of God's word in the Scripture readings. But given the fact that few people regularly attend more than the Sunday morning Liturgy, the lectionary itself needs to be reexamined. In our present usage, only a very small portion of the New Testament is ever heard by the faithful, and the Old Testament is virtually absent. The faithful hear about the miracles of Jesus with great frequency; but they are not exposed to His ethical and moral teaching (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount)."

Why this is a bad idea:

One might first remark that, from a Slavonic Orthodox standpoint, the last remark seems particularly laughable, given that the high point of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, forms the Third Antiphon, sung at every Divine Liturgy.   In the Greek tradition, this might not be the case, at least to the same extent, but given that I am a member of a Slavonic parish with very amiable relations with like-minded Greek Orthodox, I don't want to comment on their liturgy, given my relative lack of familiarity with it (unless one counts the tragically watered down form of the beautiful Arabic liturgy of the Antiochian church which dominates in America, although I don't fault the late Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory for this, but rather a certain culture of liturgical complacency which managed to infect the entire autonomous AOCNA, and which slipped under the evangelically-minded radar of the late, most excellent bishop).

Now, what follows is a highly technical discussion of lectionary systems.  For readers of a short attention span, let me summarize my objections to a "re-examination" of the lectionary: any substantial change to the Byzantine lectionary, such as moving to Byzantine-flavored variant of the three year lectionary used in the Roman church, and with variations, as the Revised Common Lectionary in most dying mainline denominations, would violate the Typikon, the Rule of Prayer and Life for Eastern Orthodox parishes, and disrupt our ancient and most excellent spiritual system.   The Old Testament is read frequently in a prophetic context at Vespers, as a prelude to the Divine Liturgy to follow on Sunday Morning, and I have argued elsewhere that these readings ought to be repeated during the Third Hour, and printed in parish bulletins, as a means of bringing the parishioners who miss out on Vespers up to speed on the message of the day.    What is more, it is fallacious to assume that the laity must hear the entire Bible read in church to be able to benefit from it; the Byzantine liturgy does not read the Apocalypse liturgically, but it has nonetheless had a substantial impact on the spirituality of our faith.

Moving back to this proposal, one can see where the monks' examination would invariably point us: towards a discussion on adopting some form of the Revised Common Lectionary.   This nightmarish prospect must first be firmly dispensed with, before we can move on to how to actually address the valid points of this particular issue they raised.   The RCL by itself, derived from the three year lectionary of the Roman Catholic Church adopted with the Pauline liturgy, has attracted much criticism.   Historically, the Christian church has always used a one year lectionary; some ancient Jewish communities attested to in the Babylonian Talmud and the writings of Maimonides used a three-year lectionary, but this was never the norm, and because the early church did not use a three year lectionary, it is safe to assume that this was a divergent practice, and not original form of the thrice-weekly reading reading of the Torah instituted by the Prophet Ezra, which forms the basis for the entire concept of the Lectionary (before that time, the King read a substantial portion of Deuteronomy to the entire populace assembled at Jerusalem every seven years, and this was the known extent of the public reading of the Torah).

The triennial nature of the RCL aside, one might also lament that compared to other lectionaries, it is highly defective.  The editors of it made extensive use of gender neutral language, obviously inappropriate within the Eastern Orthodox faith; it, for maximum inclusiveness, naturally omits or downplays many books that most Protestants regard as apocryphal, that are highly important to the Orthodox faith, and it omits certain vital passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, as discussed in the prior post in this series.   A very balanced discussion of the RCL, in which many of the faults therein are brought to light in comparison with the historic Anglican lectionary, which I consider a very good lectionary, in part for the fact that it manages to ensure the entire New Testament is read in the course of a year, and the Old Testament, sans some books inappropriately deemed "apocrypha", in two years, can be found in this issue of Liturgy Canada.

The Anglican lectionary is much like the Orthodox lectionary in that it really isn't a single "lectionary", but rather a system of separate readings for separate services.  To some extent, it has been used within Western Rite Orthodoxy.   The lectionary consists of paired Old Testament and New Testament lessons for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer respectively, an annual lectionary of Collects, Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and holy days throughout the year, read during the "Ante Communion" portion of the Eucharistic lectionary, and a monthly scheme for the reading of the Psalter, at Morning and Evening Prayer.   This system is obviously simpler than the ornate Byzantine Rite, but a highly functional one, and one which in fact shares a common, Apostolic origin with our lectionary.

The Anglican lectionary was, for its part, based on the pre-Tridentine Roman lectionary, which was mostly left intact at Trent, which, as one can tell by comparing it with the Orthodox lectionary via the tables presented at the Bombaxo website, is very similiar to its Eastern counterpart, differing primarily in the lack of the Lukan jump, the occasional use of the Old Testament as the "Epistle", and the shorter nature of the lessons (possibly a result of their being chanted in Latin and thus being unintelligible to the parishioners).  The Anglican reformers expanded the length of the lessons and read them in English, resulting in a system moving closer to Orthodoxy.

The Roman lectionary, owing to its short, stylistic lessons and inconsistency regarding the use of the Old Testament, was a prime candidate for reform in the wake of Vatican II, but unfortunately, rather than returning to Apostolic tradition, the reformers pursued a radically new direction.  Adding a separate Old Testament lesson to the readings at Mass was by no means objectionable, but the triennial cycle was, as was the somewhat liberal bias in the selection of lessons, which became further exacerbated with the Ecumenical derivatives of the new Roman lectionary.

