www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Uncanonical services as supplementary spiritual nourishment

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev delivered a lecture at the Kiev Theological Academy back in September 20, 2002 entitled, "Orthodox Worship as a School of Theology."

He makes a distinction between "canonical" church services (those prescribed in the Church's liturgical books) and "uncanonical" church services (those NOT prescribed).

He mentions how the the theological authority of the liturgical texts found "... in the Service Book, the Book of Hours, the Octoechos, the Lenten Triodion, the Pentecostarion and the Menaia" are not always accessible to the ordinary lay person and so they miss out on the vast riches of their Church theology. Some parishes may celebrate some prescribed services more than others, but most don't offer the fullness of our liturgical offerings.

He does offer suggestions how to "explore the riches" of our liturgical poetry. They are:

1. Go to church every day and follow the service books as they are read or sung.
2. Read and sing in the choir.
3. Read liturgical books at home.
4. Study Greek and Slavonic.

But, of course, Bishop Hilarion states the obvious: such things and services are luxuries.

So, the ordinary lay person attempts to, "... make up for the lack of spiritual nourishment in church by resorting to various "uncanonical" services and prayers not contained in the Church's prescribed liturgical books ..."

What are these "uncanonical" services? They are the Molebens and the Akathists.

The bishop emphatically declares that the Orthodox Typicon "knows no such service." The Moleben is basically a matins service adulterated "beyond recognition." What is lacking is theology, which would be contained in regular matins services (in its stichera and canons) prescribed by the Church Typicon.

Bishop Hilarion continues by comparing the process of liturgical piety growing in Russia's churches to what happened in Protestantism and Catholicism. In other words, the Russian Church is experiencing the same dumbing down as other churches that also began to reject the rich theoligical heritage found in their Church's prescribed (Typicon mandated) services. The School of Theology and Meditation on God becomes a school of "piety."

Get the buckets of white-wash ready!

The bishop gives us the second "uncanonical" service that is gradually replacing canonical ones, namely the Akathist. He notes how the Church Typicon "knows of only one akathist - that served on Saturday of the fifth week of Great Lent." But, like the Moleben, it too is of a "low theological and literary level." He mentions how the plethora of Akathists that appeared in teh 18th and 19th centuries were aimed more at "talking ABOUT [emphasis mine] God" than talking TO God.

Has our dumbing down and low theology pegged us as a church that can only talk about God using abridged Cliff Notes?

Both questionable developments has led Bishop Hilarion to question the need to "revise" church services rather than having to "conform liturgical practice to the Typicon."

Has our own lack of conformity become a sign that we cannot or will not worship as our Church instructs us? that we rather adopt more uncanonical and pious services to conform with our personal spiritualities? Is confort more important than the need to learn the faith? What happened to the School of Theology that had as its school motto: "Lex orandi, lex credendi" ?

As Greek Catholics, has our own purposeful extinction of the regular Matins service (and Vespers) and their replacement with "uncanonical" services a sign that we too are in need of REVISION ... err, um ...CONFORMITY? In addition, isn't our funeral service a Matins service? Why is it mostly adulterated beyond recognition and pushed aside by having the obligatory "Mass" in its place? Was it the intention of our liturgical authors to celebrate a funeral during a Divine Liturgy or the Matins service? Just wondering. Is our replacement of the canonical services with uncanonical ones a sign that we cannot stomach the theology of our church? Should we make our lives more easier by simply tossing out the Typicon and replacing all the riches of our theology out with the bathwater?

Comments?

God bless!
Joe Thur

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Well, that's the first time I've heard of the Akathists and Molebens referred to in that rather disparaging way.

Certainly, they are not meant to replace the Horologion and Church services.

But their development in the Russian Orthodox Church especially was not done privately or outside the watchful authoritative eye of the Church itself.

Akathists abound in Ukraine and Russia.

Every Tom, Dick and Alex has taken to writing them . . . (What do you think of my Akathists here, Cantor? As a Ukie, the Russians already think I'm "uncanonical" to begin with!).

But the Russians established a commission to study and approve Akathists, and rejected many of them.

akafist.narod.ru shows the many that were passed and approved and the Moscow Patriarchate itself approves such akathists continuously for the edification of the faithful.

