CantorJFK,

I will speak from a pastoral view as I have no degree in Liturgical Studies. Many I am sure will disagree with me but I see it as valid developement. Evening Liturgies are here to stay for better or worse I think. If a parish has Saturday Evening Liturgies for Sundays how could a pastor justify not having a Vigil Liturgy for a Great Feast? In my own parish we absolutley have to have two Liturgies on Christmas and Pascha as both Litugies have every seat taken. On Christmas we have a Vigil Liturgy and one in the morning, on Pasha both are in the morning and Paschal Matins are done Sat evening. I would imagine the same is true for many other parishes as visiting family and returns of those who now go to Latin parishes generally swell the ranks on these two Feasts.

As to your question about the Orthodox, the Antiochians in the US have mandated Evening Vesperal Divine Liturgies for all the Great Feasts except, oddly enough, Christmas and allowed them for many Vigil rank saint's feasts. Now they have been truer to the Eastern ideal because this is the only Liturgy for the Feast, no second Liturgy in the morning. I believe some diocese in the OCA allow this as well.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

It is true for the Antiochians to have a Vesperal Divine Liturgy on the eve of a Great Feast (As a regular Divine Liturgy is prohibited for evening celebration alone, and must done according to the rubrics laid out for a Vesperal Divine Liturgy) as the only liturgical celebration for that occasion. The OCA does not have any such directives that has this type of Liturgy except for what is called for in the typicon. I just consulted with an OCA colleague who is rather liberal in his interpretation of the typicon, and he definitely stated that unless he wants big trouble from his hierarch, this is a matter that is not done.

I hope this clears this matter up, or else could you possibly supply the documentation that would prove me wrong.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Fr. Anthony,

Bishop Tikhon of the OCA Diocese of the West forbade these liturgies in his diocese which he acknowledged were tolerated by the Holy Synod.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/tikhon_evening_divine_liturgies.htm

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

I believe the prohibition now extends to the entire OCA, as has been reported by my colleague due to some priests taking the interpretation of the typicon into their own hands and not seeking the required blessing from the respective hierarch. I believe this could be verified by checking the parish listings of the official OCA website in which types of services and times they are conducted are listed. Recently there has been an enforcement of proper liturgical discipline which I believe is cutting back on these abuses without proper hierarchical guidance and blessing.

Thanks you for your post.

Dear Cantor JKF,

While at present I feel that Orthodox priests that take liberties with the typicon and do not secure the appropriate blessing to conduct a Vesperal Liturgy are abusing circumstances, I am in no way totally against the idea. From an Orthodox pastoral point of view, this may be an option that would have to be taken into serious consideration considering the demands of today's society and its intolerance towards having those employed take off for weekday liturgical celebrations.

Like any other change that would effect the Orthodox Church, the (jurisdiction's) Synod of Bishops would have to study this and issue guidelines for when this could and could not be done, and then reiterate the appropriate rubrics for such a celebration. You must remember that most clergy have not been trained liturgically in how to conduct a Vesperal Divine Liturgy except when specifically called for in the typicon at present. Such an adaptation would also require a formal catechisis in which both the clergy and laity would be formed and developed under this change before such a matter was implemented. Also it should be given as a local option instead of an across the board mandate as to take into consideration local pastoral sensitivities and concerns.

Again, this would be only my own opinion, but I am sure that I would find some of like mind among my priestly brethren regarding this matter. Until that time, it is a good suggestion, but without the proper episcopal study and guidelines, that is where it will have to stand at the moment.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Cantor JFK,

The prescription of the Typicon is probably there to enforce the one altar, one liturgy, once a day rule. The Typicon is a blending of the Vespers to Vespers day and Midnight to Midnight day. So for example Christmas, if on a Monday has no Vesperal Liturgy because the typicon forsees the Sunday Liturgy in the morning so no Evening Liturgy because that would be two Liturgies in one Midnight to Midnight day. Seeing as we no longer observe the prescription of not more than one Liturgy on one day, whether it is out of necessity or convenience, it would make little pastoral sense to enforce it on Christmas. I would vote that this is simply Liturgical development. Of course one would have to also agree that more than one Liturgy a day is a valid development as well. I look at it from the practical aspect. If we don't offer the Evening Liturgies people will go to the Latin Church for them even if given catechesis.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In fact, I believe this is the reason that Father David actually gives in his Typicon entry. Perhaps you might have asked him privately first, since he has invited questions on anything in the typicon volumes he prepares?

