1

LITURGICAL RENEWAL AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

Dedicated to the memory of Fr. Alexander Schmemann,

and to the monks of the New Skete,

pioneers in liturgical renewal in the Orthodox Church

The issue of Liturgical Renewal can be viewed from a liturgical, historical,

theological, ecclesiological, pastoral and missiological perspective. Without

neglecting all the above mentioned parameters, I have decided to concentrate

on the missiological dimension of it, focusing on the future of our Orthodox

witness. After all, we Orthodox believe that the Church does not exist for

herself but for the world, which means that without mission a Church is

simply not a Church. In addition, in the Orthodox Church Liturgy and

Mission are closely related, as the “Liturgy after the liturgy” clearly suggests .

Georges Florovsky in a historic statement to the world Christian

community1 has rightly claimed that Christianity is first of all a worshiping

community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second. The lex

orandi has a privileged priority in the life of the Christian Church. The lex

credendi depends on the devotional experience and vision of the Church, more

precisely on the authentic (i.e. liturgical) identity of the Church.2

It was this statement by Florovsky that made the issue of Liturgical

Renewal central to almost all missionary and pastoral concerns of the various

Orthodox Churches; almost but not quite, as one would naturally expect.

Later in my presentation I will explain the reason of the unwillingness of the

Orthodox Churches to undergo a brave and extensive liturgical renewal.

***

Liturgical Renewal, as an ecclesiastical desideratum is of course a relatively

new phenomenon in the Church’s life, mainly motivated by the stagnation

and the loss of the original meaning of the community’s liturgical communal

acts. Edward Farley, in his interesting and very relevant to our theme book

Deep Symbols, notes that "many of the problems of modern society are partly

due to the loss of "deep symbols”, i.e. those values with which each society

defines itself and fulfills its aspirations. These values define the faith, ethics

and action of community members, form the consciousness of individuals,

and maintain the cohesion of the society. In modern society these

1 Florovsky was addressing the 1952 “Faith and Order” Unit of the WCC in Lund. See next

note. 2 G.Florovsky, "The Elements of Liturgy", in G. Patelos (ed.), The Orthodox Church in the

Ecumenical Movement, Geneva WCC Press 1978, 172-182, p.172.

2

fundamental to the spiritual existence and the survival of humanity symbols

have been marginalized to such an extent that it is almost impossible to

reactivate them. For this reason modern people should either redefine these

symbols, or learn to live without them.”3 The Liturgical Renewal aims at

solving exactly this problem.

The connection between symbolic and actual reality is as old as the

history of our Church. It was indirectly proposed by one of the greatest

theologians of the past, St. Basil the Great. In his treatise On the Holy Spirit he

wrote: “Some of the beliefs and practices which are preserved in the Church –

whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined – are derived from written teaching;

others we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ (ἐν μυστηρίῳ) by the tradition

of the apostles.”4 With this explicit formulation St. Basil the Great perfectly

combined the sources of the Christian faith: Holy Scripture and Worship

(Λατρεία), apostolic tradition and the liturgical experience of the Christian

community, Gospel and Liturgy; in other words, Word and Mystery. The

first of these pairs led to the growth of theology and the Church’s devotion to

rational faith, and the second to the idea of communion. For the very word

λειτουργία (liturgy), is normally understood as the work of the entire people

(λεῑτον+ἔργον).

However, the problem of the relationship between Word and Mystery has

its roots in the beginning of modernity.5 In the academic community this

relationship was always examined in the framework of a Hegelian (in the

wider sense) analysis of history. According to this view, the history of

humanity is nothing but a battlefield for three conflicting conceptions of life

and reality in general: magic, religion, and science. Science testifies to the

progressive improvement of the human intellect, while the inferior

expressions – that is, magic and religion, which are primarily expressed

liturgically – fade away (according to Hegel and almost all modernist

philosophers, historians of religion and academics) before the superiority of

science. The famous anthropologist Georges Frazer, in his work The Golden

Bough,6 formulated the opinion that magico-religious and liturgical/

sacramental conceptions and ideas are nothing but erroneous theories, and

that cultic rituals constitute hopeless and desperate efforts to provide answers

3 Edward Farley, Deep Symbols. Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation, Valley Forge

1996, σελ. 3. 4 Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27:66 (PG 32, 188-9). 5 For the relationship between modernity and postmodernity, as well as between

Christianity and modernity, see my study Postmodernity and the Church. The Challenge to

Orthodoxy, Akritas Publications, Athens 2002 (in Greek). 6 The monumental work of James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and

Religion, was first published in 1922 (New York).

3

to natural and metaphysical phenomena. Frazer has even characterized

religious rituals as primitive science.7

These views became universally accepted in academia, until the end of the

last century, when Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his study entitled “Remarks on

Frazer’s Golden Bough,”8 completely reversed the modernist views on religion

and liturgy, restoring the importance of liturgy and the “expressive” dynamic

of all religious rites. The academic community’s perception that “religious

rites are the result of primitive or deficient convictions and beliefs” was thus

put into question, and it gradually became clear that the liturgy came out of

the need of a community not to explain, but to express something unique – in

Christianity to express vividly the experience of the Kingdom of God here

and now (albeit proleptically).9

***

Historically, however, the liturgical renewal was the result of three

developments in the areas of science and ecclesiastical life: (a) the

development of the science of "cultural anthropology"; (b) the catalytic effect

of the "liturgical movement" to all Christian denominations; and (c) the

emergence of a new discipline within the overall theological scholarship, that

of "Liturgical Theology", with a substantial Orthodox contribution.

