SCHMEMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY: TOWARDS AN AGENDA

FOR BYZANTINE CHRISTIAN PASTORAL LITURGY0

Peter Galadza

Let me begin by "shielding my flank": Notwithstanding the hint of acerbity in the title of my paper, nothing of the following is intended to detract from the genius of either Fagerberg's or Schmemann's thought. 1

Instead, it should be viewed as an attempt to enter into conversation with two outstanding liturgists in the hopes of analyzing how their formulations might be amplified or otherwise nuanced in order to facilitate a worship more in keeping with logike latreia (Rom. 12:1).

In his engaging and seminal volume, Theologia Prima: What is Li­turgical Theology?, David W. Fagerberg constructs a definition of li­turgical theology as the "stab at meaning" epiphanized by the concrete worship event.2 He then showcases the writings of Alexander Schme­mann, especially his book, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, as a privileged example of such a theology.3

After briefly outlining Fagerberg's construct, I will proceed to expose a number of important counter-examples in Schmemann's corpus, that is, examples of Schmemann's attempts at interpretation in which the meaning that he derives from a worship event is not in fact the meaning epiphanized by the event. In tandem, as a corollary to my exposure of this interpretive fissure, I will analyze several sections of Schmemann's works which demonstrate his appreciation for the way in which a given

• The abbreviations used in the notes are at the end of the article. 1 For an overview of Schmernann's life and work with a comprehensive bibliography of his writings see the special issue of St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 28, no. l (1984). Three studies focusing on his liturgical theology are Thomas Fisch, Schmemann 's Theological Contrib11lion lo the Liturgical Renewal of the Churches, which forms the introduction (pp. 1-10) to LT; J. van Rossum, Lepere Alexandre Schmemann et la theologie lit11rgiq11e, in C. Braga and A. Pistoia (eds.), Les mouvements liturgiques: Correlations entre pratiques er recherches, Conferences Saint-Serge, L° Semaine d'Etudes Liturgiques (BELS 129), Roma 2004, 227-38; and B. Morrill, Anamnesis as Dangerous Memory: Political and Liturgical Theology in Dialogue, Collegeville, MN, 2000. 2 TP, 80-81. 3 Ibid., 73-105; 189-217.

BBGG III s. 4 (2007), 7-32

8 PETER GAl.ADZA

rite is supposed to enflesh a particular theological meaning, and his refusal, nonetheless, to propose the liturgical modifications that would enable the rite to actually do so.

I will then delve into several conceptual flaws that under gird the fissures in Schmemann's interpretation of worship and at the same time indicate how, paradoxically enough, Schmemann himself frequently provides the insights for the "welding" of these fissures.

Before concluding, I will provide a list of examples of how Sclune­mann imbues a mistaken reading of liturgical history with incongruous meanings. This will help illustrate the importance of a co1Tect reading of liturgical histo1y for liturgical theology and liturgical refonn, for as those familiar with liturgical scholarship know, the past is frequently invoked with deleterious consequences when it has been misread.

In my conclusion, I will propose a basic agenda for Byzantine Christian pastoral liturgy. The agenda will derive from a synthesis of the analysis below and insights gleaned from other works.

F agerberg 's Maste1f11l Construction of "Liturgical Theology"

For decades the tenn "liturgical theology" has been in circulation, with several definitions ascribed thereto. In 1992, Fagerberg synthesized the insights of Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh and Robert Taft in What is Liturgical Theology? (his doctoral dissertation),4 in order to create a conceptual convention. As Fagerberg states succinctly in the second, substantially revised, edition of this book, published in 2004, this convention relies on two defining attributes: i) liturgical theology is theologia prima, "first order," pre-discursive theology, in other words a "stab at meaning" that precedes the analytical cogitation of second order (classical, academic) theology, and ii) liturgical theology "is found in the structure of the rite, in its lex orandi."5

Those familiar with Fagerberg's work and the intellectual tradition inspiring it, appreciate the genius of his synthesis. Armed, incidentally, with Fagerberg's insights, liturgical theologians easily cast off their status as systematic theology's poor (and "woefully pious") cousins. This is because Fagerberg's construct re-sources some of the better currents in post-modem theology which stress the holistic nature of knowledge and

4 Whal is Lillll'gical Theology? A S111dy i11 Methodology. Collegeville, MN, 1992. In this firs• edilion, Fagerberg discusses lhe works of olher liturgisls whose definitions, or approach to, liturgical lheology differ from the convenlion he proposes. s TP, ix and 41.

SCHMEMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 9

co11111111na/ enactments of meaning (though oddly enough, he nowhere explicitly references these post-modem resources).6 To put it most plainly, i) even the simplest of believers engaged in worship is theologizing because that very act of worship is an attempt to locate, define and entlesh meaning; and ii) that worship event in tum can be rigorously studied in order to understand some of the profoundest truths about God, humanity, and the cosmos.

Those familiar with Schmemann's writings will immediately un­derstand why Fagerberg privileges his thought. Twice within a space of less than 100 pages, Fagerberg quotes the following passage from the former's The Eucharist. "The first principle of liturgical theology is that, in explaining the liturgical tradition of the Church, one must proceed not from abstract, purely intellectual schemata cast randomly over the services, but from the services themselves - and this means, first of all, from their ordo. "7

Earlier in his book, Fagerberg quotes another of Schmemann's key (though hyperbolic) assertions: "Everything I have ever written is about theology, not liturgy - about the faith of the Church as expressed, communicated, and preserved by the liturgy.',g

Intetpretive Fissures in Schmemann 's Thought

Let us now tum to several liturgical services as interpreted by Schmemann to expose some of the interpretive fissures referred to above.

Christian Initiation

Schmemann's thought regarding Christian Initiation is an appropriate place to begin, if only because he himself wrote: "The proper celebration of Baptism is indeed the source and the starting point of all liturgical renewal and revival."9 Even though one might question the validity of the aforementioned assertion,10 the following are some of Schmemann's central ideas regarding Baptism and the theology it reveals.

6 See, for example, J. K. A. Smith, /n1rod11ci11g Rodical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Pos1-sec11lar Theology, Grand Rapids 2004, 233-39; and K. J. Vanhoozer, Tire Cambridge Compa11io11 10 Postmodern Theology, Cambridge 2003, 26-41. 7 ESK, 14. Cited in TP, 94 and 191. 8 Liturgical Theology, Theology of Li111rgy, and Liturgical Reform, in LT, 40. Ciced in TP, 74. 9 WS, 38. '0 Personally, I would prefer to see a renewed Liturgy of the Hours, the Church's "school for

prayer," become the starting poinl. Having relearned lhe "grammar" and ascelicism of corporate prayer, lhe communities' leaders would have a firmer foundation for renewal.