I saw Antiochean parishes celebrating Vesper-Liturgies on non-traditional days before I ever saw the same in the Byzantine Catholic Church; and here's a Greek Orthodox parish doing the same this year on the eve of the Nativity of our Lord:

http://www.annunciationri.org/newsletter.cfm

Sun AM Dec 24 - Sunday before Christmas / Martyr Eugenia – MORNING SERVICES AS USUAL

Sun PM Dec 24 - EVE OF THE NATIVITY – Vesper/Liturgy – 8-9:30PM (Followed by caroling)

Mon Dec 25 - Nativity of Christ (CHRISTMAS) – Orthros @ 8:15am / Liturgy @ 9:30am


But I think Father Deacon Lance has indicated one of the practical REASONS: in some places, many people expect a Divine Liturgy as part of the Christmas Eve services, and may not feel they have properly celebrated the feast otherwise.

By the way, I'm confused: in your first note, Cantor JKF, you said the Typicon prescribes Vespers without a Liturgy, and that the Liturgy of St. Basil is the problem; then just above you say that the Vespers is a problem. Could you explain further what you are proposing as a pastoral adaptation?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

You say that people will go to the Latin churches, even if given catechesis. Maybe so. But can we try to give catechesis first? Perhaps we should explain why there is the one altar--one liturgy rule, so that people understand it. And if they don't understand it, explain it again. Repeat as required.

Then again, to judge by our numbers, people have been going to the Latin churches for _every_ service, not just for Saturday evenings. Perhaps accomodation to the culture in these things is not the answer--it certainly hasn't worked so far.

One must bear in mind that the 70's, 80's and early 90's was a period of gross irregularity in the Orthodox Church on the North American continent. Liturgical abuses and irregularities were rampant. These are NOT examples to be emulated. Since that time, great effort has been made by most jurisdictions to restore proper lituirgical practice, as evidenced by recent actions taken by the respective jurisdictions. The Orthodox Churches are returning to a more centrist stance as opposed to the liberal embellishments that were so unsuccesful and led to the problems associated with that time period. That being said, one also has to bear in mind that liturgical development in the East is an organic process. We in the West are used to instant gratification, and view our world as such. The Church is timeless, and when change does occur, it occurs organically and of it's own accord, not by decree or referendum. God's time is not our time. These things may take hundreds of years. It is my belief that all, whether Orthodox or EC, should be on the same page regarding liturgics, each according to the ethnocentric qualities of their respective typiki. Would it not be wonderful for all Orthodox and catholics to be on the same calendar, with the same cycle of services and rubrics, with only regional and ethnic variations to add flavor to the stew? The current period in Orthodox history is one of healing and regrouping. Jurisdictions that have not spoken to each other in decades are now warmly embracing each other and seeking common ground in the name of the Faith. We have laid aside our differences, and now invite the EC's to examine our liturgical structure and to emulate them in their entirety, and therefore become Orthodox in communion with Rome.
I know concerns have been raised that unless liturgical irregularities are mantained, then people will go to the Latin Churches. My experience is that is not the case. It takes a little education. People are not dumb, and once it has been explained to them that previous practice has been incorrect and is a direct result of the imposed latinization of the EC, they will respond accordingly. A few may drift off, but if they do, they were never there in the first place. Again, if you offer them meat instead of marshmallow, they will come.

Alexandr

I think I heard that our parish will be having a vesperal liturgy on the 23rd for Sunday, no AM divine liturgy on Sunday, and then a PM Vespers + St. Basil. While not ideal, it still maintains the "one liturgy, one altar" rule.