1. Cultural anthropology, and the social sciences in general, were those that

brought the humanities upside down. It was not only the recognition beyond

any doubt of the close relationship between liturgy and culture (cult-culture);

not even the underlining of the liturgical expressions of all religious

communities not as secondary and marginal, but as primary and essential

element; it was mainly the axiomatic position that the common worship, the

common liturgy, in all societies, from the most primitive to the most recent

and modern, always determines their identity and esse.

One of the most imaginative insights of modern Cultural Anthropologists

is their conviction that liturgy, and ritual in general, is a form of

communication, a “performative” kind of speech, and instrumental in

7 For an interesting comparison of Frazer’s views versus those of Wittgenstein, see the recent

exchange between Wittgensteinians. Brian R. Clark, “Wittgenstein and Magic,” in R. L.

Addington - M. Addis (eds.), Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Religion, London 2001, p. 12 ff.

and D. Z. Phillips, “Wittgenstein, Wittgensteinianism, and Magic: A Philosophical

Tragedy?”, Religious Studies 39 2003, pp. 185-201, and also Clark’s response (“Response to

Phillips, Religious Studies 39 2003, pp. 203-209). 8 Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough,” Philosophical Occasions,

Cambridge 1992 (edited by James Klagge and Alfred Nordmann), pp. 115-155, and in the

monograph Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough, Doncaster 1979. 9 It is obvious that an expressive understanding of the mysteries, without rejecting their

logical structure, puts an emphasis on their doxological nature and ecclesiological (and

consequently relational) attributes, with special significance given to communion.

4

creating the essential categories of human thought.10 Liturgy communicates

the fundamental beliefs and values of a community, outlining in this way its

“world view” and “ethos”.11 The liturgy (cult) is not only related to culture,

and of course does not only transmit culture; it also “creates a reality which

would be nothing without it. The liturgy, therefore, is to society what the

words are to thought. We first know and experience something and then find

words for it. Therefore, it is impossible to have social relations without

symbolic liturgical acts,12 without a liturgical performance.

In this line of thought, the liturgy does not only externalize, but also

modify experience.13 This double orientation is expressed in the certain

general functions the liturgy has for a certain religious groups. Some of them

contribute to the expression, maintenance and transmission of the values and

feelings of a given social system; some others serve as guardians of these

values and feelings, protecting them from doubts and rejections, while others

contribute to the intensification of solidarity between the participants.14

Keeping in mind all these, i.e. on the one hand that the liturgy creates a

reality, a “world view” and the “ethos” of a community, and on the other the

above classification of liturgy according to its function, it may be proved very

fruitful to try to think of the Liturgical Renewal in terms of its deep and

profound meaning and function.

2. The Liturgical movement was the outcome of this axiomatic finding. It

began early last century within the Roman Catholic Church, being

characterized as one of the major theological movements of the last century.

Dom Lambert Beauduin in his famous manifesto, released in 1909, underlined

the following three main axes of the movement: the liturgical, the

ecclesiological, and the ecumenical: more correct liturgical services, more

authentic ecclesiology and more ecumenically oriented worship. Common

10 E.Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (transl. by J.W.Swain, New York: Free

Press, 1965, reprint), p. 22. 11 P.L.Berger and Th.Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of

Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1966). C.Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected

Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 126-141. 12 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London:

Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1966), p. 62. 13 Ibid, p. 64.

14 One of the proposed by the social sciences division of rituals is the following: (a) Rites of

passage, which help the participant to accomplish a status change. (b) Rites of deference, which

acknowledge the super ordination, the subordination and the friendship preserving thus

the existing social structure. (c) Rites of intensification, being held during periods of crisis, in

order to increase the solidarity of the group and decrease the tension that exists,

counterbalancing in this way the crisis (More in Gould and W. L. Kolb [eds.], Dictionary of

the Social Sciences, Unesco, Greek transl. in 3 vols., Athens, 1972, vol. 3, p. 967).

5

denominator of all these was the active participation of the entire community

in the common liturgical worship of the Church.

The issue of the necessity of a theological interpretation of the ages-old and

agrarian liturgical acts of our Church, as well as a thorough reform of them all

to meet the needs of the modern men and women, was revived after Vatican

II in the scholarly exchange between the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, and

B. Botte and W. J, Grisbrcoke originally published in St. Vladimir's Theological

Quarterly.15 Schmemann rejected any thought of a reform, insisting only on

the necessity of an interpretation of them, thus coming short to a radical

rediscovery and reinforcement of the authentic liturgical identity of our

Church’s witness. Despite this many important liturgical re-adjustments took

place in the Orthodox Church universal.16 The only place, however, within the

canonical Orthodox Church that a radical liturgical reform took place is the

monastic communities of the New Skete,17 to which this study is dedicated.