Now, let us take a look at the Byzantine lectionary in greater detail.   The lectionary forms part of the Typikon, an elaborate system of rules, or if you prefer, a meta-lectionary, that governs all aspects of our liturgical services.  If followed in precise detail and without alteration, the Typikon repeats itself around every 535 years (I believe the precise number to be 537), factoring in the revolving octoechal cycle of hymnody, the weekly psalmody, and the ornate interaction between fixed and movable feasts.   The Typikon is more than a liturgical system however; it is also a rule of life; the Typika of Eastern Monasteries corresponds directly to the Rule of St. Benedict, and in like manner, the Typikon can also be seen as a rule governing the life of parish churches.   Of course, secular pressures make it difficult or impossible for most parishes to observe the Typikon in its entirety, but that fact is regrettable, and should be lamented, and not used as a justification for replacing it; the Typikon sets the standard we should seek to attain, and if a parish or monastery succeeds in following it precisely, great spiritual blessings will follow.

Naturally, implementing a triennial lectionary, derived from the RCL, but with a nod to Byzantine custom on popular feast days, which is doubtless what the monks at New Skete would have in mind, would violate the Typikon, and result in a profoundly watered down liturgy.   Within the present Byzantine Rite, there are in fact multiple discrete lectionary systems being observed: the weekly Psalter, the cyclical Matins Gospel, the Prophecy readings appointed for Saturday Night Vespers, and finally the Epistle and Gospel lessons of the Divine Liturgy itself, which unmistakbly follow the Hatarah and weekly Torah portion read since antiquity in Judaism.   A future article will examine this fact in light of the East Syriac lectionary, which preserves in some places distinctly Jewish Torah and Haftarah pairings, and follows them in due course with Epistle and Gospel readings.

In the Byzantine lectionary, access to the Old Testament is provided primarily by the Vespers prophecy read on Saturday night, as mentioned above.  This service is of extreme importance in our faith; its present neglect in some jurisdictions is egregious.  To the extent however that people do not understand it, and thus experience the ecstasy resulting from seeing the prophecy read therein fulfilled in the Epistle and Gospel read during the Divine Liturgy the next morning, I have argued for the repetition of this reading at the Third Hour.   However, attending both Vespers and the Liturgy is a far more spiritually healthy alternative, and this practice would most likely be substantially diminished were an Old Testament lesson to be included in every Divine Liturgy.

The main problem seems to be that, while the Byzantine lectionary does read over the course of the year the entire New Testament, many of the lessons are heard in services frequently celebrated only in monasteries, for example, most of the reading of Mark.   The Old Testament is used sparingly, where the Christological prophecy is at its most acute.   However, in both cases, the pious faithful can correct this problem by following the lectionary in their own private readings, or a Reading Plan such as this one hosted on Bombaxo.   There is also a lectionary contained within the Orthodox Study Bible, which is a most valuable resource for the laity and costs a mere $50 or so.  

Thus, the real answer to the dilemma posed by the monks presents itself: while, outside of the monasteries, in the average parish, the parishioners will not actually hear that much of Sacred Scripture read aloud, this problem can be overcome by the very healthy practice of regular, systematic and disciplined reading of the scriptures in private.   This activity should ideally be done together with one's family, combined with the saying of Morning and Evening Prayer (also conveniently featured in the Orthodox Study Bible, along with other liturgical resources).   The last word is that where the resources of the parish limit public celebration, private devotion must take its place.
 
Our next article in this series will address the monks' not entirely invalid complaint that the Sermon in the Divine Liturgy is neglected, while commenting on the risks of allowing the Liturgy to devolve into a preaching-oriented service.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy, Part 6

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 6: Casual Communion

"In some Orthodox churches, frequent reception of communion has become the norm, while in others the faithful come only rarely. In both cases, however, the reception of communion is often seen as an act of private devotion. Our churches need to rediscover the communal and corporate dimensions of the eucharist. They also need to reevaluate their various practices related to confession, fasting, and other forms of preparation for communion. This is necessary particularly when these practices not only obscure the ecclesial significance of the eucharist but also discourage frequent communion, thus inhibiting the spiritual growth and nourishment of the faithful."

Why this is a bad idea:

This, from a spiritual perspective, is perhaps the deadliest suggestion made by the impious monks at New Skete.  In recent decades, the trend to commune the entire parish, except at Easter, when this was always the tradition, on every Sunday, has led to numerous persons partaking of the Eucharist iwthout the adequete spiritual preparation.  It is no accident that the Revised Common Lectionary, among the more poisonous fruits of the Ecumenical Movement, omits this key warning of the Apostle Paul, following the institution narrative in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:

" 27 He therefore, who eateth of the bread of the Lord, and drinketh of his cup, and is not worthy of it, is guilty of the blood of the Lord, and of his body.  
   28 For this reason, a man should examine himself, and then eat of this bread, and drink of this cup:  
   29 for, whoever eateth and drinketh of it, while he is unworthy, eateth and drinketh condemnation on himself, by not discerning the body of the Lord.
   30 For this cause, many among you are diseased and sickly, and many sleep.
   31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
   32 But when we are judged by our Lord, we are really chastised, that we may not be condemned with the world.  
   33 Wherefore, my Brethren, when ye assemble to eat, wait ye one for another.
   34 And let him who is hungry, eat at home; that ye may assemble, not for condemnation. And as to other things, I will give you directions when I come."

