I do not understand what is the problem of the abbreviation of the liturgy by itself. That was not what St. John Chrysostom did in his text of the Divine Liturgy, abbreviating St. Basil`s Liturgy; as well the same St. Basil, who abbreviated, in his turn, the St. James` Liturgy?

No, that is just a common misperception. In actuality, Basil and Chrysostom have totally separate origins, the former in the Cappodocian Liturgy of the Holy Apostles, the latter Cathedral Liturgy of Antioch. This has been proven beyond dispute by Taft and Schulz independently of each other.

The commonality of the two Divine Liturgies is the result of later developments, specifically the Studite and Sabbaite synthesis that took place between the 10th and the 14th centuries, which imposed a pretty uniform superstructure on both the Liturgies.

The Liturgy of St. James exists in a variety of forms including Coptic and Syrian, as well as Byzantine; it may have been an early liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, but underwent significant developments in each of the Traditions that adopted it. The Liturgy of St. james as used by the Byzantine Churches has been heavily byzantinized. In all cases, though, the Liturgy of St. James has no relationship to either the Liturgy of St. Basil or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, except for the later Byzantine redactions.

So where did we get the story that St. John Chrysostom shortened St. Basil's liturgy?
Or am I the only one who thought that? (A little embarrassed.)

I have heard the same thing. If it is a mistake, it's a common one.

While Stuart's analysis is correct, it is also true that the Liturgies have been shortened. St. Simeon of Thessalonika, I believe, remarked about having to shorten the amount of Psalms taken at Vespers because of the grumbling of the people. I don't think their is much objection about pastoral abbreviation but mandating the abbreviation and disallowing the complete form.

It's an old wives' tale. Since Chrysostom is shorter than Basil, and is the most common form used (though only since the 13th century), it is assumed that it was derived from Basil. The truth is, both Chrysostom and Basil have been abbreviated from their original forms, which often lasted more than two hours.

I'll support Stuart's comments.

Also, Father Deacon Lance is correct. Part of the objection is that the normative and official form of the Divine Liturgy - which we hold common with all other Byzantines - is prohibited. [Among other things it sends the message to our faithful that our 'received tradition' is so unworthy that it can't be allowed (and since our normative Liturgy is so unworthy then so, too, are we and our spiritual ancestors also unworthy since we and they were formed by the 'received tradition'), and this at a time when the Holy Father directs that Latin Catholics have a right to both the normative and extraordinary forms of their Mass, so strong that a local bishop cannot prohibit the celebration of the extraordinary form.] Another part of the objection is that the Liturgy ought to develop organically (there are plenty of directives on this) and not be diced up in a conference room in a hotel by a bunch of well-intentioned and well-educated priests. There is much more (other objectives include the copying of current Latin customs that the revisers are enamored with, as well as the injection of personal politics into the Liturgy through the choice of political language). There is much to read in this forum that explains it all.

The Byzantine Divine Liturgies in their fullest form reflect monastic usage. As might be expected, monks have a lot of time on their hands that they fill up with liturgical services, but outside of Athos, there are few monasteries that actually celebrate every last jot and tittle of the Liturgicon--all of the antiphons, all of the possible kontakia, troparia and prokimena, etc. Cathedral usage is somewhat abbreviated, but in the pontifical form reinserts older elements that fallen away from parish (parochial) use, and the parochial use, taking pastoral considerations into account, is almost always shorter than cathedral use.

That said, the general practice of the Byzantine Churches has always been to establish minima--the things that must be done--while permitting those communities that wished to go beyond this, up to and including the absolute fullness of monastic usage. Each group is allowed to find its own level, in accordance with its spiritual development and practical situation.

It is within the purview of the bishop as liturgiarch to establish these minima--though Tradition would prohibit going below a certain threshold--but is beyond his competence to prohibit anyone from seeking to go beyond those minima. Setting maxima is utterly contrary to Tradition.

Not "utterly," Stuart... Bishops have set many maxima: DL's per day per altar being the most obvious.

But only that one truly survives in the consciousness as a maximum.

I'd second Stuart. I have NEVER seen a parish do the "full" liturgy one would see at most monasteries (in the morning: Mesonytikon, Orthros with ALL the canons, readings from the psalter, and the Odes of the Psalter, plus Divine Liturgy - about three and a half to four hours).

For that matter, I've yet to see a parish do "full" Orthros; the only parish I've been to that does Orthros daily (St. Dimitrios in Thessaloniki) does Orthros without readings or odes of the psalter and with various katavasiae instead of the canon. Moreover, some quite zealous monasteries I know also take abbreviations (including one monastery of a SCOBA jurisdiction that's brimming with "Traditionalist" literature).

In short, there are almost always abbreviations and that should be left to the decision of the local abbot, pastor, or even the bishop. There are various abbreviations which are commonly done.

I don't think, however, a uniform policy of abbreviation throughout an eparchy is a good idea, especially when it's an abbreviation that I don't believe is practiced elsewhere. I also don't think forbidding one to not take an abbreviation is a good idea at all.