3. Finally, the liturgical theology is a theological discipline that essentially

stemmed, especially within the Roman Catholic theology, from the meeting of

Western theology with the authentic liturgical tradition of the East. As Fr.

Aidan Kanavagh has stated, the endemic crisis of Western culture is due to a

large extent in developing a perception of "cult" altogether different from that

of ancient “liturgy”. The liturgical theology looks not so much on the "how"

but on "what" the liturgical actions are all about. Its main objective is not to

make the liturgy an object of study - this is the work of a "theology of worship";

neither is it concerned with making the liturgy the source of the dogmatic

theology - this is the work of a "theology that derives from worship". Both in a

"theology of worship," and in the "theology (derived) from the worship”, the

liturgy is limited – sometimes even exclusively - to the liturgical expression of

faith, in other words it is exhausted in the liturgical ordo, i.e. only to the

structural component of the liturgical event of the community.18 This is why

15 St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 12 (1968) 170-74, and 13 (1969) 212-24). Cf. also Thomas

Fisch (ed.), Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann, Crestwood

New York, SVS Press 1990, 21 -41; and D. W. Fagerberg, What is Liturgical Theology? A Study

in Metlwdology, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990.

16 H. Wybrew, describes the gradual transformation of the Eucharistic practice in the

Orthodox world as follows: “The Eucharist from a simple public dinner became a ritual

practice; from the residential restriction it moved to a public splendor; from eating and

drinking it acquired the awe of the mysterious; from transparency and with everything

being heard by the people a sense of concealment and silence prevailed; from a Eucharist as

massive experience we moved to the Lord's Supper. Undoubtedly, Wybrew concluded,

substantial changes have been accomplished in the past century. It is indeed unlikely that

the Eucharistic practice will remain unchanged in the century and the millennium to come." 17 More in my Lex Orandi. Liturgical Theology and Liturgical Renewal, Indiktos Press, Athens

2005 (in Greek). 18 The Liturgical theology begins, of course, with the historical study of worship, but this

6

the “Liturgical theology” is useless if it is not accompanied by the “Liturgical

renewal”.

It is, therefore, obvious that without an ecclesiological understanding of the

Christian faith no Liturgical renewal can really exist. The latter is more

concerned with ecclesiology and less, I would say not at all, with the ritual.

After all “liturgy" in the original sense is completely dissociated from any

religious (cultic) and ceremonial (ritual) categories. As Christianity in its

original sense is the "end" of religion (the term in the biblical sense, cf. Rom

10.4), so the "Liturgy" is the end of worship in its conventional form, i.e. as a

mere ritual ceremony. The "liturgical theology" is the dominant theology of

the Church; it is a theologia prima, not a theologia secunda, as it was believed

previously in the scholastic theology. Pioneer in establishing the Liturgical

Theology as a primary theological discipline was the late Fr. Alexander

Schmemann, to whose memory this study is also dedicated with gratitude, on

the occasion of the thirtieth year from his death.19

***

In order to prove the importance of a liturgical renewal with radical

reforms to meet the demands of an authentic and effective Orthodox witness

to the world, we have to go back to the origins of the liturgical practice of the

people of God and explain what happened and the Christian liturgy from a

radical event of Christian witness became an end in itself, losing almost all its

dynamism.

The first Christians developed their liturgical behavior in accordance with

the idea of the covenant (or covenants), particularly through the commitment

of the people with God and with one another to the memory of the events of

the Exodus, when the Israelites experienced the liberating grace of God. The

liturgy, therefore, was originally understood as the obligation to worship

God, who had led them in particular historical circumstances to liberation,

salvation, justice and peace (šalôm). The liturgy, however, of the people of

God was also a constant reminder of a commitment to a moral and ethical life,

and an obligation for resistance against any oppression and exploitation of

their fellow men and women. In this sense, the worshiping community was

also a witnessing community.

When, however, the social and political conditions in Israel began to

change and a monarchical system was imposed upon God's people, a tragic

change in their concept of communion emerged, and consequently a complete

change in the meaning of their liturgy. The Law of God and the Covenant (or

successive Covenants: adamic, noachic, Sinai, etc.) have been replaced by the

law of the kingdom (and the Davidic covenant), and of course the federal

historical study is only the starting point, not its ultimate goal.

19 Cf. the special issue of SVTQ (53, no 2-3, 2009), dedicated also to his memory on the

occasion of the 25th anniversary of his death.

7

standing that manifested only with the worship of the one God was replaced

by the concept of the “nation”, the future of which was depended on political

alliances and social and religious syncretism, usually at the expense of the

“communion” with God, and never on trust in Him and the Law, expressed

in the traditional liturgy. The latter lost its communal character and was

gradually institutionalized.

With the construction of the Temple of Solomon the religious life of the

community turned into a cult incumbent with the necessary professional

priesthood and the necessary financial transactions. Jesus’ action against the

money changers is quite indicative of the new situation. His repeated appeal

to “mercy/ charity/ eleon instead of sacrifice is yet another reminder of the real

purpose of liturgy.