10 PETER OALADZA

The whole life of the Church is rooted in the New Life which shone forth from the grave on the first day of the new creation. It is this new life that is given in Baptism and is fulfilled in the Church. We began this introduction [of the book Of Water and the Spirit] with the mention of the initial liturgical connection between Pascha and Baptism. This whole srudy is indeed oothing else but an attempt to explain the meaning of this connection [between Pascha and Baptism] and to communicate, in as much as it is possible for our poor human words, the joy with which it fills our Christian life. 11

Later in the same book, Of Water and the Spirit, Schmemann asserts: "Whenever and wherever Baptism is celebrated, we find ourselves -spiritually, at least- on the eve of Pascha."12

Then, commenting on how the entrance of the newly baptized into the church constitutes a revelation of baptism's power to re-create humanity, he writes:

Early commentaries always present and explain this procession [of the newly baptized from the baptistery into the church] as an essential and integral part of the liturgy of initiation, as the final "epiphany" of its meaning. And this it remains even today, in spite of all transfonnations and developments, in spite also of the liturgical divorce between the administration of Baptism and the celebration of Pascha.13

And finally, stressing more explicitly this link between Christian initiation and the ecc/esia, Schmemann states: "Their [the baptizands'] first experience of the Church is not that of an abstraction or idea, but that of a real and concrete unity of persons who, because each one of them is united to Christ, are united to one another, constitute one family, one body, one fellowship."14

Anyone familiar with contemporary Byzantine liturgical practice will note that only a handful of parishes worldwide have even attempted to restore baptism to Pascha (and none of these, as far as I know, are part of the Church to which Schmemann belonged), 15 and only a few more have restored a regular communal celebration of baptism, for example, in conjunction with the Sunday Eucharist. Consequently, to speak of the "joy with which [the connection between Pascha and Baptism] fills our Christian life" and the way in which "the [actually non-existent] procession [of the newly baptized into the church] ... remains even today ... the final 'epiphany' of [the liturgy of Initiation's] meaning"

11 ws, 12. 12 Ibid., 38. n Ibid., 109. 14 Ibid., 118.

1 15 This was actually confinned after the oral presentation of this paper.

SCHMEMANN BETWEEN FAOERBERO ANO REALITY II

since the newly enlightened "concretely" enter "one family," smacks of blatant nominalism.

Ironically enough, Schmemann himself bemoans the elimination of Initiation from Pascha, 16 but he continues to i) write as if the two are still joined, and ii) refuses to suggest ways in which the two might be re­joined in actuality as opposed to notionally. In fact, Schmemann considers the possibility of such a restoration unfeasible and proposes instead that baptisms be celebrated on Saturday mornings (in the context of the Divine Liturgy) because, in his words, "by analogy with Easter, the best day ... is Saturday [sic]."11

Let us now systematically untangle this conceptual morass. To begin from the end, only someone who has reconciled himself to celebrating the ancient paschal vigil on Holy Saturday morning could ever suggest that celebrating baptism on (ordinary) Saturday mornings is somehow "analogous" to "Easter."

Secondly, if indeed initiation into Christ's body is to be "real" and "concrete," that is, a grafting of the newly baptized into a "fellowship" that is not merely an "abstraction" or an "idea," (to quote Schmemann) then, at a minimum, the Sunday assembly should be the locus of this celebration.

Finally, for the procession of the newly enlightened to be the epi­phanic moment that Schmemann insists it "remains," it would have to be restored as a movement of disclosure. However, considering that most Byzantine Christian communities are not about to embark on the construction of baptisteries from which baptizands could process, it would seem wiser to simply stop fantasizing about its significance and reconcile oneself to the fact that the present-day procession around the baptismal font remains semiotically a very serviceable expression of the celebrational joy appropriate to the post-baptism/chrismation section of Initiation. In one sense, the "epiphany" of the baptizands' bonding with the community is then transposed to their reception of the Eucharist, which is the ultimate telos of their procession into the church anyway.

As mentioned in my introduction, in other parts of his writings Sclunemann does express his discontent with several aspects of current Byzantine baptismal practice. 18 The following memorable quotation is illustrative:

1~ "Liturgy and Theology," in LT, 59. 17 ws. 169. 18 Ibid., 120.

12 Pl!TllR GALADZA

Why involve the parish, the congregation, the people of God in all this? Thus today it takes some fifteen minutes to perfom1 in a dark comer of the church, with one "psaltist" giving the responses, an act in which the Fathers saw and acclaimed the greatest solemnity of the Church ... a mystery for which the Church prepared herself by forty days of fasting and which constituted the very essence of her paschal joy. A decadent liturgy supported by a decadent theology and leading to a decadent piety: such is the sad situation in which we find ourselves today and which must be corrccted.19

Unfortunately, however, Schmemann himself rejects the implications of his own arguments. Let us begin with the "fifteen minutes." What does Schmemann propose instead? One hundred and fifteen minutes. In other words, instead of restoring the preparational character of Lent, Schmemann suggests that thirty minutes before "Blessed is the Kingdom," that is, before the folly communal part of his proposed Saturday morning Initiation rite, the family, sponsors and baptizand gather to undergo the preparation that took place, as he himself admits, "during the entire period of the catechumenate."20

I am at a loss to explain this nominalism, especially in view of Schmemann' s superb insights regarding the power of preparation and anticipation. In the same Of Water and the Spirit, for example, he writes: "We must realize first of all that preparation is a constant and essential aspect of the Church's worship as a whole .. . They [worshippers) experience no fulfillment because they ignore preparation .. . "2

t and "What preparation means, therefore, is a total act of the Church, the recapitulation by her of all that makes baptismal regeneration possible. "22

Anyone even superficially familiar with the history and structure of Byzantine Initiation rites, knows how easy it is to restore the prayer for the making of a catechumen to early Lent; the exorcisms to subsequent days or even Sundays of Lent; the renunciation/adhesion to Good Friday; and the actual baptism/chrismation/eucharist to Pascha.23 Such a graded, ritualized form of preparation enables even the lukewann to sense that the "way" (cf Acts 19:9) being embraced in Christian Initiation is indeed a journey, one requiring arduous efforts if one is to avoid descending

19 Ibid., 11. 20 Ibid., 169. 21 Ibid., 17. nlbid., 18. 23 For an outline of such a restored rite sec P. Galadza, J. Roll, J. M. Thompson (eds.), The Divi11e Liturgy: A11 Anthology f or Worship, Ottawa 2004, 666, 1145-46. For the history of Byzantine Initiation rites see M. Arranz, Les Sacreme11ts de l'a11cie11 Euchologe co11sta11ti· 11opolitai11 (3): 11•m• partie - Admission dans l'Eglise des enfa11ls des families clwetie1111es (pmmier catecJ111me11al), OCP 49 (1983), 284-302.

SCHMEMANN BElWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 13

along the wide path that, owing, inter alia, to minimalistic (existential) nominalism, "leads to perdition" (cf Matt. 7: 13).

In view of Schmemann's refusal to propose a restoration of Lent's pre-baptismal character, it is not surprising that in his classic Great Lent, he entirely omits reference to the baptismal themes of Lenten Saturdays, and devotes only several pages to the baptismal themes of the Lenten Sunday pericopes.24 And notwithstanding the latter, he nowhere suggests how those Lenten Sundays might regain their pre-baptismal character.