From this very clear warning, it is evident that a thorough examination of conscience, at a minimum, is a prerequisite to communion.   It is for this reason that ROCA requires parishioners to attend to the sacrament of Confession before receiving the Eucharist, and to fast beforehand to the fullest extent their health allows.   To do otherwise would be criminal negligence on our flock; we would be guilty of allowing our congregation to partake of condemnation, rather than of the divine nature, to their own destruction, and for that would have to answer at the dread day of judgment.

It is imperative that, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has pointed out, frequent communion, a most healthy practice advocated by all the saints, be practiced, but at the same time, His Eminence warns us of the dangers of casual communion.   The environment in many Christian churches today creates a situation where everyone is encouraged to come forward, without any checks to see if they are baptized, and wihtout any warning that the sacrament, if consumed in a state unworthy, could be deadly.  This is a terrible crime; the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches especially are guilty of exposing their flock to severe physical and spiritual harm by failing to place an appropriate fence around the sacrament.  

I should say, that I fear that if we do not heed the warning of the Blessed Apostle, and provide some mechanism for ensuring the proper purification and preparation that lets us approach the chalice with some degree of increased holiness, in a state of worthiness, that we might receive its life-sustaining and life-creating nourishment, the blood of many could be on our hands.   The barriers erected around the Holy Eucharist may seem formidable, but it is essential for every pious Orthodox Christian to confront them, ideally every Sunday, and every day in Lent; keep the Eucharistic fast, confess everything, as often as possible, and approach the Chalice without fear, and you will surely receive the fruits of Christ's life-creating sacrifice to the fullest extent possible.   Just as physical exercise to keep our bodies in shape, and proper eating to maintain health, requires discipline, so to does our spiritual life; maintaining the neccessary discipline to partake of Communion as often as it serves is the surest way to maintaining proper spiritual health, and to partake of every divine grace the Lord has provided for our sustenance.

In closing, in the Divine Liturgy, the Priest proclaims "Holy things are for the holy!"   Anyone who dares approach the Chalice while knowingly in a state of unrepentant sin is unholy, and partakes of death rather than life; any Priest who knowingly allows such a profane act of self-destruction to occur will answer for it on the dread day of judgement.  "Holy things are for the holy!" is not a meaningless embellishment of the Divine Liturgy; rather, it is the warning of Paul in a nutshell, and as Paul's narrative of the Last Supper is likely the most ancient in the New Testament, and the importance of Paul to the Orthodox faith unquestioned, it behooves us to heed his warning, and to accordingly partake of the Body and Blood of Our Lord with only the greatest fear and reverence.   If some are unable to maintain the spiritual discipline necessary to facilitate daily or weekly communion, then it is better for them to communicate only occasionally, when they are able to properly prepare themselves, than risk their own destruction for the sake of conformity; to conduct the Divine Liturgy in such a manner as to encourage all to communicate without proper preparation is a great evil.

In our next article in this series, we will examine the very impious and disagreeable suggestion that we depart from the ancient lectionary, that has served the Church for over a thousand years.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy: Part 5

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 5: Female Clergy

"While the entire people of God are to participate fully in the Churchs worship, they do so in different ways, through a diversity of ministries. Recent pan-Orthodox consultations, including the Inter-Orthodox Conference on Rhodes in 1988, have repeatedly called for the restoration of the diaconate for women, but as yet no concrete steps for implementation have been made. We believe that a deeper and more extensive exploration into the role of the diaconate, both male and female, is now long overdue. Reconsideration of the role of other ministries in the Church is also needed."

Why this is a bad idea:

Again, we see the pressure for the restoration of the Deaconesses, intensified considerably, but also a new and disturbing suggestion, "Reconsideration of the role of other ministries in the Church is also needed."   This clearly implies a desire for the ordination of female priests, and ultimately, female Bishops, following in the footsteps of the Anglicans.   That this is impossible in the Orthodox church should be obvious, for in the entire history of the Orthodox church, we have had an exclusively male priesthood and an exclusively male episcopate; were we to ordain women to these roles, we would cease to be Orthodox; an axiom of the Orthodox church is that being Orthodox, we are not allowed to make arbitrary changes to dogma or praxis, but must at all times faithfully seek to preserve Holy Tradition, a Tradition which most definitely excludes women from these offices.

Let us now explore the question of why women are excluded.  It is not misogyny, as some impiously dare to suggest, but rather, owes to the distinct vocation of men and wome, according to the divine economy of salvation.  As men, when we are called to the Priesthood, we are called to iconically represent Christ at the last supper, when we consecrated it In Persone Christi, to use a Latin phrase.  Most specifically, the celibate Bishop represents Christ, and the married Priests and celibate Heiromonks in turn represent the Bishop.   The Deacons, in assisting in the liturgy and in the delivery of the sacraments, represent the Apostles.

Women on the other hand are called to iconographically represent the Virgin Mary, either through emulation of her Virginity, or her Maternity.   Both Holy Celibacy and motherhood, in the form of Holy Matrimony, are the clear models for Christian women to aspire to; bearing children is their priesthood.  Just as a man cannot give birth, a woman cannot consecrate the Eucharist, for Christ was a man.   This is not to imply women are inferior, merely that a difference exists according to the design of God, and the Orthodox Church has always worshipped and believed thus.  Unlike in other denominations that have sprung from the corrupted Western Church, we do not consider ourselves free to deviate from Holy Tradition in order to conform to secular pressure, and indeed the secular pressure for the ordination of women is most extraordinary.  Yet in failing in this manner, and also in failing to maintain the ancient teaching of the church regarding marriage, gender roles, and sexuality, the mainline Protestant churches have very nearly destroyed themselves.   God forbid that this should happen to the Orthodox Church.