CantorJFK,

I would suppose the idea is consistency. What harm is there in serving a Vesperal Liturgy on Christmas Eve when it is normally done except when Christmas is on Monday, and the reason for that is related to the one day, one liturgy principle which we do not hold to anymore?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

The point I would make is that we _ought_ to hold to the one day, one liturgy principle, since it is a symbol of the one God, one Church, one mystical Body of Christ. It's a remarkably fruitful rule for theological insight, when one learns it and reflects on it. I remember being stunned when I read Fr. Meyendorff's explanation of it (I can't remember which book), and I thought "That makes so much sense! One Christ, one Lord, one Baptism, one Liturgy!"

Why can't we recover that?

Pseudo-Athanasius,

As I stated above I think that principle has been given up by us and I feel for good because I think our bishops are afraid of losing people if they took away their Saturday night Liturgy. From my own vantage point, at least in my area, they are right. People would go to the Latin Church for Saturday night Liturgy if we discontinued it.

Alexandr states above he does not believe that is the case but from my experience he is wrong. I can go through the Mon Valley Latin parishes and find dozens of parishioners who are canonically Byzantine. On the otherhand the OCA/ROCOR parishes have few former Byzantines in comparison. In general when we lose people it is to the Latin Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

But Deacon Lance, if you lose them to the Latins, do you believe that you ever really had them in the first place? Or was it just a matter of convenience for them? If you follow yourline of reasoning, if the services were shortened to only 15 minutes and one only had to go to liturgy once a month, there are those who would be happy about that! What would you rather have, a vaporous large congregation, without a meaningful liturgical life, or a smaller, but vibrant parish, with a full liturgical cycle and parish life. Remember, many are called, but few are chosen. Don't compromise the faith for those who don't care. Because in the end, you will have nothing.

Alexandr

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

My parish doesn't have Saturday liturgies, and we are growing. Just a data point to consider. We hold to the one liturgy one altar rule, and it hasn't hurt us at all.

Nevertheless, may I ask this question: if we must adopt Latin practices to keep people from going to the Latin church, why should we bother? It seems to me that we need to build a better mousetrap and rise or fail with that. Better to fail being authentic, than to fail, _as we already are_, with the current model.

I submit that there is an inviolable rule of religious experience: be authentic, and people will come. I am not aware of a place where this has failed.

Dear CantorJFK,

I got your point: that's why I said the arrangement for our parish isn't ideal, but it's certainly better than two liturgies on Dec 24.

This does raise some questions which I'm not qualified to answer, namely, how much the typicon is prescriptive, and how much it is descriptive.

I'll rephrase it as a question for the liturgy scholars out there: "How much is the Typicon presriptive of what must happen, and how much is it descriptive of what ought to happen?"

What people should expect, is that the services be celebrated correctly, completely, and in fidelity to the tradition. And, they should be led in this by the bishops! It is their duty to instruct the people, and educate them about the wisdom and logical order of the Typikon.

There is no excuse for celebrating a second Divine Liturgy on Sunday night, even if it is the vigil of Christmas. They will have been to Church in the morning, and celebrated Liturgy already! It is enough to celebrate Vespers or Compline on its own in the evening. With Litije, and with Carols, it is plenty of Church.

The idea that people "expect" to attend two Divine Liturgies on a single day, strikes me as odd. How many people "expect" that?

Nick

Which Typicon do Carpatho-Rusyns traditionally use? Where can I get a copy?

If Roman Catholics all decide to jump over the cliff, should Byzantine Catholics decide also to jump over the cliff, just to "prove" we're really Catholic, just as good as Roman Catholics?

So why does every celebration have to be a "Mass"? Why cater for those who feel if they haven't been to a "Mass" they haven't been to Church?

I would like to make a sincere suggestion! Why don't we study the Byzantine tradition, and decide to live it as fully and as faithfully as we can? Why don't we try to be real Byzantines, before we decide it has to be abandoned because it is too difficult, or too demanding, or too old fashioned, or too anything?

Nick

"So why does every celebration have to be a "Mass"? Why cater for those who feel if they haven't been to a "Mass" they haven't been to Church?

I would like to make a sincere suggestion! Why don't we study the Byzantine tradition, and decide to live it as fully and as faithfully as we can? Why don't we try to be real Byzantines, before we decide it has to be abandoned because it is too difficult, or too demanding, or too old fashioned, or too anything?