True, such an emphasis on akathists doesn't exist in other Eastern Churches.

Monastics in the East Slavic tradition took to the practice of the "Akathist Rule" or the saying of many Akathists throughout the night.

Many miracles have been wrought through such vigils as well i.e. St Jonah of Odessa who read dozens of akathists from midnight to morning every day.

And the Akathist has become standard fare for the daily and weekly cycles of the Horologion.

On that site above are three scholarly articles on the Akathist by Orthodox authors.

One indicates that lay office-books included Akathists in honour of the saint of the day e.g. Sunday, the Trinity and the Resurrection of Christ, Monday - to the Angels, Tuesday - akathist to John the Baptist and so on.

They were meant to be devotional supplements and not substitutes for the canonical Hours, to be sure.

But the issue of accessibility is an important one.

There is a warmth of devotional fervour about Akathists just as there is in the popular Western devotions (that were, at one time, popular in East Slavic Orthodoxy as well).

Laity tend to go with what is "easily prayed" according to devotional themes, including miraculous icons of the Mother of God and popular saints.

Personally, it would be good if the Church gave laity some fundamental instructon in liturgical piety, such as what might be obtained at a retreat.

I've been studying and using Reader's Services for several years now and I would love it if I could go on a course or something that could answer the myriad questions I have once and for all with practical answers and hands-on experience.

It is just so typical of our ecclesial liturgical experts to run down devotional services that have such meaning to laity - akathists are today widely popular in Ukraine and Russia and the site I mentioned always gets requests for akathists to particular icons and saints.

And if the canonical Hours are not accessible to laity, perhaps it is because of a sacerdotalist attitude on the part of the clergy that sees the Hours as their domain and see laity participating in them only in Church with them leading the services - an impossibility for many who should be encouraged to do Reader's Services.

I've always felt that a solid rule of Akathists enriches one's Eastern liturgical devotional life.

Frankly, I'm turned off by that cleric's attitude.

The Ukrainian Orthodox being uncanonical is one thing.

But akathists . . .

Alex

Leave it to you to throw something heavy like that out, Joe...

I don't even know where to start with this. I think that there is a difference between "uncanonical" in the sense that it completely breaks with tradition, and on the other hand development of popular devotion which is inspired by the liturgical tradition (akathists, molebens, Canons, etc.).

The importing of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, is a good example. While a beautiful Latin devotion it is not within the Byzantine liturgical ethos or developed tradition. This I can see. But to disparage Akathists styled after St. Roman the Melodist, Molebens with Canons composed by many saints, etc. which have been paraliturgical devotions for over 1,000 years now is difficult to understand.

I think Kyr Ilarion is taking things a bit too far and literally as far as the Typikon goes. Molebens are known and loved even in the Old Rite and even the Erie Old Believer prayer book gives instructions on how they and Akathists, Canons, etc. are to be read.

The Typikon while safeguarding the liturgical life of the people should properly allow freedom, not squash public devotions which are grounded in the Byzantine liturgical and hymnographic tradition.

It is important that we restore the Divine Praises as is exhorted of us by Vatican II, the current Pontiff, our own liturgical directives, etc. These should be basic components of the liturgical life of the community.

But at the same time there is an issue of pastoral sensitivity as some devotions are deeply set and any change of the practice will need prudence, patience and charity. There are beautiful statements of theology in the hymnography of the Akathists, Canons and other paraliturgical texts of the Molebens which I would hate to see thrown out overnight in a liturgical putsch and "purification".

Alex,

What the bishop points out IS a major issue: we'd rather celebrate a Moleben than a Matins service if we had our choice. Why?

Instead of praying the 3rd Hour before liturgy on Sundays or Matins, we permit the recital of 'public' rosary, a form of prayer that is actually a private devotion.

Does this remind you of the Mary-Martha syndrome? Jesus was present, but we were too worried about the chairs?

But how does one tap into the rich theological resources on our own property?