As for deaconnesses, it should be observed that their specific function related, like that of their male peers, to the delivery of a sacrament; rather than assisting in the delivery of the Eucharist however, their function was to assist in the delivery of the initatory rite of Baptism.    For in the early centuries of the church, the relative poverty of the populace meant that baptismal robes would be an unaffordable luxury, and thus men and women alike were baptized separately and in the nude.  For a male Priest to go down into the water with a nude woman would be an obvious impropriety, thus, the the Deaconnesses were appointed, but not actually ordained, to serve in his place.   They were required to be celibate, initially above the age of 60, but later this requirement was lowered to 40; one might assume the majority were nuns.  

As Orthodox Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, and subsequently spread across the continents, mass baptisms of adult women became the norm.   Then, to a large extent, the Orthodox Church reached boundaries, limits imposed on its evangelism, chiefly by the threat of violence from Islamic persecutors.   Thus, over time, the vast majority of those received into the Orthodox Church were received via infant baptism, and the role of the Deaconness simply became obsolete.  

In modern times, the Orthodox Church is again making disciples of the nations, but thanks to the increased wealth God has granted us, we have the provision for baptismal robes.  Thus it is possible for the priest to descend into the water as he immerses the convert without any hint of impropriety, and without the risk of extreme temptation to lust that would be caused by the baptism of a nude adult female in this manner.   Thus, the function for which the office of deaconness was created is, effectively, obsolete.

That said, the appointment of women to the lesser orders has continued to varying extents.  Women also play vital administrative roles.  My own parish, lacking a full time priest, is administered and effectively managed by two female parishioners; they keep the books, provide the administrative  leadership and the primary decisionmaking.   They also sing in the choir; without them, the parish would not exist.   They are truly the mothers of the congregation.

That said, the restoration of the order of deaconnesses is not impossible, but the timing at present makes the situation difficult, for to do so would risk increasing the pressure to violate the natural order given by God, and to ordain women to the priesthood, thus taking onto ourselves the corruption that has poisoned the mainline Protestant denominations.   The only possible use I can see for deaconesses at present would be to assist in the liturgy in Orthodox convents, but to my uncertain knowledge, the nuns do not wish this at present, and are content with present arrangements for their service.   If deaconesses were implemented, the canons of the ancient Ecumenical councils would have to be followed strictly: they would be required to be celibate and at least forty years of age; thus, for all practical purposes, they would either be nuns, or secular virgins living in the world.   However, at present it is simply the wrong time to be addressing this; there is not an actual problem affecting the church, as the vital participation of women is responsible, to a large extent, for the day to day operation and executive management of ROCA. 

In closing, Priesthood is a very specific attribute; it is directly analogous to motherhood, for it represents spiritual Fatherhood.   For the same reason that men cannot bear children, women cannot legitimately serve as Priests, for they are called to iconographically represent the most holy theotokos, who it should be stressed was closer to God than any other human being.  In their vocation they are in fact considerably more blessed than their male brothers; for those who serve in the priesthood and episcopate are forced to endure demonic attacks on an unimaginable scale, manifesting themselves both through the mundane nastiness of ecclesiastical politics, to dreadful supernatural assaults such as those borne by St. Anthony.  We sing of Mary, Blessed art thou among Women, but we should sing of Women, blessed are you among Humans, for You are bestowed with the kinder, gentler vocation, that come more naturally to you, and are spared the agonies of the priesthood, that exceed in their psychological horror the pains of childbirth by a great margin, for in acting in persone Christi, the priest carry the terrible Cross of Christ, and endure His sufferings; only through the grace of the Holy Spirit are they able to survive, and carry on their most sacred ministry.

In our next article in this series, we shall explore the attempt to encourage the most dangerous and destructive practice of casual communion, without proper preparation.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy, Part 4

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy.  The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 4: Messing with the Choir, and Deaconesses

"Do choirs and cantors facilitate the congregation's involvement? Does the music adequately convey the meaning of the text? Are certain classes and groups of persons systematically excluded from full participation (e.g., women, as a result of erroneous application of Old Testamental laws on ritual purity; children, as a result of being sent away to Sunday school during the Divine Liturgy)?"

Why this is a bad idea:

I fear to speculate on what the authors desire when posing the question "Do choirs and cantors facilitate the congregations involvement?"   If the answer is more congregational singing; I must voice my opposition, for without an organ, which is not traditional in the Byzantine Rite, congregational singing quickly turns to cacophany, unless the congregation has the liturgical fervor and discipline of the Russian Old Ritualists, which alas, most congregations do not.  This is not to say that we cannot have some form of congregational singing, but the idea that there is anything wrong with allowing parishioners to simply bask in the heavenly music of the choir, while lifting their heart unto the Lord in prayer, is deeply perverse.   The development of a strong and enlarged Western Rite in Orthodoxy might well help allay this, by providing a forum for those attached to congregational singing to participate in the Orthodox faith.   In addition, the bar should be lowered slightly for choir membership: in a Russian parish that worships in English and Church Slavonic, those who only speak English should be allowed to join in with the choir, and learn the English hymns, in which they would participate.   This might well be done antiphonally following the two-choir model favored by St. Ignatius.