Incidentally, the present-day minimalization of Initiation practice helps explain a problem that Schmemann blames solely on the defi­ciencies of "modem theology."25 I have in mind Schmemann's under­standable frustration with the way in which the reality of dying and rising with Christ sometimes fades from theological and/or popular reflection on Initiation.26 But instead of presuming that it is thought alone which generates theology, Schmemann should have considered how squeezing what initially was long-term "conversion therapy"27 into a relatively brief service impacts on the theology thereof. For if, instead, candidates for baptism were required to undergo a process of ascetic effort, personal scrutiny, community service and regular study, it would be much easier for everyone to see that something is indeed dying while "making room" for a new way of life.

Of course, the fact that most baptisms involve infants, for whom "dying and rising" is more notional, requires additional interpretative nuancing. But in either case, the transformative paschal themes, whose neglect Schmemann so appropriately bemoans, hardly stand a chance of recovery as long as, in Schmemann's own words cited above, we continue to celebrate "a decadent liturgy."

Elsewhere in Of Water and the Spirit, Schmemann has written: "Even though it is probably impossible simply to reintegrate Baptism into Pascha, the paschal character of Baptism - the connection between Baptism and Pascha - remains the key not only to Baptism but to the totality of the Christian faith itsel("28

24 GL, 74-76. ll ws, 54. 26 Ibid., 54-66. 27 The term is A. Kavanagh's, The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian /11itiatio11. New York 1978, 128, 186. 28 WS, 37.

14 PETER GALADZA

As I have stated above, it is hardly "impossible" to "reintegrate Baptism into Pascha," but even if it were, how could one justify pro­longing their separation if indeed their connection "remains the key not only to Baptism but to the totality of the Christian faith itself'?

Jn view of Schmemann's reluctance to restore their connection, one must nuance Fagerberg's appreciation for Schmemann's stress on the meaning derived from the rite itself.29 Instead, Schmemann himself is partially guilty of "squeezing [the Church's liturgy] into [his] own a priori approach"30

- a fault that is all the more frnstrating in this case because his approach, that is, his theology, is frequently solid, even though he sometimes refuses to re-enflesh it in theologia prima.

The Eucharist: More Misalignments in Schmemann 's Mystagogy

Let us now turn to Schmemann's interpretation of the Divine Liturgy. Those familiar with The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom know the lengths to which Schmemann goes to cull a theology of offering out of the transfer of gifts and its accompanying formulae. Schmemann devotes page after page to correlating the Great Entrance to a putative "Sacrament of offering";31 describes the Cherubicon as a "hymn of offering";32 and even suggests that the oudeis axios (nemo dignus) prayer is really not a presbyteral prayer for the priest himself after all, but an oration whose real purpose is to identify "the priesthood of the Church with the priesthood of Christ, the one priest of the New Testament who through his own offering of himself sanctified the Church and granted her participation in his priesthood."33

My point, of course, is not to suggest that a theology of offering is an inappropriate emphasis for Eucharistic theology - quite the contrary. It is rather to indicate that for someone who allegedly was an exemplar of "a liturgical theology" understood as "first of all and above everything else the attempt to grasp the theology revealed in and through the liturgy itself,"34 the identification of an offertory with the transfer of gifts is odd indeed.

2~ TP, 213. 30 ws 16 31 ESK, I i2. Jl lbid., 113. 33 Ibid., 115. 34 "Introduction: Schmemann's Theological Contribution to the Liturgical Renewal of the Churches," in LT, 7.

SCHMEMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG AND REAUTY 15

One may object that Schrnemann did much of the writing for his book The Eucharist before the publication of Robert Taft's The Great Entrance.35 But two rejoinders are in order. First, Schmemann's book appeared nine years after Taft's, and second - and certainly more significantly - one did not have to know the history of the transfer of gifts in the Byzantine tradition to realize that as the texts and formulae stand, offering is really not what this transfer is about. In the Byzantine tradition, the theology of offering is more properly aligned with the prothesis rites before the communal part of the Liturgy, or with texts and rites rehearsed during the anaphora.

But Schmemann's faulty mystagogy is not only problematic because it is illogical. Far more important from the perspective of proper New Testament and patristic eucharistology is how this faulty mystagogy impacts on his approach to the kiss of peace. Because Schmemann has gone to such lengths to interpret the Great Entrance as an offering of gifts, when it comes time to reflect on the PA.X,36 he nowhere even hints at its scriptural inspiration, that is, Matthew 5:23-24. Naturally, he cannot adduce this text, because according to his mystagogy the offering has already taken place.

lnteralia, this may even be one of the reasons why in spite ofhis truly inspiring reflections on love and unity in his chapter devoted to the part of the Liturgy during which the clergy exchange the PAX, he nowhere actually argues for its restoration among the laity. The closest he comes to doing so is when he writes: "The kiss of peace, though now performed only among the clergy, is accompanied by the exclamation 'let us love one another' and thus relates to the entire gathering."37 How it "relates to the entire gathering" remains notional not only in Schmemann's exhortations but in most Byzantine Christian communities as well.

Another part of the Divine Liturgy for which Schmemann's mysta­gogy remains inadequate is the initial, so-called "entrance" rites. This is one more area where Fagerberg's criticism of other theologies might be applied to Schmemann's as well: "The Church's liturgy is thought to be the mere symbol of a reality that exists not in the actuality of the Church, but somewhere else, as something else. "38

35 R. F. Taft, The Great Entrance: A Hist01y of the Transfer of Gifts and other Pre-anaphora/ Riles of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (OCA 200), Rome 1975. 36 ESK, 133-40. l? Ibid., 17. ~8 TP, 91.

16 PETER GALADZA

What I have in mind is the following: whether anyone likes it or not (and Schmemann does not), as it stands today, the Byzantine Eucharist begins with a semiotic of descent and revelation: the sanctuary is frequently partially revealed, a deacon emerges to cense the nave and then lead it in prayer, and the gospel is eventually brought either into the midst of the assembly for its veneration by the faithful, 39 or at least onto the solea.

No one committed to theologizing from the actual rite, as opposed to "abstract, purely intellectual schemata" should be allowed to ignore this semiotic of descent and revelation. The first reason, of course, is that one thereby avoids ignoring reality. The second is that this semiotic is entirely acceptable - in fact, eminently inspiring. If Byzantine worship is, as is frequently noted by scholars, quintessentially an encounter with the heavenly Jerusalem descending from God in heaven, radiant with His glory (cf Rev. 21:10-1 I),40 then there is no reason not to embrace a mystagogy that stresses the katabatic dynamic of God's prevenient "embrace."41

The fact that for centuries in the past the Byzantine Eucharist began with a real entrance of the clergy and faithful into the church does not mean that one should be allowed to theo/ogize on the basis of this "archeology." Schmemann should have either insisted on the restoration of this practice or - and I would prefer the following - interpret what is actually happening. There are few things in liturgical theology more frustrating than being exhorted to experience the significance of something that is actually not happening especially when it need not be

39 This is a Galician, Volhynian, Bukovinian, and Transcarpathian practice that I strongly favour as it obviates the need to "explain" why the gospel is being carried in procession "back to where it came from." A study has yet to be done of the origins of this practice among the West Ukrainians. The most likely explanation is that it is a spontaneous expression of piety in a part of the world where the strictures of taxis were less stifling than in other parts of the "Byzantine commonwealth." This would be due lo Western Ukraine's location on the latter's periphery. Of course, the Annenians have the codified custom of presenting the gospel for veneration to at least one member of the congregation during its "entrance," and a prominent Annenian community existed in L viv for centuries. However, its influence on Byzantine-Slav practice has yet to be demonstrated. And then there is the fact that Jews, who dominated many of the towns of Western Ukraine, kiss the torah as it is carried in procession through the synagogue. But in this case, ii would probably be better to imagine a common anthropological root, rather than formalized borrowing or influence. 40 See R. Taft, Tire Spirit of Eastern Clrristia11 IJ!orslrip, in Id., Beyond East and West: Problems in liturgical Understanding, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., Rome 1997, 111-26. 41 For an excellent reflection on katabasis as related to liturgy, see M. Kunzler, The Lilllrgy of the Church, London-New York 2001, 1-74.