If a parish does get together to celebrate an uncanonical service, why don't they just celebrate a canonical one? In the past we took the liberty of introducing foreign hymns to replace our stichera. Our plainchant wasn't good enough so we went searching and found choral pieces to sing instead. Our Christmas stichera wasn't good enough so we went searching for emotional-ridden carols to sing instead. Our Divine Liturgy and its troparia and kontakia wasn't good enough so we prayed private devotions instead. Our Office of Christian burial wasn't good enough so, like the Crowning ceremony, we did "Mass" instead and missed the context and the theology.

Why is the Typicon such a bad thing? Have we lost the ability to pray according to the mind of the Church because we lack the lexicon from the School of Prayer?

The bishop, I think, makes some valid points for us to reflect on.

God bless!
Joe Thur

I would hate to see them thrown out wholesale and willy-nilly also!

Immediately following the regular Sunday Divine Liturgy on my Silver Wedding Anniversary in my former OCA parish (we've since moved), Father Andrew, who is still the rector there, served a Molieben of Thanksgiving, which included the beautiful "Te Deum" composed by St. Ambrose of Milan, chanted by the choir. My wife and I, standing at the foot of the ambon together, found this very touching and appropriate, especially in that in the Byzantine Rite, whether Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, there is no "renewal of marriage vows."

//But to disparage Akathists styled after St. Roman the Melodist, Molebens with Canons composed by many saints, etc. which have been paraliturgical devotions for over 1,000 years now is difficult to understand.//

Of course. Just wanting to critically evaluate Bishop Hilarion's lecture.

//Molebens are known and loved even in the Old Rite and even the Erie Old Believer prayer book gives instructions on how they and Akathists, Canons, etc. are to be read.//

I think his main point was to point out how a process of liturgical impoverishment and simplification can hurt the Church in the long run. The bishop does miss the connection between the Akathist and the ancient form of Kontakia, a Syrian type of hymn.

//The Typikon while safeguarding the liturgical life of the people should properly allow freedom, not squash public devotions which are grounded in the Byzantine liturgical and hymnographic tradition.//

Yes. But before we get to pursuing liturgical freedom, shouldn't we be mindful of those canonical services that are available but are rarely, if ever, prayed? Why do we opt for the devotions (the icing) before canonial services (the cake)?

//It is important that we restore the Divine Praises as is exhorted of us by Vatican II, the current Pontiff, our own liturgical directives, etc. These should be basic components of the liturgical life of the community.//

I recently read how one of our parishes in California is introducing Rosary before the Divine Liturgy. Does Matins or the Hours have a chance here?

//There are beautiful statements of theology in the hymnography of the Akathists, Canons and other paraliturgical texts of the Molebens which I would hate to see thrown out overnight in a liturgical putsch and "purification".//

You would hat e to see such a liturgical putsch, but one already happened to the canonical services. Nobody seems to be upset over that one. But hey! At least we get out of Mass quicker.

God bless!
Joe Thur

Joe, the Typikon isn't such a bad thing.

In some monasteries where they follow the full prescriptions with regards to liturgical services of the Horologion, they still have Akathists and Molebens, the "cell rule" which calls for additional Canons and Akathists by the monk in the kellia, etc.

The Divine Praises need to be the liturgical foundation of regular prayer, privately and communally. And with the development of Reader's services a much greater part of the Byzantine liturgical tradition is available and accessible to everyone. I would maintain that while they are not as central as the Divine Praises, the paraliturgical services of Akathists and Molebens, like it or not, are part of the developed Slavic Byzantine liturgical identity.

Cantor Joe, you bring up an interesting point. Perhaps the currents in the Latin church in the post-medieval times of the Divine Office becoming bascially only the property of the clergy have filtered in a way into the Byzantine liturgical world as well with the preeminece of paraliturgical services overtaking more regular celebrations of the Divine Praises which became basically relegated to monasteries. (I don't think we can completely blame that one on the Latins, though ).

Alex, if you are "uncanonical" then sign me up, too! Perhaps we should have a "Reader's Services Q&A" sometime. I don't know all of the answers but might be able to point you in the right direction.

Slava Jesu Kristu,

I think we need both. The "canonical" should be the norm with the "uncanonical" as an addition - not a substitution. As we continue to embrace our roots, this must be clear. It is the only way our people will learn the true beauty of our Faith.