It has been convincingly argued that the Israel under the Monarchy slipped

into three dangerous situations that perverted the original meaning of liturgy:

(a) the greed of those in power led to financial exploitation of the weak; (b) a

hierarchical social order was imposed, which in turn led to the political

oppression of the weak for the sake of the emerging state; and (c), and most

importantly, the establishment of a formal and conventional worship, agreed

to serve the kingdom and its political allies.20 In chapter 8 of the First Book of

Samuel (LXX A Kingdoms) the conversation of Yahweh with Samuel is highly

instructive, underlining the implications of this radical change in the

relationship between God and his people, when they asked him to provide

them with a king.

All these were the consequence of the dominance of private property in

Israel, which, as it is well known, caused a strong protest and action by the

Prophets. Previously the governing principle was divine ownership of all the

material wealth, according to the Psalmist’s affirmation: “the Earth is the Lord’s

and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it” (Psalm 24:1). The focus, in

other words, with the imposition of economic injustice shifted from the justice

of God to the personal accumulation of wealth. Amos and Hosea in the

Northern Kingdom before its dissolution in 722 BC, and Isaiah, Micah,

Jeremiah, Habakkuk and Ezekiel in Judea, began to speak of the main

components of liturgy: i.e. Law and Justice, values that were lost because of

the new conception of ownership, which changed the traditional concept of

society and completely perverted the real purpose of liturgy.

For the Prophets of the Old Testament the abolition of justice and the

cancellation of the rights of the poor meant above all rejection of God Himself.

For example, Prophet Jeremiah insisted that knowing God was identical with

being fair towards the poor (Jer 22:16). Prophet Isaiah even carries further his

criticism against the introduction of individual property, when he spoke

about the greed and avarice as manifested by the accumulation of land: "Woe

20 See more in W. Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, Philadelphia 1978.

8

to those who add to their home and joins the field with the field, so that now there is

no other place for them to stay” (Is 5:8). The prophet himself does not hesitate to

characterize the greedy landlords "thieves" (1:23) and characterize the

confiscation of the land of indebted farmers grab at the expense of the poor.21

The liturgy as a social critique by the Prophets, combined with the call for a

return to the Law of Moses as an alternative conception of society, since the

faith and life of wandering in the wilderness was deeply rooted in a politics of

equality and an economy of the enough (cf. the story of the manna in Exodus,

ch. 16), needs to be constantly before our eyes when we examine the ultimate

goal of a liturgical renewal in our Orthodox Church.

***

In addition to the social prophetic dimension of liturgy, it is necessary to

also look at the teaching, life and work of Jesus of Nazareth, which of course

cannot be properly assessed without a reference to the eschatological

expectations of Judaism; the expectation of the coming of a Messiah in the

"last days" of history (the eschaton), who would establish his kingdom by

calling the dispersed and afflicted people of God into one place to become one

body united around him. The statement in the Gospel of John about the

Messiah's role is extremely important. There, the author interprets the words

of the Jewish High Priest by affirming that "he prophesied that Jesus should die...

not for the nation only but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered

abroad".22 An obvious reference to the Eucharist in this passage is inescapable.

Of course, not only in the 4th Gospel, but in all 4 Gospels Jesus identified

himself with this Messiah, as it is evident in the various Messianic titles he

chose for himself ("Son of man", "Son of God", etc., most of which had a

collective meaning, whence the Christology of "corporate personality"). The

same is true in the parables of the kingdom, which summarize his teaching,

proclaiming that his coming initiates the new world of the Kingdom of God;

in the Lord's Prayer, but also in his conscious acts (e.g. the selection of the

twelve, etc.). The missiological imperatives of the early Church and her

witness to the Good News in the liturgy, all point to bringing the Kingdom of

God "on earth as it is in heaven" (Mt. 6:10 par).23 One should never forget that

21 Is 3:14-15. See the detailed analysis of the problem by Ulrich Duchrow and Franz

Hinkelammert in their book entitled, Property for People, Not for Profit: Alternatives to the

Global Tyranny of Capital, London 2004; and above all in their most recent work, Transcending

Greedy Money. Interreligious Solidarity for Just Relations, Palgrave Macmilllan: New York 2012,

pp. 47ff. 22 Regarding this Messianic perception, see Is 66:18; Mt 25:32; Rom 12:16; Didache 9:4b; Marl. Polyc. 22:3b;

Clement of Rome, 1 Cor 12:6 etc.

23 See St. John Chrysostom's comment on the relevant petition of the Lord's Prayer: "(Christ)

did not say 'Your will be done' in me, or in us, but everywhere on earth, so that error may

be destroyed, and truth implanted, and all wickedness cast out, and virtue return, and no

difference in this respect be henceforth between heaven and earth" (PG 57 Col. 280).

9

the Apostles were commissioned to proclaim not a set of given religious

convictions, doctrines, moral commands etc., but the coming Kingdom, the

Good News of a new eschatological reality, the center of which was Christ,

understood as a “Universal Savor” (cf. later also the title “Pantocrator”) and

not as a religious leader in exclusive terms.