SCHMEMANN Bl:.-rWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 17

happening for the worship to be sound. But almost all twenty-two pages of the chapter "Sacrament of the Entrance" are devoted to precisely this kind of reflection.42

Before moving on, let us analyze one final detail of Schmema1U1's eucharistic thought. Throughout his corpus, Schmema1U1 frequently and appropriately criticizes the individualistic ethos regnant in many Eastern Christian worshipping communities. The following quotations are illustrative: "Liturgical piety has become thoroughly individualistic."43

" ... [T]he Eucharist has long since ceased to be perceived by the Orthodox themselves as communion and 'union with each other,' if not only because for simple believers but also in theological definitions it has become a particular, individual 'means of personal sanctification' .'"'4

Finally: "The experience of worship has long ago ceased to be that of a corporate liturgical act. It is an aggregation of individuals coming to church, attending worship to satisfy individually their individual religious needs.'"'5

Surprisingly then, not only does Schmemann - as we have seen - not argue for the restoration of the kiss of peace, he also polemicizes against congregational singing, and suggests that its promoters are in league with devotees of "relevance" who want to "remove the iconostasis" and "abolish everything that is not related to 'togetherness' .'"'6 Now while it is certainly true that some communities where congregational singing is the norm have ended up abolishing choirs - certainly a horrific mistake -it is also true that without congregational participation in more than the token Creed and "Our Father,'"'7 worship is bound to exude a certain "individualism."

And incidentally, in spite of Schmemann 's reference to the fact that "the diaconate has been converted into a certain 'decorative' appenda­ge,"48 he nowhere argues for the restoration of the practice of bringing communion from every Sunday eucharist to those absent due to illness, etc. There are few practices more conducive to the overcoming of an individualistic piety than the organizing of lay people to either

42 ESK, 49-63. 43 Ibid., 12. 44 lbid., 142. •S "Theology and Eucharist," in LT, 74. 46 "Liturgical Refonn: A Debate," in LT, 45. 47 One finds a fair number of churches where even these two texts are not sung by the congregation. 41 ESK, 108.

-~

18 PETER GALADZA

accompany the deacon during such "sick calls," or commissioning the laity themselves to undertake such sharing. (1 shall discuss this question at greater length below.)

Vespers

Before concluding this section, let me draw attention to what is certainly one of the more surprising examples of interpretive "discon­nect" in Schmemann's corpus. Even though Schmemann spent decades legitimately countering allegorical interpretations of divine services,49 in the very middle of his otherwise outstanding For the L{fe of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, we find just such an allegorical explanation of vespers. Schmemann applies the late Byzantine schema of "i) "creation," ii) "fall," iii) "incarnation," and iv) "encounter with Symeon" to the i) opening, ii) psalmody, iii) lucemarium and iv) Nunc dimittis of Byzantine evening prayer. 50 The theological pitfalls of such an approach were exposed decades ago, inter a/ii, by Schmemann himself: 51 any interpretation of worship which applies a pre-determined chronological schema to an ordo that was never intended to conform to that schema, and which constrains the worshipper to imagine a Christ "of the past" who, as it were, repeatedly and segmentedly "reveals" what no longer is, that is, His pre-glorification "biography" - is a deleterious interpretation. 52

For our purposes the important thing to note is that it is another case of theologizing on the basis of something that is not actually happening. This not only refers to those occasions when the order of vespers is as Schmemann describes it, but especially to those occasions when vespers begins i) without the solemn opening, ii) when the kathisma is not "lamentational" and when, for example, during Bright Week, iii) there is no Nunc dimittis.

Conceptual Flaws Undergirding Schmemann 's Interpretive Fissures

Among the greater ironies of Schmemann 's thought is the fact that someone so renowned for his stress on the need to see the liturgical act, the rite itself, as theological, reverts to a kind of philosophical idealism

49 See, for example, his criticisms of"illustrative symbolism." ESK, 30. so FLW: SO, 60-63. 51 Sclunemann points out how this approach "reduces ninety percent of our rites to the level of didactic dramatization." ESK, 31. 52 This, of course, is different from the liturgical year's semeron (hodie, SI. dnes '), unless one attempts to tum the entire year into an historicizing "illustration."

SCHMEMANN BETIVEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 19

the moment that liturgical refo1m is discussed. For some reason, Schmemann is unwilling to accept the obvious fact that it is not only thought that engenders action, but action that engenders thought as well. This, coupled with a kind of Platonic historiography, leads him to make the following (outrageous) statement: "In the tradition of the Church nothing has changed. What has changed is the perception of the eucharist, the perception of its very essence."53

Liturgical history is replete with examples of how the perception of a rite changed precisely because the rite itself underwent modification.54

And implying that the Byzantine tradition has not changed is obviously a mistake.

A similar flaw in logic is evident when Schmemann writes: "It is not reform, adjustment and modernization that are needed so much as a return to that vision and experience, that from the beginning consti-tuted the very life of the Church."55 Bracketing the question of "mo­dernization," it is nonetheless uncontestable that a "return to that vision and experience" are unattainable without "reforms and adjustments" that would (re-) enflesh that "vision and experience." "Experience," after all, can only be "concrete."

Elsewhere we read: "Our task, therefore, consists not so much in making various changes in our liturgical life, but rather in coming to realize the genuine nature of the eucharist."56 Again we must ask: is not the "genuine nature of the eucharist" dependent, at least to some extent, on implementing some of these "changes"?

This is not the place to engage in a psychoanalysis ofSchmemaru1, but I suspect that the conflicting roles of prominent churchman on the one hand, and prophetic scholar on the other, help explain Schmemann's "completion anxiety" in the area of liturgical renewal. Certainly his recently published Journals provide a sense of how often the coupling of these two roles proved burdensome.57

53 ESK, 9. 54 One immediately thinks of how in the West the theology of the "second sacrament" ("confinnation") changed as it was divorced from baptism. Analogously, only after com­munion had come to be denied to infants was a theology developed that stressed the im­portance of"reason" in the act of reception. SS ESK, 11. Sli Schmemann is quoting the words of Nicholas Afanasiev, but he endorses them whole­heartedly. ESK, 19. 51 A. Sclunemann, The Journals of Alexander Schmemann 1973-1983. Crestwood, NY, 2000, 264-65, 276, 317. A concrete example of how these two roles could clash is evident in

20 PETER GALAOZA

Faulty Readings of Liturgical Hist01y

The following section of the present study is not as central to my argument as the preceding - and succeeding sections. None of the areas discussed in this section are as significant as, for example, Schmemann's misinterpretation of the Great Entrance. I include it, nonetheless, for the sake of comprehensiveness, especially as Schmemann's authority is invoked in the cause of liturgical change. As stated in my introduction, liturgical history is frequently cited as a precedent for present-day refonn. And while history, of course, is not the only criterion for altering worship, some students of Schmemann, or of liturgy in general, will employ his faulty readings of liturgical history to propose changes of their own. Incidentally, those familiar with the literature in the field of liturgical history will observe that in some cases Schmemann uncritically transposed to the Byzantine Rite data that is relevant only to other Rites.