Let us now move on to the more seirous question raised.   Are women being discriminated against in the Orthodox Church, for such an absurd reason as an erroneous reading of the Levetical Code?   Surely not, for if that were true, it would mean that the Orthodox Church had, from its very beginnings, misinterpted the Levetical Code, and if that is true, then our claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is utterly baseless, and in fact the feminist Gnostic sects that Elaine Pagels alleges existed, and were suppressed by evil patriarchal bishops like Ss. Ignatius and Irenaeus, had it right.  Nevermind the fact the Gnostics were misogynistic in the extreme, with the Manichaen Gospel of Thomas declaring that "Any female who makes herself male will inherit the kingdom of God," and Pagels' pop theology has been widely discredited by serious scholars of the Gnostic faith; it is frankly, wishful thinking.   But let us suppose there were a feminist church, that the evil Orthodox suppressed 1,800 years ago.   If that were the case, then we might as well reform everything, because that would mean that we were clearly in the wrong all this time, that we were never even close to being the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but were instead a misogynistic cult that destroyed the faith of the Historical Jesus.

There are in fact many who believe exactly that; many of the clergy of the dying mainline Protestant churches, especially the Episcopal Church, USA, and the United Church of Christ.  Others, refraining from the unethical desire to demolish the faith of an existing church, have moved on to denominations more suited to their worldview, such as the Unitarian Universalists and the Ecclesia Gnostica.  Perhaps the monks of New Skete should consider such a move; one cannot help but feel that if their vocation were sincere, they would be happier in such an environment, where they could freely avail themselves of those aspects of Byzantine spirituality they found appealing, without demolishing the traditions of a beautiful religion, in the manner of the hateful anti-Wesleyan Methodist blogger Rev. Jeremy Smith (who has labelled the Orthodox Church and her persecuted sister churches in the Middle East "misogynist" for failing to ordain priestesses) or the Presiding "Bishop" Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, who would be a wonderful Christian were her zeal for Christ as strong as her zeal for litigation.

The Orthodox Church itself is a realm of love, and the idea that we would systematically exclude women from the liturgy, for any hateful motive, is poisonous in the extreme.  Anyone who believes that about the Orthodox Church should resign, or be excommunicated, for only those capable of participating in the love of the Holy Trinity, which is a complementarian love, with each person contributing in their own way, according to their individual traits.

Lastly, I should say regarding Sunday School, I am a strong proponent of developing the Third and Sixth Hours, presently an afterthought chanted hurridly before the Liturgy begins, largely to obscure the sounds of confessions taking place, into an extended service of preaching and hymn singing.  Here, the children would participate separately in sunday school, and learn about the faith; it should remain open during the divine liturgy to provide Christ-centered diversions, should any children of intermediate age (4 through 7 year olds especially) become bored to distraction and disrupt the service, but in general, infants and as many children as could sit or stand through it would participate fully in the entire divine liturgy, while receiving age appropriate catechesis during the earlier Hours.

In the next installment, I shall answer the question as to why we no longer have deaconesses, and cannot afford to reinstate that ancient office in the near future, and address the very disturbing suggestion that the Orthodox Church consider ordaining women to the Priesthood and Episcopate.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy, Part 3: The War on the Iconostasis

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 3: Eliminating the Iconostasis

"11. Our churches should examine critically the ways in which full participation of the laos tou Theou (people of God) in worship is hindered. The corporate nature of liturgical worship demands that we consider how we utilize the power of sacred space. We must be aware of legitimate alternatives for church architecture and furnishings. For example, would not the iconostasis in a more open form serve to keep the people connected to the priestly function that is performed in their name? Where is the appropriate place to proclaim the reading of the Scriptures, and how may this be adapted in particular circumstances?"

Why this is a bad idea:

If one reads the numerous beautiful stories of conversion to the Orthodox faith available on the Internet, one fact stands out in particular, and that is that many people were aided greatly in their conversion, when, on entering the church, they found themselves astonished by the magnificent wall of glorious icons that confronted them. Already, a minimal or non-existent iconostasis is common in Byzantine Rite Catholic churches; in fact, it is becoming so common that I expect within fifty years time, the absence of a full iconostasis will be the most obvious clue that one is in a Byzantine Catholic, rather than an Eastern Orthodox, parish. However, even within Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, for the past century the harbringer of modernism, ecumenism, schism, heresy and general misery, has exhibited a disturbing trend towards minimal iconostases in newly built churches. This is particularly evident in Greek Orthodox parishes under their jurisdiction, and in Carpatho-Russyn parishes. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a brilliant writer who is a moderate liberal when it comes to Orthodox theology, has himself called for the reduction of the iconstasis, in spite of citing the beauty of the iconostasis in a now-demolished Russian Orthodox church he wandered into during All Night Vigils on a late Saturday afternoon, at the age of 17, as the start of his journey to Orthodoxy. Does he not realize that, even in trimming the iconostasis, he might well deprive the faith of that which led him to it?

Beyond that, there is a profound quesiton of liturgical theology at stake. Among liturgical traditionalits, an oft heard maxim is that, like John the Baptist, the Priest must disappear so that Christ can appear. At those most holy moments in the Divine Liturgy when the Royal Doors are closed and the curtain is drawn, the attention of the congregation shifts from the actions of the Priest at the Holy Table, to the icon of Christ, our Lord and Savior. Thus, the traditional iconostasis in all its grandeur provides a mechanical means by which a theological objective can be realized, in a dignified and subtle manner, without resorting to special effects or other contrivances that one sometimes sees in contemporary megachurches (the Glory of Christmas Pageant, at the now-defunct Crystal Cathedral comes to mind, with angels suspended from wires flying above the audience). In all of its discrete elegance, the iconostasis as a means of allowing the priest to fade from view, by degrees, first with the closing of the Royal Doors, and secondly, with the drawing of the curtain, suggests the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.   The other Eastern churches also feature curtains, which are used to a similiar liturgical effect, albeit without the use of doors or gates (although interestingly enough, the Coptic iconostasis traditionally features windows adjacent to the central entrance, where the Royal Doors would be in a Byzantine church; I would be very interested to learn why that custom exists).