Nick"

Please don't criticize the people or revile them for believing and thinking the way that they do. Greek Catholics were taught from above for decades and decades that 'mass' was what mattered and nothing else. Quite honestly, only people in their eighties in my parish remember the regular celebration of Saturday evening vespers and that was in the 30's and early 40's. It's going to take a long time to re-educate parishioners about this. Go easy please.

John K

What about in instances of mission churches? Should they only get Vespers and never get Liturgy because the priest attends to them after sunset?

Nicholas has hit the nail on the head! This is precisely the point I don't understand. Are you Byzantine Catholic or Latin Catholic? Why are some trying to emulate the Latins? In one breath you are decrying the Latinization of the BCC, then in the next you are looking to kowtow to the Roman Church. Your rite is eastern, your Church is eastern, your theology is eastern. My advice is to forget about the Romans. Look to the East from whence thou comest. What spiritual treasures is the west offering you? Halloween masses? Liturgical dance? You have a valid rite and theology and Tradition, in my opinion much more beautiful and spiritual than that of the west. Be proud of what you are and what you have been given from your ancestors. Rejoice in your easterness, and put nothing in the west but your shadow. Remember, Christ will come on that glorious day from the East, not the west. Do what is right and don't give a moments thought as to what the Latins will think of it. I don't see Fr Fred Bailey or Bishop Brown worrying about what the Byzantine Catholics think. Why should you worry about roman perceptions? I think the biggest problem that the BCC faces is one of horrible self esteem!

My 2 cents

Alexandr

This is an important discussion for our Church and I'm glad for it.

I will first join Cantor JKF in thanking Father David Petras for his ongoing effort in providing us with a Typicon each year. The Typicon is very useful and I recommend it to everyone.

There are two separate discussions here. One is about the specifics of the Christmas liturgical celebrations this year. The other is about whether we (as Church) are going to acknowledge the official books of our Church as our standard or whether we really are going to make changes that are not enacted in conjunction the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

The Typicon on Christmas

Let me start with the specifics of the rubrics for Christmas.

The most scary post in this thread is the one by Pseudo-Athanasius, in which he said he thought that his parish was changing the worship schedule and would be having a Saturday evening Vespers and Divine Liturgy (Chrysostom) and a Sunday evening Vespers and Divine Liturgy (Basil) but no Sunday morning Divine Liturgy. I hope he is mistaken. It is horrifying that a parish with a resident priest would voluntarily not have a Sunday morning Divine Liturgy. When a parish does this they are also teaching their faithful that worship is something that can be rescheduled and changed to accommodate the more important things in the lives of their parishioners. That does not bode well for the future of the parish. We must always strive to form our people that the Sunday morning Divine Liturgy should be the focus of their whole week. The ancient adage applies: the lower you set the bar the less likely people are to hit it. Set it too low and they won’t even bother to try.

I know that some of this is a restatement of the Typicon directives but here goes (I'm leaving out the Royal Hours):

When Christmas falls on a Tuesday through Saturday the order is as follows:

-Vespers with the Divine liturgy of St. Basil (the Petras Typicon does not give a time from the Ruthenian editions but the St. John of Kronstadt Press edition prescribes this at the Seventh Hour / 1 PM for the Russian recension).
-Great Compline
-Matins (Great Compline and Matins are typically served together by Ruthenians)
-Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Christmas morning)

When Christmas falls on a Sunday or Monday the order is as follows:

-Vespers (there is no time given when Vespers is served without DL)
-Great Compline
-Matins (Great Compline and Matins are typically served together by Ruthenians)
-Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great(Christmas morning)

It seems to me that this order makes perfect sense. There should be only one Divine Liturgy each day (and this really does builds up the parish). To summarize, the major difference is that when Christmas falls on a Sunday or Monday the Vespers and Basil Divine Liturgy are not celebrated together on the eve, and the Basil Divine Liturgy replaces the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy on the feast of Christmas itself.

I can understand the perplexity in the Passaic Eparchy (and maybe elsewhere) since it appears that the directives from the chancery didn't just allow the Vespers and Basil Divine Liturgy as a pastoral concession but actually recommended it as a replacement of the legitimate rubrics for the Church.