No doubt, this initial horizontal historical eschatology by the third century

AD began (under the intense ideological pressure of Christian Gnosticism and

especially Platonism) to gradually fall out of favor, or at best to coexist with

concepts promulgated by the Catechetical School of Alexandria. The type of

spirituality and Christian witness developed around these circles did not have

the eschaton (the Ω omega), as its point of reference, but the Creation (the A

alpha), humanity's primal state of blessedness in paradise before the Fall. And

this change has affected the authentic understanding of liturgy, with this new

direction, as Metropolitan John Zizioulas emphatically noted, being "not

merely a change (τροπή), but a complete reversal (ανατροπή)."24

The Church ceased to be an icon of the eschaton and became an icon of the

origin of beings, of Creation,25 resulting in a cosmological approach to the

Church, to its liturgy, and to its mission, instead of a historical one, as in the

Holy Scriptures. Naturally, therefore, the close connection between liturgy

and mission disappeared, together with interest in the institutional reality of

the Church, whose purpose is now characterized, at best, as a sanatorium of

souls.26 The Church’s mission – and the purpose of liturgy - is now directed

not in bringing about synergicly the Kingdom of God, but toward the salvation

of the souls of every individual Christian.27 Under this peculiar mysticism,

24 J. Zizioulas, Θέματα Εκκλησιολογίας, Thessaloniki, p. 28. 25 The Alexandrians, under the influence of the ancient Greek philosophy, particularly

Platonism, believed that the original condition of beings represents perfection and that all

subsequent history is a decline. The mystery of the incarnation contributes almost nothing

to this system of thought. On Origen’s soteriology and its minimal salvific significance of

the Christ’s human nature see A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Atlanta 1975; also

R. Taft, “The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and

Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm,” DOP 34-35 (1980-81) 45-75 p. 62, n. 79. 26 This is the view of the late J. Romanidis and his school (Metr. Ierotheos of Nafpaktos, and

the entire group of conservatives, the proponents of the notorious Orthodoxe Omologia

Pisteos [against ecumenism], who oppose any idea of a liturgical renewal). 27 According to W. Jardine Grisbrooke, «The Formative Period-Cathedral and Monastic

Offices», C. Jones-G. Wainwright-E. Yarnold-P. Bradshaw (eds.), The Study of Liturgy, New

York (19881, 19922), 403-420, monasticism as a lay movement in its initial stages was not

only a detachment from, and rejection of, the world; it also believed that priesthood was

incompatible with the monastic order (ibid., 404). It is not accidental that during the first

stage of the development of Christian monasticism the monks cut themselves off from

common worship to devote themselves to continuous private prayer. Of course the notion

of continuous prayer (αδιάλειπτος προσευχή) was not new (cf. 1 Thes 5:17); what was

new, was its interpretation. Whereas the early Christians considered that every act or

expression could be regarded as prayer, now in some monastic circles private prayer as

10

salvation was no longer connected to the coming Kingdom, to the anticipation

of a new eschatological community of justice and peace with a more authentic

structure. Now, salvation is identified with the soul's union with the Logos,

and therefore, with the catharsis, the purification from all that prohibits union

with the primal Logos, including all that is material, tangible (αισθητά),

historical.28

From the mid-Byzantine period onward29 the original understanding of

Eucharist, and the liturgy in general, as a springboard for mission, as the

mystery par excellence of the Church, as a feast of eschatological joy,30 as a

gathering «επί το αυτό» of the eschatological people of God,31 as an authentic

expression of fellowship among people, lost its fundamental ecclesial

dimension, and with it all its missionary significance and power.32 And with

such has in fact replaced everything else, most notably mission (cf. A. Schmemann,

Introduction to Liturgical Theology, p.160 (of the 1991 Greek translation). This defection from

the original spirituality of the early Church resulted in the creation of new forms and

concepts of worship, which we see especially in the formation of what later came to be

known as the "monastic typikon". Within this important spiritual movement worship no

longer takes its meaning from the eschatological perspective of the Eucharist, but is

designed instead to be used primarily as a tool to carve deeply within the mind of the

monastics the principle of continuous individual prayer. As Grisbrooke points out, this

“has nothing to do with corporate worship, but is rather a helpful expression of individual

private prayer practiced in common” (p. 405). 28 The μαράναθα (the Lord is near) of the Pauline communities, and the έρχου Κύριε (come

Lord) of the seer/prophet of the Apocalypse, are replaced by continuous prayer and the

struggle against the demons and the flesh. These two basic understandings of ecclesiology,

spirituality, liturgy and mission, remained as parallel forces, sometimes meeting together

and forming a creative unity, and some other times moving apart creating dilemmas and

conflicts. Where can one find personal wholeness and salvation? In the Eucharistic

gathering around the bishop, where one could overcome creatively all schizophrenic

dichotomies (spirit/matter, transcendence/ immanence, coming together/going forth etc.)

and social polarities? Or in the desert, the hermitage, the monastery, where presumably the

effort of catharsis and healing of passions through ascetic discipline of the individual is

more effective? This was, and remains, a critical dilemma in the life of the Orthodox

Church, affecting to a certain degree the issue of liturgical renewal. 29 One should not, of course, direct all criticism only against the Alexandrian mystagogical

school. The Antiochian school, the other great school of liturgical interpretation in the East,

has also contributed, though indirectly, to the abandonment of eschatology by turning its

attention only toward history, without any eschatological perspective, thus interpreting the

Divine Liturgy mainly as a depiction of the Lord's presence on earth. 30 A. Schmemann, The Eucharist. Sacrament of the Kingdom, 1988; also his The Great Lent.