Dmitri

Diak makes mention of a liturgical putsch. But quite frankly, can one speak of a putsch if such services are not really prescribed by our Typicon in the first place? I know some are suggested, but not prescribed.

Have we become like the Protestants and the Latin Catholics?

Joe

Joe, at least speaking for myself I am upset over the disappearance of most "canonical services, and many other things...and am trying to do something about it in parish work as well.

I question a unilateral putsch of removing popular devotions which are to some extent rooted in the Byzantine liturgical tradition, and are well loved. I didn't mean to "putsch" you off... (Sorry Alex, that one walked right up)

Dmitri,

Aaaahh! You hit the point that, I believe, Bishop Hilarion made in his lecture: that the uncanonical should not replace the canonical, especially if we are truly interested in being students in our Church's school of prayer/theology.

How can we appreciate the meaning of 'lex orandi, lex credendi' if we don't?

Joe

In the 3 OCA parishes to which I've belonged (including my current one), that which you are calling "para-liturgical" services *never* replaced the "canonical" services, but were *always" supplementary to them by request of the parishioners or in case of special pastoral necessity.

In the category of these supplementary services are/were the Litya or Panikhida for the Dead just before Great Vespers on a Saturday evening and, less frequently, an occasional Molieben after Liturgy on a Sunday morning. The Third Hour is/was always chanted before Liturgy on all days that the Liturgy is/was served, most often followed by the Sixth Hour if more time is/was needed for the Proskomedia. And on the eve of Great Feasts either the Vespers with Litya and Artoklasia *or* the "All-Night Vigil" (Vespers and Matins combined) is/was served in all 3 parishes.

OrthodoxEast

Alex,

I came across his article while doing some research for a paper. Though it probably doesn't fit well for what I need, I was not disturbed by his "attitude." What is really disturbing are the many unopened Menaions, Triodions, Pentecostarions, vesper books, matins books, etc.

Joe

The services of the Horologion should be the basis, the "usual" form of parish and home worship. The paraliturgical services, as OE mentions is done in his parish, should be above and beyond the usual cycle and not themselves form the core of the liturgical life. To use utilitarian terms, the Hours should be "essential" and the paraliturgical "supplemental" as in the thread title.

But it is not without difficulties. One OCA parish I know of stopped having a regular moleben as the attendance for that was larger than Saturday Night Vespers, and, well, to put it mildly many of the people were up in arms about it.

We have been speaking of "liturgy police" lately. Are we going to have "akathist police" and "moleben police"? (kidding, of course) OE, it is not uncommon in one parish I help out at for them to have Molebens on anniversaries of weddings and I think that is a lovely practice. My wife and I have done this on our anniversary for several years.

I don't think we need to throw out all of the paraliturgical "supplemental" practices we have as these do in their own way foster liturgical devotion. But at the same time we (Greek Catholics) do need to strongly emphasize the importance Divine Praises as standard foundational worship, which we as Greek Catholics are exhorted to do already from many sources, even the Roman Pontiff.

I think that Bishop Ilarion is using hyperbole in attempting to make the point that the Horologion is the basis for the Byzantine liturgical life. I think even he knows what would happen if he had to tell all of the babas that he wasn't going to do their anniversary Molebens...

I'll have to side more with Cantor Joe's concerns than with expressions of popular piety. Perhaps we chanters are from the same mold.

It's all ultimately about preserving the model (Jesus Christ). We can study and venerate the saints (which we should) but if we don't see them with the model (Christ) in mind, then we have the possibility of straying from it.

Liturgically, its not quite as clear cut as the Christ = model vs. saint = imitator. However, when one considers that some 78% of the canonical offices and liturgies are verbatum scripture, the comparison starts to make sense.

canonical liturgy/scripture/Word of God = model
vs.
noncanonical/words of men/popular services = imitations.

I remind everyone of the enormous debate over inclusion of the word "omoousios" in the Creed. The debate at that point was not over the appropriateness of the word itself, but over basing a dogma (the Creed is THE DOGMA) upon a word not used in scripture.

When we use our own words, the danger is there for straying too far. The next thing you know, they're calling the Most Blessed Theotokos our "Co-Redemptrix."

With love in Christ,
Andrew