Regarding the Eucha1ist, Schmemann claims that for centuries the clergy remained on a bema in the middle of the church during the Liturgy of the Word.58 This was 1101 the case in the Byzantine Rite in spite of present-day Byzantine-Slav practice at hierarchical liturgies, where, in either case, the bishop enters the sanctuary before the readings.

Speaking of readings, Schmemann is far too cautious when he states: "We have every reason to think that in antiquity the reading of the holy scriptures [at the Divine Liturgy] included passages from the Old Testament."59 We know for a fact that an Old Testament reading was indeed proclaimed in Byzantine practice until at least the time of Ma­ximus the Confessor - though several decades later Patriarch Gennanus makes no reference to such a reading in his Historia ecclesiastica.60 In my conclusion I shall retum to the question of the Old Testament lection.

Turning to Baptism, Schmemann is only partially correct when he asserts that "in the earlier liturgical tradition the explanation of the rites of Initiation was not given before Baptism."61 In fact, both Chrysostom

Schmemann's approach to the consecration of the Eucharist. While consistently arguing throughout his corpus against the isolation of a particular "moment," he nonetheless reverts to just such an approach in his popular, catechetical work, A. Schmemann, liturgy and Life: Christian Developmelll through Liturgical Experience (Crestwood, NY, 1974), 59-60. ss ESK, 69-70. S

9 Ibid., 73. 60 See J. Mateos, La celebration de la parole daris la liturgie byzantine (OCA 191), Rome 1971, 130-33. 61 ws, 121.

SCHMIOMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 21

and Theodore of Mopsuestia62 do provide a mystagogy before the rites. Obviously, Schmemann extrapolated onto all Churches the practice of Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan, who did indeed wait until after Initiation. 63

Also, in Byzantium the final catechesis was given on Good Friday64 -

not Holy Saturday as Schmemann asserts65 - and the Old Testament

lections at the paschal vigil (between seven and fourteen, depending on the number ofbaptizands) were not heard by the illuminandi,66 who were in a separate edifice, the baptistery, during these readings.

Schmemann is wrong when he asserts that the procession of the newly baptized into the church at the paschal vigil and the procession of clergy and laity before present-day paschal matins were initially "but one and the same procession."67 Present-day paschal matins with its canon by John of Damascus reveals a history that is entirely independent of the primitive Constantinopolitan paschal vigil with its baptisms.68 As edifying - and even appropriate - as it might be today to have the newly baptized lead the "procession of the myrrh bearers," there is no historical precedent for doing so (though, granted, this hardly means that the practice cannot be introduced).

A final remark regarding Schmemann's misreading of Initiation rites is apropos even though it relates to his misinterpretation of the present rather than the past. Re~arding the prayers for the first day after the mother has given birth,6 Schmemann has the following to say about these orations with their focus on the mother's "sins and impurity." "One must be not only in error but, above all, small and petty to find 'offense' in these prayers, so full of divine love and concern for man. And rather than blindly following 'this world' in its cheap rebellions - in the name of empty 'rights,' meaningless 'dignity,' and futile 'happiness' - we

6? See E. Yamold, The Awe-fllspiring Riles of /11itiatio11: Baptismal Homilies of the Fourth Ce11t111y, Middlegreen UK 1971, 158-263. 63 Ibid., 68-153. 64 See M. Arranz, Les Sacrements de /'ancien E11chologe co1istanti11opo/itai11 (5): lll~""' partie - Preparation au Bapteme, (Concl11sio11), OCP 50 (1984). 372-88. 65 WS, 113 66 Ibid. 61 WS, llO. 68 See G. Bertonicre, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the G1·eekC/111rch (OCA 193), Rome 1972, 113-220. 69 The text can be found in Isabel Hapgood, ed. and trans., Ser.,ice Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church. 5•h ed., Englewood, NJ, 1975, 266-67.

22 PETER GALA OZA

ought to recover and to make ours again the Church's vision of life: the one revealed by her on the first day of each human life."70

What Schrnemann totally overlooks is that the prayers are said over the mother alone. Why her sinfulness and "impurity," without any reference to the father, should be the object of attention at this time is the legitimate reason that people pose the question of "respect" and "dignity." And so, while continuing, on the one hand, to pray with a revised version of these prayers for the mother's needs during post­partum, any petitions for forgiveness of sins, should, on the other hand, include the husband.

Turning to the question of the icon screen, Schmemann is so intent on stressing the liturgical and pastoral unity of Christ's body - head and members - that he asserts the following: "The iconostasis originated from a completely opposite purpose [from that of its present-day role]: not to separate but to unite."71 "From an ordo, a 'framework' or harmonic system of icons, which naturally required a standing support (Gr.: stasis), it was transformed into a wall adorned with icons - in other words, the opposite of its original function. At first, the icons demanded a wall form, but now the wall demands the icons.',n

Anyone even superficially familiar with the history of the iconostasis knows how fallacious this assertion is. The first templons emerged precisely because of a need to "separate" - to provide adequate room around the holy table for the clergy, and icons were not part of the structure.73 The rest is history, and I dare say a history that need not be interpreted as a buttressing of clericalism. (Regarding the latter, far more depends on the privileges accorded priests in daily life - I will refrain from enumerating them - than on how their role as representatives of Christ the head during worship services is symbolized.)

Finally, there is the oft-repeated (mis)interpretation of the initial exclamation "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son ... "74

While today it is certainly permissible to stress the eschatological dimension of this (relatively) distinctive opening text of the Eucharist, the fact remains that in Constantinople until the thirteenth century it was also the initial exclamation for the various Hours. The fact that it remains

10 ws, 138. 71 ESK 20 72 Ibid.'21.. 73 See C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453 (Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching 16), Toronto 1986, 6. 74 WS, 40-41.

SCHMEMANN BElWl>EN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 23

part of Byzantine Initiation and Marriage rites is not a function of their relation to the Eucharist - and their "more eschatological nature" - but a function of their being derived from Constantinople rather than Palestine, where other exclamations (such as "Blessed is our God ... ") were used to begin services.75

Principles Underlying an Agenda for Liturgical Renewal

Let me conclude by briefly sketching an agenda for liturgical rene­waI76 which, incidentally, means an agenda for theological and pastoral reflection as well. Hopefully, this will "faire le point" and provide a summary of "where we should be heading" and "what remains to be done."77

This agenda is grounded in much of what I have stated thus far. I think one will agree that it also conforms to Schmemann' s insistence that such an agenda "have a rationale, a consistent set of presuppositions and goals, and this rationale ... be found in the lex orandi and in the organic relationship to the lex credendi."18

Before presenting a list of areas requiring inunediate attention, let me summarize my "rationale" and "set of presuppositions and goals," which, I believe, are "organically related to the lex orandi."