Journey to Pascha, 1974. 31 N. Afanassieff, “The Church Which Presides in Love,” J. Meyendorff (ed.), The Primacy of

Peter. Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, SVS Press Crestwood 21992, 91-143, 11963,

57-110. Ibid, “La doctrine de la primauté à la lumière de l’ ecclesiologie”, Istina 4 (1957) 401-

420. Ibid., “Una Sancta”, Irenikon 36 (1963) 436-475. 32 Paradoxically the liturgical (corporate/historical/eschatological) spirituality was preserved

to some extent within the consciousness of the Orthodox. But this was predominantly

11

this our Orthodox Church’s witness as the Liturgy after the (conventional)

liturgy completely lost its profound meaning.

***

In addition to the loss of the eschatological character of the liturgy another

factor that led to a strong opposition to any idea of a liturgical renewal within

the Orthodox Church was a misconception of what an authentic (Orthodox)

liturgy is all about. There are two major understandings of Liturgy: according

to the first one, the liturgy is a private ceremony, in order to meet some

particular religious needs. On the one hand the need of the community to

exercise its power and supervision on the members, to judge them for

violations of norms and Laws, and to impose the appropriate punishment, in

order to preclude repetition of the violations in the future and to maintain the

authority of a given ethical code, and on the other the need of the individual

for personal decriminalization, expiation, justification and “sanctification”. I

have labeled this kind of Liturgy juridical. According to this understanding of

liturgy there is no need for a liturgical…renewal. All work automatically, and

any reform or re-adjustment may cause the collapse of the entire system!

According to the second understanding the liturgy functions as a means

for the up-building of the religious community, which is no longer viewed in

institutional terms or as a cultic organization, but as a communion (koinonia)

and as a way of living. I have labeled this second perspective communal.

The juridical understanding of liturgy presupposes a religious system,

which in terms of ecclesiology treats the Church as an institution with a rigid

hierarchical structure, and an authoritative code of ethical principles. This

entails a number of objectified obligations, which all the members within the

religious system have to fulfill. Consequently, all the liturgical acts

(Sacraments proper, sacramentalia, rites of various kinds etc.) are the necessary

means for the individual to acquire the divine grace and finally salvation by

means of personal expiation, justification and psychological relaxation.33

It is worth noting that the “juridical” understanding of liturgy encourages

and in effect promotes a sharp distinction between the various segments of

the religious society (clergy and laity, monastic and secular, spiritual gerontes,

starets etc and ordinary subordinates [ypotaktikoi], thus underlining the

dimensions of super- and sub-ordination), and in this way contributes to the

outside the actual life of worship, in the daily life of a largely enslaved Orthodoxy, in the

secular communities and guilds. The source of this unexpected and happy ending is that

the main core of the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy, in spite of all the exaggerated symbolism

and some unnecessary additions, remained untouched in its communal dimension

(eschatological, but vigorously historical and in many ways anti-pietistic) and continued to

reflect the understanding of the Eucharist primarily as a corporate act of mission that

embraces the entire society and the whole created world. 33 Moreover, God is no longer the loving Father who shows compassion to the sinful, but the

sadist father, as Sigmund Freud noted, who demands the indulgence of His justice.

12

maintenance of the social structure not only within the religious community

itself, but also by extension within the wider social life.34

And one final remark: the communal understanding of liturgy emerges at

the edges of structure, and from beneath structure, in inferiority.35 It

presupposes an anti-structural kind of ecclesiology. In a theological level this

means priority of communion over structure; yet in a practical level it does

not mean the abolition of every kind of structure in the community. As Victor

Turner insightfully remarked, there is a dialectic between structure and

communion (or communitas), for in an authentic liturgy “(wo)men are released

from structure into communitas, only to return to structure revitalized by their

experience of communitas”.36

***

In order that a renewal in Christian witness be achieved in our Orthodox

Church, it is necessary as a basic presupposition to turn our attention to

necessary steps in liturgical renewal, in order that our local eucharistic

communities regain their authentic “Orthodox” outlook.37 Only if these steps

gain wider acceptance within all our autocephali Churches, especially the

metropolitan “mother” Orthodox Churches, can one hope that the Orthodox

witness to a hungry and thirsty world can be both “Orthodox” and effective.