Questions that need answers

At this point, before we do any theorizing we need to first do the history. At present I don't think we really know the entire history of the development of these services.

-Why was there a double Eucharist for the feasts of Pascha, Theophany and Christmas? Is it merely because of the eves of Theophany and Pascha were busy receiving converts who then joined the entire Church for another Eucharistic Liturgy that was focused on the feast and not on the converts? Until this is known definitively I do not think we can make any official changes. We certainly should not make changes apart from the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

-What is the role of the fasting? We know that the Holy Supper was an agape feast AFTER partaking the Eucharist at the Vespers and Divine Liturgy of St. Basil on Christmas Eve. It was still a strict fast because on would again receive the Eucharist on Christmas Day at the Divine Liturgy (possible evidence that this Vigil Liturgy was – at least by later generations – not to be the "First Mass of Christmas" as is the custom among the Latins). (Or does this lead us back to the question of Double Eucharist?)

The Petras Typicon suggests that the original reason for this special form of Vespers is so that two Divine Liturgies may be served on the same day. I'd like to see some references to support and explain this comment.


Pastoral Applications

I'll assume that the goal here is to eventually bring parishes back to the Ruthenian standard given in the Typicon (full and not revised).

We are certainly dealing with people who have been (and are still being taught) that unless a Divine Service includes Eucharist (that is, it is a Divine Liturgy) then it is not worth having. The response to this is good catechesis, not implementing Vespers and Divine Liturgies on Saturday evenings and the eves of holy days. [We seem to be marrying everything to the Divine Liturgy – even the Holy Anointing of Great and Holy Wednesday. This is a very Latin approach to the Liturgy and Sacraments.] When we do that we only reinforce incorrect attitudes towards our Divine Services.

Very few of our parishes have a real need for two Divine Liturgies for Sundays and feast days. We know that when there are two Divine Liturgies for Sundays and feast days (one anticipated the evening before and on the feast day itself) that the result is almost always the equivalent of two separate parishes existing in the same building. I've known a few parishes that discontinued their Saturday evening Divine Liturgy and where, after a few weeks, had the numbers of participants at the now even more robust Sunday Divine Liturgy become noticeably more than the combined numbers previously participating in the original separate Saturday and Sunday Divine Liturgies. [The larger crowd on Sunday leads to a more vibrant celebration (better singing) and this more vibrant celebration attracts more people.]

But how do we get there from where our parishes are at?

I'd say first that Christmas is not really the time to start. We need to start with a good catechesis about Liturgy that covers all of the Divine Services. Then, in those parishes that really cannot support two Divine Liturgies for Sundays and feast days we need to cancel the Divine Liturgy on Saturday and replace it with Great Vespers. This is certainly a huge task in those parishes that currently only celebrate Vespers on Holy and Great Friday! But I have seen it done successfully. [It would be much easier if our Church would openly teach that if you cannot participate in the Sunday Divine Liturgy for just cause then you ought to at least go to Great Vespers or Matins.]

For Christmas I'd say that I would definitely not want to see the schedule that Pseudo-Athanasius suggests is going to happen in the parish he attends. Canceling a Sunday morning Divine Liturgy should never happen. I would much rather see two Divine Liturgies in one day then no Sunday morning or feast day morning Divine Liturgy!

For a parish that feels it must have an evening Divine Liturgy for the feast of Christmas and then another one Christmas morning (this year, when Christmas falls on Monday) I’d rather see:

-Great Vespers on Saturday evening (regular schedule, if done normally)
-Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning (regular schedule)

-Great Vespers or (better) Great Compline (complete with a full dismissal) (Great Compline and Matins are typically served together by Ruthenians)
-Christmas Carols (even if just a few to show that the services are not being combined, which is rather against the directives of the Typicon).
-Divine Liturgy of St. Basil
-Divine Liturgy again on Christmas morning

Some education that the Holy Supper is really an agape feast after receiving Eucharist and in preparation for Eucharist again the next day.