The opening and closing of the doors and the curtain also has other substantial aspects of great theological signifigance. The doors are called Royal because Christ Himself does pass through them (and in some cases, pious Orthodox have reported witnessing this; I recall reading of such an episode involving a great Russian priest-saint, perhaps John of Kronstadt); they symbolize the gates of Jerusalem through which Christ passed on Palm Sunday, and the gates of the Heavenly New Jerusalem. Their closing symbolizes penitence; their opening symbolizes divine joy and the promise of salvation in the World to Come.

In most of the pared-back iconostases of some newer Orthodox churches, the curtain has been eliminated, and the Royal doors themselves are often entirely absent. Thus, all of this liturgical grandeur, rich as it is with theological meaning, becomes impossible to enact, and the faithful are deprived of the possibility of a profound liturgical encounter with Christ our Lord.

Now, in defense of their proposal, the monks of New Skete resort to a known fact; historically, the Hagia Sophia did not have an iconostasis, but rather a Templon, a three-sided altar rail with an upper beam, that could be enclosed with a wrap around curtain.   This is true, but a few points should be stressed: firstly, the unusual architecture of the Hagia Sophia, which lacks a clearly defined apse, and the need to accomodate large crowds and not waste space, would force an unusual shape for the altar screen; secondly, unlike the minimalist iconostases or open altars of recent Byzantine Rite churches, the curtain provided a mechanism for concealing the entire altar from the view of parishioners, except possibly those viewing the liturgy from the galleries above, such as members of the Imperial family (although one might speculate that a canopy may have covered the templon); thirdly, had Constantinople not been conquered by the Ottomans, it seems not altogether unreasonable to expect that in the centuries to follow, the Great Church would have been renovated on the same scale as the Islamic renovations, but in an Orthodox manner, and its templon would have been in due course replaced by the most majestic of icon screens.   In all fairness, on this point, the brothers of New Skete practice what they preach; their church features a templon and not the emaciated iconostases of newer Byzantine churches, and using the work of scholars such as the eminent Alexander Lingus, have dedicated much effort to reconstructing the majestic Cathedral Typikon, disused since the Fall of Constantinople.

However, the liturgy of the Orthodox church did develop in positive directions after the loss of New Rome; one would cite the construction of magnificent Russian cathedrals such as St. Basil's, and the development of tonal polyphonic music in the Slavonic churches, as two superlative refinements; along with that, one might also cite the exquisite five-tiered Baroque iconostases that grace Eastern Europe, such as the one depicted as the background of this blog.   For us to abandon the iconstasis would be a regression, a tragedy on no less a scale than the sad destruction of most of the rood screens (the great Western equivalent of the Iconostasis) across Europe in the wake of Calvinist iconoclasm and the liturgical reforms of the Council of Trent, which, much like the monks at New Skete, sought to make the liturgy more visible to the people.   Indeed, it would most likely be worse; for at least in the place of the rood screen, Roman Catholics benefitted from majestic Baroque altarpieces, whereas in the case of the more recent "wreckovations" performed at numerous Catholic churches since Vatican II, the apse has been essentially gutted, with antique altars, altarpieces and altar rails removed, in favor of empty space.   Icons represent the goodness of material creation, anda rejection of Gnosticism and crypto-Gnostic iconoclasm; the iconostasis is the ultimate physical and liturgical manifestation of that doctrine.   Let us not discard it for some vague philosophical desire to "keep the people connected to the priestly function."

As far as the remarks concerning the placement of reading stands for the scripture lessons; these suggestions are of such a trivial nature, given the established function of the ambo or bema, and the lecterns, in Eastern churches, as to be unworthy of response, unless the brethren at New Skete pine for the lofty, towering pulpits of the Catholic and Protestant churches of their youth, which serve to make the preacher seem a god among men, rather than the first among sinners.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy, Part II: Silence Deprecated

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series of articles, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 2: Elimination of Silent Prayers

"Liturgical worship is carried out by the entire assembly, not just by the clergy. For this reason, liturgical prayer generally employs the first person plural. This is clear, for example, in the anaphora, the central prayer of the eucharistic liturgy: "Remembering this saving commandment..., offering you your own of your own.... we praise you, we bless you, we give thanks to you..." The central action here is our corporate offering of praise and thanks, our eucharistia. It is appropriate, therefore, for liturgical prayer, the prayer of the assembly, to be recited aloud, for all to hear."

Why this is a bad idea:

While I would agree with the monks of New Skete that perhaps over the centuries, too many of the prayers became silent, if the priest were to say all the prayers aloud, it would substantially damage the liturgical experience, by suppressing the mystical quality provided through the quiet, discrete actions of the priest, scarcely visible or hidden by the iconostasis, accompanied by the angelic voices of the choir. Those Orthodox parishes that have implemented this change, in some cases, wind up sounding a bit like the famous "Montage" sequence at the end of The Godfather. What is more, if all the prayers are said aloud, the prayers will either be rushed by the priest, or the service elongated, or the congregation alienated by their apparent verbosity. Every prayer in the Divine Liturgy is holy, sacred, and present for a very good reason, and saying all the silent prayers aloud would be a very effective way of truncating them. Consider as an example the highly abbreviated prayers of the Roman Catholic Pauline Missal, compared to the much longer, and mostly silent prayers of the Tridentine Mass.