1. The epiphanic, incamational, revelatory and transformative nature of Christian liturgy requires that it be what it purports to be. Christ enacted salvation not in spite of His concrete actions and words, but precisely in and through them. Thus, liturgy as the action of God in the

75 Note also Schmemann 's mistaken - though deeply entrenched - interprelation of the etymology of "prokeimenon." Only with the demise of the Old Testament lection could one arrive at the faulty explanation that it is the "psalm that precedes" the readings and "introduces us to the sacrament of the word." ESK, 72. Also, Schmemarui mistranslates the opening sentence of the initial presbyteral-diaconal dialogue of the Eucharist. It should not read "It is time to hegin the service to the Lord" (ESK, 217), but rather "lt is time for the Lord to act" (a direct quotation of Ps. 118: 126 [LXX] with its dative absolute). 16 Three superb recent studies of Byzantine liturgical reform and renewal are T. Pott, la ,.efo,.me lit1wgiq11e byzantine: Ewde du phenome11e de /'evolution no11-spo111a11ee de la lit11rgie byza111ine (BELS 104), Rome 2000; C. Braga and A. Pistoia, (eds.}, Les mo11veme11ts liturgiq11es: Correlatio11s entre pratiques et recherches (BELS 129), Rome 2004; and M. Mojzd, II movimelllo liturgico nelle chiese biza11ti11e: A.nalisi di a/cune tendenze di rijorma nel XX secolo (BELS 132), Rome 2005. 77 All of the plenary speakers for the SOL Congress were asked by the organizers to include reflection on these issues. 18 "Liturgical Reform: A Debate," in LT, 44.

24 PETER GALADZA

actions of people, must eschew all nominalism. The latter is simply another form of sacramental Gnosticism, with its evasion of the tangible.

2. Nominalism is discemable wherever a rite or text has been tho­roughly divorced from its original, salvific meaning. By "salvific mea­ning" I mean the core message of the gospel, which includes, inter alia, koinonia, diakonia, metanoia and eucharistia.

3. The origins of a more significant practice or text almost always indicate their relationship to the enfleshment of an aspect of the above­mentioned "core message."

4. The insights of systematic and biblical theology are central to fonning a theology of the liturgy and should complement liturgical theology as constructed by Fagerberg. The function of such a theology of the liturgy is, inter alia, to determine where and when liturgical practice has come to impede the communication of the "core message." Thus, liturgical theology inevitably requires such additional, second order, discourse, because first order discourse is, by definition, insufficiently analytical and thus unable to register where and how liturgical practice has strayed. 79 In fact, left to itself, such first order discourse can end up entrenching faulty practice, interpreting as "epiphanic" that which is actually "apocryphal." (The biblical allusions are intentional.)

5. To facilitate the process of enabling the rite to enflesh and com­municate more directly the realities of koinonia, diakonia, metanoia etc. Byzantine Christian liturgists must research not only the theology and history of liturgy, but also the human sciences in their relation to liturgy. Anthropology, ritual studies, semiotics, psychology, sociology, economic analysis, and communication theory - to mention only a few must be brought into comprehensive dialogue with Byzantine liturgiology because

a) the restoration of some of the practices listed below has been discussed among Eastern Christians for almost a century without ge­nerating any significant movement for renewal (which suggests that the "message" is clear while the "audience" has not been primed to hear it, or, to use more scriptural language that avoids overtones of "marketing analysis," the seed is in hand but the soil has not been readied for it reception), and

b) this dialogue with the human sciences conforms to the patristic mind. The Cappadocians, for example, became specialists in Greek

79 Even Fagerberg and Schmemann acknowledge this, the former in TP, 95, and the latter in "Theology and Liturgical Tradition," in LT, 20 and "Liturgy and Theology," in LT, 65.

SCHMEMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 25

rhetoric in order, inter alia, to facilitate a reception of the gospel among educated Hellenes. The lack of an appropriation of the human sciences80

is among the stumbling blocks to comprehensive liturgical analysis and renewal among Eastern Christians. And unless one accepts a deforming divorce between nature and grace,&1 one will have to admit that these disciplines also relate to the lex orandi and lex credendi, most basically because they relate to the vita ecc/esiae, which is where these leges are rooted to begin with.

6. However, and most impo11antly, no "liturgical renewal" will achieve its goal if it is not part of a comprehensive spiritual and ecclesial renewal. Stated most plainly, liturgical renewal is ultimately not about changing worship, but about changing people. Thus the truest test of a liturgical renewal's success will be its impact on evangelization, family life, vocations, social ministry, etc. - in sum the yielding of fiuits worthy of the kingdom. Consequently, where Schmemann was absolutely correct in his reservations about liturgical change was in his insistence that such reform will have little significance without "a reintegration of liturgy, theology and piety" [my emphasis].82 Nonetheless, as I have stressed elsewhere,83 liturgical renewal should not be delayed until such reintegration has occurred. (After all, the process is ultimately coterminous with the Christian life itself - an ongoing endeavor.) The restoration of certain patristic liturgical practices will, by their very nature, hasten this reintegration.

Agenda Items for a Liturgical Renewal: A Pre/iminmy List

The following minimal, or preliminary, list of liturgical changes is grouped under the headings koinonia, diakonia etc. adumbrated above. Of course, the changes usually relate to more than just one of the

w This lack derives in pal1 from the fact that in the West not a single university exists under Eastern Christian auspices. Thus, these human sciences have been "ceded" by the Orthodox to the non-011hodox (and frequently non-Christians) and consequently receded from Orthodox consciousness. The inability to establish such institutions is symptomatic of the problem discussed in point 6 above. 81 For a concise exposition of the traditional 011hodox opposition to such a divorce sec P. Evdokimov, De la Nature et de la Grace da11s la Theologie de /'Orie111, in 1054-1954 -L 'Eglise et /es Eglises: Netif siecles de douloureuse separalioir emre / 'Oriem et l 'Occidellt, vol. 2, Chevetogne 1955, 171-95. 82 "Liturgical Reform: A Debate," LT, 42. 83 P. Galadza, Restoring the Icon: Rejlecrio11s on the Reform of Byzantine Worship, Worship 65 (1991), 238-55.

26 PETER GALADZA

headings, but specifically how they are related should become apparent as I explain my thinking regarding each one of them.

Koinonia

Congregational Singing (without the Dissolution of Choirs)

The history of congregational participation in the sung responses of Byzantine worship has been outlined satisfactorily.84 But even before the publication of the study listed below, it was generally known that the widespread practice of having only a schola or choir sing the entire service is an innovation. And within the last one-hundred years, even Orthodox communities where the latter practice was firmly entrenched have begun discussing the need to increase congregational participation.85

Psychological and anthropological studies will no doubt illustrate the positive psychosomatic changes effected by popular participation in church singing. Similar studies can also be undertaken to analyze the causes of resistance to such participation, as well as effective ways to retain a schola or choir for various parts of the service, even after much of it has been restored to the entire congregation.