The most significant of these steps are:38

34 According to the “communal” understanding, the scope of Liturgy is not a restoration of

the faithful to virtue, nor to an individual psychological self-sufficiency. If we may speak

about Ethics in the Church, this Ethics aim to the realization of Truth rather than of virtue

(cf. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Thalassius, PG 90, 369A; also J.Zizioulas, Being as

Communion, pp.67ff). In such a process a liturgical renewal is not an option but a sine qua

non of the ecclesial community. 35 V.Turner, The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, New York: Cornell

University Press, 1969), p. 128. 36 Ibid, p. 129. 37 Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas in his article “Eucharist and Kingdom,” Synaxis

vol. 49, 51, 52 (1994) pp. 7-18, 83-101, 81-97 respectively, has convincingly shown “how

unacceptable is to undermine and overshadow in many ways the eschatological character

of the Eucharist both in academic theology and in our liturgical practice” (vol. 52 [1994] p. 95,

italics mine). 38 Most of what follows has already been applied with great success, as I indicated earlier in

this paper, in the liturgical life of the Orthodox monastic communities of the New Skete

(Cambridge, New York), the great motives for the foundation of which was their “deep and

passionate interest in liturgy and its intimate place in Christian life” (The Divine Liturgy,

New Skete 1987, p. xiii). Their uniqueness lies on the fact that they “have done a great deal

of experimentation...listened carefully to the scholars... (and struggled to) find ways and

means of liberating the treasures of Byzantine worship from the paralysis that has tried to

suffocate it over the last several centuries” (ibid., pp..xiiif). The brothers (and sisters) of the

New Skete are well aware that “the eastern churches...are not, generally, prepared to take

the necessary plunge into a long-needed liturgical renewal...there seems no way in which a

concerted, official movement toward liturgical renewal is about to happen. Individuals and

individual communities, therefore, would seem to be the ones to embark on this

13

a. The restoration of the catholic participation in the eschatological table of

the Kingdom; this means participation of the entire community to the holy

communion (not just frequent communion) with no juridical or legalistic

preconditions (such as worthiness, or strict preparation of the individual

faithful),39 i.e. without any subordination of the sacrament par excellence of the

Church (Eucharist) to other sacraments (repentance, priesthood etc.,40

certainly of lesser importance from the point of view of Orthodox theology).41

b. Return to the early Christian status of full and inclusive participation of

the entire people of God (special/ordained and general/lay priesthood, men

and women) to the actions, processions and singing in our liturgy

(λειτουργία=έργον+λαός=act of the people),42 and if possible rehabilitation of

the “Cathedral Office”.43

c. Step by step replacement of the normal choir, (at least of the solitary

church singer, the «ψάλτης»), by the entire laos (as the original and authentic

orthodox tradition, according to all liturgical rubrics demands), until all these

intermediary and by all means assisting factors of our liturgical life are done

away, or better become leading factors rather than substitutes of the

participating in the Eucharistic drama community.

d. Intensive care that the Eucharist, as well as all other connected to it

liturgical services (both those of the Divine Office, and the sacramental ones,

i.e. the Holy Mysteries), are celebrated in a form (symbolic, linguistic,

renewal...Historically, monasteries have enjoyed the prerogative of such renewal in

developing their own usages, and most frequently, their forms were adopted and adapted

by the church at large” (ibid., pp..xvff). 39 Only then will the Sacrament of Repentance and the traditional institution of fasting

acquire again the significant place they deserve in the spiritual life of the Church. 40 This is what is actually missing from X.S.Papacharalambous’ thorough yet strictly legalistic

treatment of the subject, as it is clearly indicated by the title of his (yet unfinished work),

“Conditions and Preconditions for Participating in the Divine Eucharist from an Orthodox

Perspective,” Scholarly Annual of the Theological School of the University of Athens 28 (1993), 29

(1994), 30 (1995), especially vol. 30 pp. 475-546 (to be continued). It is quite interesting how

the author is struggling to reach a balanced and compromised solution to the problem. This

is yet another example of the necessity of establishing criteria of what actually constitutes

an “orthodox viewpoint”. 41 P. Meyendorff in his article (“The Liturgical Path of Orthodoxy in America,” SVTQ 40

[1996] 43-64) vividly reports how successful the experiment has been in the Orthodox

Church in America (with the introduction of the general confession) during the last two

decades. 42 More and more local priests have realized the importance of this for a meaningful worship

and the revival of the Eucharistic communities. The most painful of all is the exclusion of

women (especially in the Greek speaking Churches) even from Church singing. 43 For the last attempt by St. Symeon of Thessaloniki in the 15th century cf. I. Fountoulis, The

Liturgical Work of Symeon of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 1966 (in Greek).