That said, I strongly support the priest intoning the entire Institution Narrative, and the Epiclesis, which are the most exquisitely beautiful prayers in the liturgy, and which deserve to be heard by all present. "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee, on behalf of all, and for all," should be the climax of the Consecration; from then, as far as the priest is concerned, silence should prevail until the Lord's Prayer. As one of the main differences between the two main liturgies, of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, is the Epiclesis, saying it aloud would be of great benefit; otherwise, the only noticeable difference when serving St. Basil is the singing of "All of creation" instead of "It is truly meet." I should also add that the other prayers which differentiate the Divine Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom ought to be read aloud occasionally; for example, on Forgiveness Sunday and the Sunday of Orthodoxy. In that manner, the congregation will have a chance to clearly hear the numerous differences between the two liturgies.

I should also stress that the Epiclesis, and any other prayers otherwise said silently, should be intoned, and not said. There exist a number of excellent musical settings for the Epiclesis; a very excellent example can be seen in this liturgy, celebrated by Metropolitan Philip Saliba of blessed memory. This liturgy also shows the outer limits of how silent prayers can be tastefully spoken; in a large cathedral church like St. Elias, one can get away with speaking them in the altar, for the benefit of fellow clergy, to ease following along, but it would be hugely inappropriate to use a microphone and amplifier to broadcast these prayers to the congregation.

Lastly, and most importantly, one should observe that one of the primary objectives of Orthodox ascetic discipline has always been to create silence.   This has been accomplished in many ways and in many forms; through the Jesus Prayer, recited verbally at first, then mentally, and finally noetically, through the silent prayers in the liturgy, and through the atmosphere of quiet contemplation that prevails in our monasteries and church.  Why then should we possibly wish to do away with silence?   Yes, there is choral music during the silent prayers, but an undeniable sense of stillness permeates the church, just as the verbal repetition of the Jesus Prayer allows one to tone out the distracting and oppressive noises of the World, and to retreat to the realm of Godly quiet.
 
In fact, silence has been one of the most desparately sought qualities not only in Orthodoxy, but in Christianity; indeed, almost all world religions value silence as a precious commodity, from the waiting worship of the Quakers, to the reverent quiet that prevails after dusk in the Kastom religion of the Melanesians of Tanna, to the austere silence of a Roman Catholic low mass, to the absolute silence that prevails at the ceremonial burning of the Temple at the Burning Man Festival (an event that is a religion in its own right).   Thus, to criticize the ancient tradition of silent prayers in the Divine Liturgy is not just to attack traditional Orthodoxy; it is a profoundly irreligious gesture that is an affront not only to Christianity but to the vast majority of world religions.

The Ecclesia Gnostica vs. The Episcopal Church

Why do (post)modernists insist upon desecrating and destroying the great churches of our time?  Why must parishioners be subjected to radical doctrines that ultimately alienate them from the churches in which they were baptized?   Why can't liberal clergy have the courage to form new denominations, instead of poisoning and slowly destroying those existing churches?

I should in this article like to compare an example of a new denomination, created to meet the desires of a liberal and esoteric theology, the Ecclesia Gnostica, with an old denomination, the Episcopal Church, USA, which has in the same city as the Bishop of the former, a parish where the priest openly denounces the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostle's Creeds as "Defective" and quotes a Gnostic gospel in defense of his position.   Thus, the former is an honestly liberal, Gnostic church, whereas the latter is intentionally dishonest about its beliefs when talking to different audiences (for in the very same diocese, you will find conservative parishes like St. Francis of Assisi in Simi Valley, which operate along entirely traditional lines, at least for the time being).

The Ecclesia Gnostica, whose theology rejects or distorts the Orthodox position in almost every detail, even to the extent of embracing otherwise unrelated heresies such as Donatism, is an example of what I feel liberal clergy actually should be building.  It is a new denomination.  It provides all those services which the Orthodox Church never can (without ceasing to be Orthodox): gay marriage, female ordination, occult ritual.  It is not constrained by the Athanasian canon and following in the footsteps of Marcion and Valentinus, regards the God of the Old Testament as a wrathful, vengeful diety, an incompetent demiurge produced by an abortion of Sophia (a belief clearly held implicitly by many liberal clergy who doubtless cringe when reading their Revised Common Lectionary-supplied Old Testament lesson).

The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, at one time was the most Orthodox of American churches, to such an extent that, as recently as the 1950s, restoration of communion between it and the other Anglican churches, and their Old Catholic brethren, and the Orthodox church, appeared all but inevitable.   Then a new wave of liberal theologians, led by heresiarchs like James Pike, took the reigns, and gave us the rapidly dwindling church of today, a church which cares more about litigation than about liturgy.