The Revival of the Kiss of Peace among the Laity

References to the PAX being exchanged by the laity continue to be found in Byzantine liturgical sources until the end of the first millen­nium. 86 It is a practice with a pedigree almost as venerable as the use of bread and wine! Resistance to its re-introduction deserves at least several studies applying, inter alia, the methods of ritual studies that analyze the "private meanings" ascribed to worship by its various practitioners, 87 as well as semiotic studies of the kiss of peace in modem communities. Such studies, not to mention psycho-anthropological ones, will also help explain why for many worshippers the PAX is perceived as an

84 For a very recent study see M. Mudri-Zubacz, Congregational Singing in the Rus' Liturgical Traditions: A11 Eva/11atio11 of !rs Histo1y, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 46 (2005), 347-414. ss A.r. Kpaeel.lKHii, C6J1111e11nb11I Co6op flpasoc1ra11uo1I PoccmicK01l l.(epK1111: /13 .Mamep11aJ101J omoena o 6ozoc11y:J1Ce111111, npono11eOH11~ecmBe 11 xpaJ.te [The sacred council of the Orthodox Russian Church: From materials of the section on divine services, preaching and the church building]. lioroCJJOBCKHe TJ>Ylll>I 34 ( l 998), 211-212. Mi See Taft, The Great Entrance (see note 35 above), 395. 87 See R. L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, Washington 1982, 4-5.

SC!iMEMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG /\NO REALITY 27

"intrusion" into a "heavenly ethos" a "fracturing" of its "transcendent aura."

The Restoration of Truly Communal Celebrations of Baptism - Including a Paschal Celebration

Again, the history and theology of communal celebrations of baptism, especially at Pascha, are incontestable, and some awareness of the practice has probably never entirely faded from the consciousness of Eastern Church leaders. Today, sociological studies demonstrating the positive effects of gradual and communal Initiation might convince some leaders to restore this practice. Certainly in preparation for such a revival catechists should be mandated to develop a Byzantine Christian version of the RCIA.88

Diakonia

Diaconal Practice that Integrates Ritual and Service

Ritual studies demonstrate that practices which have been ritualized stand the greatest chance of enduring over long periods of time. 89 When this insight is coupled with incontestable liturgical history that demonstrates how the deacon was presumed to bring communion from each celebration to those absent because of illness etc., it becomes obvious why this practice should be mandated in a revised diataxis (ustav) that would regulate such "sick calls" in the same way that it regulates who reads the gospel and where; when the incensations are performed etc. Where a greater number of such ministers is needed, or where, for whatever reason, the deacon is incapable of making such regular home or hospital visits, Tradition surely requires that appropriate means be found to see that this task is performed. One might, for example, bless ordained subdeacons to bring communion to the absent. Even the 1917-1918 Moscow Council discussed the renewal of a female diaconate - albeit without any liturgical role.90

81 An initial - though not very satisfactory - discussion of the topic is L. Kuberski, A Comparative Study of the New Rite of Christian Initiation and the Byzantine Ritual of Initiation, Diakonia 15 ( 1980), 271-88. 89 For a study of this (though with examples from Western worship) see E. Ramshaw, Ril11al and Pastoral Care, Philadelphia, PA 1987, 22-54. ·90 E. B. BeIDIKOBa and H. A. BelIJIKOBa, 06cy.>1eOeH11e eonpoca o ouaK0111111cax Ha no­MecmHrur Co6ope 1917-1918 [The discussion regarding the question of deaconesses at the Local Council of 1917-1918], Cerkovno-istori~eskij vestnik 8 (2001), 139-61.

28 PCTllR GALADZA

An analogy from cutTent Byzantine Christian practice is the fact that even in the absence of clergy, reader services are encouraged. If one were to apply the principle that Tradition requires ce11ain practices to be maintained even in the absence of the usual ministers, then one would find an appropriate way to see that the entire Body is remembered when the rest of the Body gathers on the Lord's Day. Again, sociological studies may facilitate an effective renewal of this practice.

The Renewal of the Artoclasia

There are probably few practices in Byzantine worship that exude a more pungent odor of nominalism than the lite blessing of wheat on the eves of feasts. A rite that originally included a benediction of "non­perishable" food for distribution to the poor - so that the entire Body might share in the approaching feast91

- has instead become an empty token ofa non-existent reality. Today, of course, bags of wheat would be of little use to the unemployed or those on social assistance: canned goods are the usual items distributed at food banks. The fact that Eastern Christian communities do not regularly collect and then bless such non­perishable foods for distribution, thereby adapting the artoclasia rite of the lite, is simply one more example of spiritual decline - not to mention lack of imagination.

The previous two examples are central to a broader aspect of authentic liturgical theology, that is, the need to overcome a cultic approach to worship. Schmemann wrote eloquently on this problem,92 and his insights derive from the most important and oldest Christian theology of worship - the New Testament. As is well known, the Epistle to the Hebrews and several Pauline texts emphasize that Christian worship is only authentic when it engages the totality of one's life.93 Thus /eitourgia (service) without service is a contradiction in terms. Restoring the social­ministerial dimension of worship must then become an urgent imperative - not dependent exclusively on the zeal of individual priests or lay people.

91 Unfortunately, at the present time I cannot locate the bibliographic reference containing this information (which I know I have seen in print), but anyone familiar with the rite will inunediately realize that such an interpretation is almost self-evident. '2 "Theology and Liturgical Tradition," in LT, 16-17, and "Theology and Eucharist," in LT,

73. 9

) For the most concise presentation and interpretation of these scriptural insights see R. Taft, The Liturgy ofrhe Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today, Collegeville, MN, 1986, 334-40.

SCHMEMANN BETWEEN FAGERBERG AND REALITY 29

Communicating the Economy of Salvation

The Consistent Reading of the Anaphora - including Basil's - Aloud

For decades Eastern Christian churchmen have been discussing the importance of proclaiming the anaphora aloud.94 Nonetheless, it has hardly become a widespread practice, and even where it has, not infre­quently one wonders whether it makes any difference. By this I mean that many priests now simply subject the faithful to the same kind of hurried reading that they previously performed silently. With the history and theology of the vocal anaphora well rehearsed, it is time for liturgists to begin "rehearsing" the insights of communications theory, which demonstrates, inter alia, that the overwhelming majority of what humans communicate at any given moment is done so non-verbally. Of course, in Western countries, there is the problem of so-called "time constraints," which incidentally, derives from an acceptance of the ontology of capitalism, with its stress on utility, efficiency and pleasure.95 Even clergy who do read the anaphora aloud feel that they must do it without inordinately prolonging what by Western standards is already a long service. The question of time and the duration of services requires at least several studies of its own. Here, however, it should be noted that a salvific word rarely "becomes flesh" when the flesh is agitated. In fact, at that point, the "word" that is actually proclaimed is "agitation."