BUT, since most parishes cannot justify two Divine Liturgies for the feast I'd much rather they follow the Typicon:

-Great Vespers on Saturday evening (regular schedule, if done normally)
-Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning (regular schedule)

Christmas Eve
-Great Vespers or Great Compline followed by Christmas Carols (a candlelit service) (Great Compline and Matins are typically served together by Ruthenians)

Christmas Morning
-Divine Liturgy

Given that many of our parishes still celebrate Compline (from the green Levkulic book), carols and then "Midnight Divine Liturgy" this seems pastorally prudent.

In future years it would be good to add Matins.

Once we have a very good understanding of the historical development of the rubrics for Christmas (the questions I asked above where only two of possibly many) we might be in a better position to see practical applications for small parishes. It seems to me, however, that the more we know about the development of the Liturgy the clearer it is that our official liturgical books and Typicon are what we should be doing.

To answer Cantor JKF's original questions (finally!) I'd say that this is not genuine modern liturgical development but rather a pastoral concession, one that should be temporary in nature. I’d also say that our Orthodox brethren are not doing the same thing. Most of the Carpatho-Russian parishes I know of still do either Compline & Midnight Divine Liturgy or Compline (in the evening) and Divine Liturgy (on Christmas morning) for this situation. The parishes of the Johnstown Diocese also have a bit of restoration to do. I do not think we should be inventing new combinations of services that are not already in our Typicon. I won't quote again the Liturgical Instruction that teaches us to restore BEFORE making changes. Change is not part of the restoration.

John

PS: I just had a PM from a cantor who desperately needs the words to "Jingle Bells" in Church Slavonic because his pastor insists he sing it in Slavonic at Christmas. Does anyone have the words they can post (Latin alphabet will do).

That is a very good question! Why can the priest only go in the evening? Is it because he is in another Church in the morning, celebrating the Divine Liturgy?

If that is the case, then he has already celebrated the Divine Liturgy, and the canon law states that he may celebrate only once. But he can celebrate a Vespers service in the evening, or a Matins service in the morning. Let him pray those services in the Mission. Of if the 'Mother Church' really wants to support the mission, let the 'Mother parish' offer to have only Matins once a month, and send their priest once a month to offer the Divine Liturgy in the mission.

If there is no priest for the mission, then the mission has no priest. It must pray for one, and try to find one.

Asking another priest from another Church to celebrate a second Divine Liturgy is not good for the priest, not good for the mission, and not good for the Church. It is illegal for a reason.

Again, rather than saying the tradition doesn't apply and so the tradition must be scrapped, why not live the tradition?

I think if we choose to live the tradition, we will find we will have plenty of priests and plenty of vocations.

When we choose to abandon the tradition, ignore the laws, revise and reject the wisdom of our fathers, then is it any surprise we have no priests and no vocations? The way of latinization has proven a failure, and is the principle cause of the problem we're in. Yet, there are those who suggest we continue on a policy that is a proven failure!

Adding more latinizations, and excusing ourselves more and more from our eastern tradition, will not help.

If our parishes embrace the tradition, God will send the priests we need. If we don't, then we don't deserve them, and God will teach us that lesson too!

Nick

I hate to disagree with the Administrator, and while I agree with the Administrator's point, it is not strong enough. It is not a question of 'should'. There musn't be a second Divine Liturgy.

It is against the law, and against the Typikon, and against the theology of the Eastern Churches for there to be a second Divine Liturgy. It makes a mockery of eastern Eucharistic theology. It is wrong, and illegal, ...and illegal for a good reason.

The priest should refuse to celebrate twice, the people should refuse to attend a priest's second Divine Liturgy, and the bishops should enforce the laws of the Church. These rules are there for a reason.

Ignoring the rules of the Church is the root of so many problems, all of our own making, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I'm not just talking about the Liturgy here!

But it is true about the Liturgy as much as everything else. If we think we know better than the law, better than the canons, better than the fathers, and better than the Tradition.... our arrogance will seal our fate.

Nick

Dear Cantor JFK,

I apologize for my diversion about two Liturgies. Clearly that is only the answer to why it would not be suitable to have a Vesperal Liturgy of Saint Basil on Sunday evening. (This year, Christmas falling on Monday).

But the more general question is a good one, and I am sorry if I distracted attention.

Is the pastoral provision for 'Vesperal Liturgies' an organic development? Is it something that the Church should consider? I think it is a very good question.