In contrast to the actions of the modern "reformers" of the Episcopal Church, USA, and other mainline denominations, are undeniably destructive, participating in the Ecclesia Gnostica is a constructive act.  I do not agree with the Ecclesia Gnostica, but I respect them.  They are honest in their intentions.  Their Bishop appears to be a decent and reverent man, who eschewed the comforts of a normal life to pursue his religious convictions, unlike the salaried bureaucrats who run the Episcopal Church, who benefit from relatively decent healthcare and pension plans, and who stand to profit as the ECUSA transitions from being a worshipping body of the faithful* to being a Real Estate Investment Trust, slowly disposing of its extremely valuable property holdings for reuse by other denominations, or redevelopment as shopping malls, entertainment centers, and other uses.   In contrast, the Ecclesia Gnostica operates within the most humble of facilities, certainly adhering to what one might call a sense of Christian poverty.

Thus, I would propose to all Christians who feel called to the ministry: if you find yourself drawn to Christ, but cannot agree with the traditional beliefs of your denomination, if indeed it still has any, join the Ecclesia Gnostica, the Metropolitan Community Church, or the Unitarian Universalists, and work to ensure those churches are honest and open about their beliefs, for if it turns out your interpretation of Christianity is incorrect, at least in such a manner you will not have to answer at the dread day of judgment for leading astray the flock of Christ.   If on the other hand, we in the Orthodox Church are proven wrong, we are prepared to answer it, and in imitation of our Lord, give our lives a ransom for those we have misled.

Modernist Revision of the Divine Liturgy, Part 1: Vernacular-only Liturgy

This article on the WCC website, though more than a decade old, remains an accurate statement of the intentions of modernists regarding the Orthodox liturgy. The notoriously liberal monks at New Skete Monastery, formerly Catholic, but received into the notoriously liberal Orthodox Church in America (a jurisdiction whose autocephaly has never been universally recognized), corrupted by the modernist heresy so prevelant in the Roman church, manifested in the liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II (which, I should state, were a dreadful perversion of what Vatican II actually authorized; in terms of seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox, and in terms of the change of theological emphasis that Vatican II produced, it was, by itself, a movement in the direction of Orthodoxy), naturally want to do the same thing to the Orthodox church.

In this series, I shall proceed to enumerate their desired reforms, and then explain why these reforms are deadly, from the perspective of Confessional Orthodoxy.

Suggestion no. 1: Vernacular-only Liturgy

"These general principles concerning the nature of worship have a number of implications for Orthodox worship in our time. First of all, if the principles enunciated above are to be fully realized, our worship normally should be conducted in the vernacular, in the language of the people. For centuries the Orthodox have appealed to the example of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. In recent practice, however, this principle often has been violated. Our churches must consider whether the language of their worship in fact conveys its real meaning to the faithful and to the world."

Why this is a bad idea:

Already, vernacular translations are available for all of the Orthodox service books, and in those churches that continue to use the ancient liturgical languages, such as Koine Greek and Church Slavonic, more often than not, the ancient language is mixed with the vernacular; the homily is always given in the vernacular. To the extent that these ancient languages provide a barrier to understanding, they also facilitate a certain mysticism; I myself enjoy listening to Orthodox music in Church Slavonic precisely because I don't understand it verbally, but I know the lyrics that are being sung. I can, in this manner, focus purely on the spiritual dimension, which transends verbal speech.

What is more, many churches, particularly among our Oriental Orthodox brethren, have adopted the use of LCD and projection-based display screens; the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox Churches use this to simultaneously display Arabic and English translations of their liturgy at most of their parishes in the United States, and this system works exceedingly well. In the near future, tablets will be cheap enough, that the church might provide an ipad style device for the use of parishioners, with the complete text of the service, allowing them to follow along with great ease; these same devices might well replace the printed service books and sheet music. Many of these devices, like the Kindle, use electronic paper, so there is no distracting backlight, and unless you buy a leather casing, there are no animal products on the devices, making them suitable for use in the altar. Thus, the question of accessibility when using a liturgical language is utterly moot.

However, the most important reason for keeping the ancient liturgical languages, and using them together with the modern vernacular, is so that we preserve continuity with our forefathers. What a tragedy it would be if the language of the Gospel, Koine Greek, or the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, in its Syriac dialects, or the Church Slavonic used by Russians for centuries, were to disappear. Rabinnical and Karaite Jews pray exclusively in Hebrew and Aramaic, relying on vernacular Siddurs (the equivalent of a Roman Catholic hand missal, or an Anglican Book of Common Prayer), and in my mind they are to be commended for this, as the language of Israel, the font of the Church, is thus preserved. The use of the vernacular was naturally one of the first changes introduced by modernizing Jews in the Reform denomination.

Lastly, one might observe the schism, general strife, and liturgical chaos the deprecation of Latin caused the Roman church. Though the Orthodox church has never been as wedded to a liturgical language as the Roman church, and indeed the historic refusal of the Romans to countenance any vernacular liturgy was a major point of disagreement between the two confessions, many Roman Catholics were greatly attached to the language of Cicero and St. Jerome, and this caused many schisms; today, the fastest growing parts of the Catholic church are the Latin-speaking traditionalist groups created under the auspices of Pope Benedict XVI's bull Summorum Pontificum, which greatly improved access to the old Tridentine liturgy. There are some signs the Roman church may be preparing to retrench on this point under Francis; if this occurs, the Orthodox should make every effort to accomodate disgruntled Catholics in our Western Rite, lest they fall into the hands of the SSPX, an evil, racist, and anti-Semitic organization that turns religious intolerance into a luxury brand. Given the nationalism present in the "canonical" Greek and Cypriot churches, and in the Moscow Patriarch, one shudders to think what xenophobic nightmares the abandonment of Church Slavonic or Koine Greek might create.

In our next installment, we will address the next item on the Modernist's agenda: eliminating the silent prayers.