14

dramatic etc.) profitable to the grass root faithful and understood by the entire

community, the natural co-celebrants of the Holy Mysteries of the Church.44

e. Complete abolishment of all the secretly read by the presiding celebrant

common prayers, especially those of the anaphora to its entirety,45 as well as of

all other later developed liturgical acts, such as e.g. the restriction only to the

higher priestly orders of the kiss of love («αγαπήσωμεν αλλήλους, let us love

one another).

f. Return of the Orthodox Church Building technique (ναοδομία) to its

original form, by underlining all those elements which characterize both the

ancient basilicas with their missionary orientation (remember the tern Nave

from ναυς sailing toward the eschaton), and the pioneer and revolutionary

byzantine Church Building technique of Hagia Sophia, such as: (i) the

illumination of the space, in contrast to the later dim and dull technical style

(a result of later and not always theologically healthy, as we pointed out

above, influence), which instead of directing the community toward the light

and joy of the Kingdom, unconsciously contributes to a rather

individualization of the salvation event; (ii) the abolishment of all later (and

certainly of western influence) elements that transform the worshiping

peoples from active co-celebrants to passive attendants of the liturgical

actions.

g. Emphasis on all processional, liturgical and participatory elements of

our Orthodox Liturgy, starting with (i) the re-establishment of the ambo, and

transfer around it, i.e. outside the sanctuary, of all related parts of our

liturgical praxis, such as the “Sacrament of the Word” at the Divine Liturgy,

and the non-eucharistic services (vespers, matins etc.), according to our

ancient canonical order (which is fortunately preserved even today, but only

during the hierarchical services, in which the bishop «χοροστατεί» (stands by

the choir, by the ambo, i.e. by the community); (ii) the return of the Great

Entrance to its original form, i.e. with a symbolic participation of the entire

community at the transfer of the gifts of creation (represented by the deacons

alone, this intermediate order between the lay people and the priesthood

proper), so that the presiding celebrant simply receives and not himself

44 This is quite evident in those Churches which have just regained their freedom and still

use the old Slavonic, and which realize that the invaluable richness of the eastern

eucharistic tradition has minimal effect to the Orthodox communities and to the world at

large. This applies mutatis mutandis also to the Orthodox communities using the ancient

Greek. 45 It quite a promising sign that a traditional center of Orthodoxy, like Mount Athos, has been

responsible for a corrected edition of the text of the Divine Liturgy, which among other

important details has replaced the established erroneous indication that all eucharistic

prayers are to be read secretly (μυστικώς) with a neutral one “the priest prays = επεύχεται”

(Ιερατικόν, Monastery of Simonos Petras, 1990ff; cf. also I. Fountoulis, Divine Liturgies,

Thessaloniki 1985).

15

transfers the offerings of the community (cf. again the traditional order of the

Eucharistic celebration with a presiding bishop), and of course return of the

rite of the proskomide back to its original place, i.e. immediately before the

Great Entrance.

h. Abolishment of the later structure of the iconostasis, a development that

has had an unfortunate effect and has further intensified the existing barrier

between the clergy and the rest of the people of God. In my view, it would be

extremely beneficial for both pastoral and missionary purposes to return to

the architectural status immediately after the triumph of the icons, with the

only dividing elements between the sanctuary and the nave being high

columns (στήλοι, hence αναστήλωσις των εικόνων) and short θωράκια on

top of which small portable icons will be placed, in the place of the gigantic

ones. Finally,

i. Underlining of the exclusively eschatological character of the Sunday

Eucharist (as the mystery/sacrament of the Kingdom, and not as one religious

rite among others (Matins), and of the Eucharistic gathering as a glimpse and

manifestation of the eight day) by the return to the sabbaitic typikon, i.e.

attaching the Sunday matins to the Saturday evening’s Vespers.

All these absolutely necessary preliminary actions are only the first step of

a meaningful liturgical renewal. The ultimate purpose of it will always

remain the transformation of the world, the Liturgy after the liturgy.

***

The problem of overcoming or combating the evil in the world, in other

words the ultimate objective of our Church’s witness, is not primarily and

exclusively a moral issue; it is basically an ecclesiological one. The moral and

social responsibility of the Church, both as an organization and regarding her

individual members, is the logical consequence of our ecclesial self-

consciousness vividly expressed in our liturgy. The Orthodox liturgy, and

particularly its center and connecting bond, the Holy Eucharist, as the

reflection of God's Kingdom and the authentic "image" of the "truth" to be

revealed in the future, requires constant redefinition based on the authentic

Orthodox ecclesiology. Otherwise, it runs the risk of becoming a false idol of

the ultimate reality.

If the Orthodox liturgy does not faithfully represent the properties of the

Kingdom of God, in other words if the elements of the full and equal

participation of God's people are not apparent; if the Eucharistic gathering is

not a dynamic expression of unity, equality, justice, brother(sister)hood,

sacrifice, and above all true communion, a reflection of the perfect

communion that exist within the Holy Trinity; and if it does not prevent

phenomena of perishability, mortality, and division of the human, historical

and created reality; then we need to think seriously and ask ourselves with

courage what is the real problem of our failure, and who is to be blamed.

16

Secularism and worldliness in our Orthodox liturgy especially in the

Eucharist, the very place of the ontological (in terms of theology) and

universal (in terms of massive participation of the people) expression of the

Kingdom of God, can only be prevented by a courageous program of

liturgical renewal. If, instead, on the pretext of fidelity in the Orthodox

tradition (actually misusing the Tradition) the Eucharistic services remain as

they are – in some cases as sacramentalistic/magic ceremonies of an

“unreasonable worship” (μη λογική λατρεία) – then undoubtedly all the

aspects of the Church’s life (pastoral, social, monastic, missionary, scientific,

theological, etc.) will naturally crawling toward the antipode of the

eschatological status of the Church, namely secularism.