May I offer a contribution to that point? I do not think it is a legitimate pastoral option, or an example of possible organic development. It is an invention, and an unhelpful one.

There are certain days when such a Vesper-Liturgy is advised by the Typikon. (days before Pascha, Theophany and Christmas, and Holy Thursday). Remember every time the Eucharist is received, then the fast is broken, and food is permitted.

These traditional days are days of radical penance, when the fasting is so strict that nothing at all is eaten before these late Liturgies. The one before Pascha is held at the latest hour, because it is the day of strictest fasting. The one on Holy Thursday, Christmas and Theophany Eve is a little earlier, because the fasting is not as severe. Even in the most radical case (Holy Saturday), I believe the Typikon advises the hour of two or three in the afternoon. If you have fasted from midnight, and then tried to cantor such a long service, then you know that your strength will be failing by 4 or 5 in the afternoon, when the Liturgy will be concluded, and you will be permitted to eat. Clearly these are very exceptional days of prayer, fasting, when our whole lives are given over to prayerful preparation for major feasts or celebrations, and the fasting is quite exceptional. This is the reason for the exceptional directions of the Typikon.

Are we really suggesting making every Saturday, a day of greater penance, greater abstinence, day long fasting in preparation for the Liturgy and the reception of the Mysteries? It is quite an undertaking, and I cannot imagine anyone seriously suggesting it.

The normal hour for Vespers in parish settings (sometime between 5 and 7 p.m.) makes it an entirely unreal expectation on the clergy who must fast in order to celebrate. Such radical fasting, even for those used to it, is a great effort. For busy clergy, anxious about all the weekend duties in a typical parish, it is certainly unwise, and their doctors, friends, and family would probably object!

Apart from the clergy, I cannot imagine many people who would be able to fast for 18 hours to receive communion, and to have them come to Liturgy without anyone coming to communion is hardly a good idea.

Let the clergy eat after a Saturday morning Liturgy, they need to be healthy and at strength for the weekend services of Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy.

You don't have to fast before Vespers, so let the clergy just celebrate Vespers in the evening, which is the tradition... as prescribed in the Typikon.

It is a bad innovation, because the fasting it would demand is not appropriate or wise. The Typikon doesn't really allow it. And no spiritual father I know would give a blessing to that kind of fasting.

To have such a Vesperal Liturgy regularly on a Saturday is not a good idea. With the exception of Great Saturday, no Saturday is such an extraordinary day of fasting. Even in Lent, the Liturgy is permitted on Saturday morning, and the fasting regime is lightened because of the special character of Saturday. This would be a major change to the historical nature of Saturday, a day of moderation even in the Great Fast.

To have a Vesperal Liturgy on the eve of other feast days, would be to make the feast equal to or greater than Christmas, Theophany, or even Pascha, where there is no total fast on the vigil until 5 or 6 p.m. the day before.

No, the Typikon is wise, logical, and well thought out. We can't just go offering improvements and options, without changing the theology that framed the Typikon.

It is that Typikon we need to recover, and that theology we need to study and live.

Again, I am sorry for speaking only about the special case this Christmas eve, where a second Liturgy would be utter nonsense. I hope I have offered some thoughts more on the topic title, and the question you ask. If I have missed the mark again, please forgive me.

Nick

Sometimes organic developments are highly desirable - and sometimes organic developments are cancerous. I'm still not sure that I even understand the reason which prompts a desire to have an evening Divine Liturgy on 24 December when that day falls on a Sunday. But it seems unlikely that any reason could be particularly plausible.

One must also ask "organic development from what?" The prescription currently found in the Typicon - that when the Vigil of the Nativity or the Vigil of the Theophany falls on a Sunday there is to be the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom on Sunday morning, Vespers with no Divine Liturgy, then the Vigil service, and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil on the feast itself - grows organically from the rule that Sunday is never a fast day. The desire for what will turn out to be a "second Liturgy" on such a Sunday is an organic development from neglect of fasting in general and the Eucharistic Fast in particular.

Fr. Serge

Cantor JKF,

The number of priests jumping on the Vesperal Liturgy bandwagon is only about 10%.

JD