The Restoration of an Old Testament Reading at the Divine Liturgy

In view of my remarks above about "time constraints," any insistence on the inclusion of more text at the Divine Liturgy will seem utopian. (How hierarchies decide to treat the "time question" is, again, something that must be discussed elsewhere.) Nonetheless, I am obliged to note that an inordinately large percentage - maybe even a majority - of modem­day Eastern Christians have become either overt or at least tacit Marcionites. The Old Testament has effectively ceased to be the Word of

94 ~ee, for example, P. N. Trempelas, L'azrdition de l'anaphore par le pezrple, in 1054-1954 · L 'Eglise er Jes Eglises, vol. 2, Chevetogne 1954, 216; and the discrete references in C. Braga and A. Pistoia (eds.), Les mouvements lilllrgiques: Correlations e11t1·e pratiques et recherches (BELS 129), Rome 2004, 15, 146, 197-204. For the history of this practice see R. Taft, Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited Sec1·etly or Aloud?: The Ancient Tradition and What Became of Ir, in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East: An International Symposium in Honor of the 40th A11niversa1y of St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, ed. R. R. Ervine, Crestwood, NY, 2006, 15-58. 95 See D.S. Long, Divine Economy: Theology and the Markel, London and New York 2000, 258-70.

30 PETER. GAl..ADZA

God for most Eastern Christians. And how can it be otherwise? They almost never hear it proclaimed. This is not an "academic" questions impacting only on the faithful ' s appreciation of Jesus' "Jewishness." Rather, the exclusion of that part of scripture which contains so many salvific pronouncements regarding the social order (bribes, institutional injustice, governmental corruption etc.) is simply degenerate.

It is also problematic from an ecumenical perspective. Communities remain united - or break apart - partially on the basis of the narratives they recount, or, conversely, suppress. While the average Protestant still has a sense of who Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were, many an Eastern Christian takes pride in not knowing who they were. This kind of "narrative schism" is all the more appalling in view of the Orthodox and Catholic insistence that the scriptures belong to [their] Church. Operatively, we Eastern Christians have "taken possession" of the Old Testament - only to bury it. And consoling ourselves with references to the use of the Old Testament at Vespers and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is begging the question. Not only are these services sometimes omitted - especially in the West - they are poorly attended even when they are celebrated.

For the Life of the Real World

Including Variable Petitions into the Augmented Litany, Ektene

The issue of regularly including variable petitions into the Augmented Litany relates to the theological question of which world Christ gave His life for. If the earliest practice of the Church was to improvise liturgical orations (on the basis, of course, of a traditional structure), presumably in order to enable the inclusion of varying concerns, then Eastern Christians depart from the principle underlying this practice when they pray for a world that apparently never changes. Granted, it is crucial that people be taught how "to mentally include" into the codified litanies the plethora of personal concerns with which they come to church. However, at least several petitions should always reflect the Church's concern for the world as it exists that Sunday. Schmemarm appropriately draws attention to the unique structure of the Augmented Litany, which provides for the insertion of just such variable petitions.96 But those with experience in this area know that usually either a) the "variable" petitions take on a fonnulaic quality, in which case they sometimes avoid showing concern

96 ESK, 84.

SCHMEMANN BIITWEEN FAGER.BER.GANO Rl!Al,..ITY 31

for a changing world, or b) they are so spontaneous that they fail to express the Church's solicitude in wording that is appropriate to her theology, not to mention good form.

At a time when chancery offices communicate weekly with parishes by e-mail or fax regarding a multitude of administrative questions, might it not be appropriate to have the same technology convey the text of several petitions on a weekly basis for ongoing concerns? The proposal will no doubt be branded "quaint" by liturgical purists and aesthetes. But for centuries certain "purists" also rejected the use of the codex (as opposed to scrolls) and others even refused to accept printed (as opposed to hand-copied) books.

Metanoia

Restoring the Ascetical

Finally, there is the question ofrepentance and its liturgical enactment -a concern that surprisingly almost never figures in discussions of liturgical renewal. Initially, and for centuries thereafter, the Byzantines experienced Lent as a time of (ritualized) hunger for Christ. Monday to Friday during the Great Fast involved abstention from one meal.97 But the hunger engendered by the practice had the potential to be experienced not as an absence, but a Presence, for the object of the hunger was the Eucharist, distributed daily at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Contrary to what is frequently heard, the authentic Byzantine Great Lent involves a more frequent participation in the Eucharist rather than less frequent. Whereas daily Chrysostom Liturgies (for the rest of the year) were not introduced at Hagia Sophia until 1044,98 a daily Presanctified Liturgy during Lent was celebrated there from at least the seventh century.99

Unlike a full Liturgy (Chrysostom or Basil), Presanctified does not bear the same emphasis on koinonia: the participation of a representative group of the faithful is not "required" in the same way for what is essentially a rite for the reception of the Eucharist. Consequently, even in the most "staff-deprived" parishes, it would seem that Byzantine-Rite

91 ln antiquity, people generally ate only two meals - a late breakfast and an evening meal -which is why to the present day the Horologion contains prayers for only two meals. See, for example, The Great Horologion, Brookline, MA, 1997, 165-66; 196-97. 99 See R. Taft, The Freque11cy of the Eucharist througho111 Histo1y, in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. 2"" ed., Rome 1997, 66. 99 See N. Bull, The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, in Handbook for Lilllrgical Strtdies, vol. 3, TheE11charisf, ed. Anscar J. Chupungco, New York 1999, 279.

32 PETER G,\LAOZA

clergy (with even only one person to read the responses) could lay the foundations for comprehensive ecc\esial renewal, were they to restore the daily celebration of Presanctified, with its requisite fasting, during Lent. This leads to my concluding point.

Conc/11sion

Nothing of what has been proposed above presumes the slightest diminution of the ascetical accents and "theocentric" ethos of Orthodox liturgy. Thus, communWes restoring the practices mentioned above while de-emphasizing liturgical fasang, the liturgy of the hours, and the commitment to beauty - all of them fortunately still fostered to a greater or lesser extent by Eastern Orthodoxy - will be buildin~ on sand. The task then is to regain a "patristic" lit11rgical "mind,"1 reviving the treasures of the past and joining them to the glories of the present, all in the hope of recovering that "experience of the Church which is the only source of a truly Orthodox worldview and of a tmly Christian life." 101

Abbreviations used in the notes

ESK = Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, Crestwood, NY, 1988.

FLW:SO = Idem., For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, Crestwood, NY, 1973.

GL =Idem., Great Lent, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974. LT= Thomas Fisch, ed., Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Ale­

xander Schmema1111, Crestwood, NY, 1990. TP =David W. Fagerberg, Theologia Prima: What is Liturgical Theology?, Chicago

and Mundelein, IL, 2004. WS = Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of

Baptism, Crestwood, NY, 1974.

Kule Family Professor of Liturgy Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada pgaladza@ustpaul.ca

100 Georges Florovsky emphasized the need to regain a patristic mind. G. Florovsky, Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church, in Aspects ofChrirch Histo1y, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 4, Belmont, MA, 1975, 17, 22. Regaining the spirit of patristic liturgical practice (without, of course, presuming that we can "go back in time"} is also important. IOI ws, 151.