Liturgical Flexibility

katanikhoros

This is just a question I am raising based on a reading of older liturgical texts from the early centuries of Christianity (Apostolic Tradition, Hippolytus, Serapion, Didache and Mark) and a reading into historical descriptions of them.

I am wondering why, our Coptic Church has limited its use of liturgies to only 3 (I know which pope did it and why, but why don't we go back), when it used diverse liturgical texts (like that of Serapion). Many churches use wide variety of anaphoras like the Ethiopian and Syriac Churches. It also seems that the earliest liturgies were far less elaborate, straightforward, less ceremonial and shorter. Why did it become increasingly interspersed with rituals and ceremony? I have read many descriptions that many of the liturgical prayers were in fact improvised prayers by the priests. If that was the case, why do we continue to sing the liturgical texts, and insist that this is the way we must do it.

It seems that there was a much larger diversity and fluidity in the liturgy of the early church that no longer exists in our rigid attitude towards it. Perhaps this offered more life and meaning to the faithful. These are just mere thoughts and would like to see what others have to say on this (especially those well educated on this).

Thanks

ReturnOrthodoxy

@cyril

qawe

Why did this nameless Pope (;)) make the change?

In regard to spontaneous prayers, I fear that allowing that would open up a can of worms, particularly considering what passes for Orthodoxy nowadays in our churches.

Also, I think we should be cautious to construct a liturgy 'by committee'; this was the major downfall of the Novus Ordo Mass. Liturgy is the essence of the life of the Church, and should therefore be allowed to develop organically, not artificially (for no Synod can mechanistically declare Truth, including Truth in worship). Ie I don't think a modern movement to try to inject more 'life' into the liturgy along the lines you are thinking is a good idea, it could easily end up being a capitulation to secularism by trying to make liturgy 'relevant' to a modern man who isn't really interested in worship in the first place.

katanikhoros

I do not mean anything like the Second Vatican Council that revised its Mass. What I am asking about is allowing more flexibility with the words and prayer of the liturgy without being mechanically devised through a Synod as you are saying.

And those spontaneous prayers were not really spontaneous per se, but were based on a certain formula and order with a fundamental outline that persists in the backbone of almost all ancient Christian anaphoras.

ShareTheLord

Educate me, when and why did it happen in the first place? :)

qawe

ShareTheLord said:

Educate me, when and why did it happen in the first place? :)

I know it was Pope Shenouda but, like you, I'd love to know why.

minatasgeel

Actually, i don't think it was Pope Shenouda that took the decision.

katanikhoros

As far as I am aware, Pope Shenouda did not ban the use of the other liturgies he simply enforced it. This was a somewhat informal canon introduced by Pope Christodolous? I can't remember the name now, but he was in the 12th or 13th centuries and he was shocked by how many different liturgies were in use in Upper Egypt and decided to regulate it (unaware of how many different liturgies there were) by limiting it to the 3 of his time. I'll try to dig up the reference later tonight.

This would be understandable in his time when one might be unsure of what kinds of liturgies could develop or come into use with the less educated and regulated parts of upper Egypt, but many of these banned liturgies are perfectly theologically sound, work within the same liturgical structure, and have perfectly orthodox edifying texts.

ShareTheLord

Interesting, thank you.

katanikhoros

It was Patriarch Gabriel II Ibn Turayk (1131-1145) who made many similar reforms in his time.

Remnkemi

Just a small correction, Pope Christodolous (11th century) noted a lot of liturgical actions that were indeed questionable, not just the number of liturgies. One that comes to mind is the use of the Byzantine pre-sanctification rite in St Macarius' monastery. (Thank you RamezM for the info.) As far as I know there was a lot of questionable acts. Later on, during the papacy of Pope Gabriel II (12th century), there were many canons setup to minimize common questionable (and obvious) infractions. 

Secondly, let's not assume that theology is the only criteria for liturgical acceptance. There are many factors involved in organic development of liturgical rites. This is a very complex topic. Suffice it to say, there is wisdom in what we do include and what we don't include that is beyond our understanding. 

Also, is there really a need to add liturgies? Are the liturgies we are using now leaving some sort of hole or lacking fulfillment? It's like saying we have to add the Gospel of Thomas to the New Testament canon because we are missing some of Christ's own words - as if the 4 gospels are not sufficient. Now I know this isn't a great comparison because the Gospel of Thomas is clearly non-Christian. However, when we go on a mission to find liturgical and patristic texts from on the other side of the proverbial fence, we find the grass isn't any greener and the grass on our side is not filled with weeds. 

cyril

Here's a cool bit about Presanctified:


"...the question of fast-day Eucharist now divides Rome and Alexandria from the rest of the East. By the sixth century, the Roman fast-day synaxes had become eucharistic, and a similar evolution can be observed in Egypt. The original Alexandrian usage as recounted in the fifth century by Socrates was a synaxis followed by communion from the presanctified gifts on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. [Note: Hist, eccl V, 22 (see note 28 above). Only one liturgical ms refers to an Alexandrian Presanctified Liturgy. See E. Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (Frankfort: J. Baer 1847) 1, 76, 321-322; J.-M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University 1930) II, 92-93. In the 10th century there was still presanctified communion on Tuesday of Holy Week in the Coptic Rite. See G. Viaud, La liturgie des coptes d’Egypte (Paris: A. Maisonneuve 1978) 52.] But, as in Rome, these days eventually acquire a mass, and today the Coptic Church is the only Eastern tradition with daily Eucharist during periods of fast."

Fr Robert Taft in Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding, Page 97

katanikhoros

I still haven't seen sufficient reason why we stopped the use of the Liturgy of St. Serapion for example. This was a liturgy in use for a long time in the history of the church. Why should it be against our Church if a priest and congregation wished to pray this liturgy?

Amoussa01

Can anyone post the words for the Liturgy of St. Serapion? Is it not lost?

RamezM

Hello everyone, there is a ton of facts here to correct, so excuse the lack of flow:

1- There were no specific canons or Synodal decisions issued during the papacy of Pope Shenouda III limiting the number of liturgies to the current three. It is true that occasionally recordings surface of clergy praying non-standard anaphoras such as the Liturgy of St. John, or the Liturgy of St. Mary (which may or may not be adapted from the Ethiopian Church), but these are mere aberrations, which are always bound to happen regardless of canons, and it does not mean that our church was officially accepting of any anaphoras besides the known three until recently.

2- It was not Pope Christodoulos either who issued such a canon, but actually Pope Gabriel II ibn Turaik (12th c.), precisely Canon 26 of his Collection of 32 Canons. Here is the text in question:

"It came to the attention of my weakness that some people in the villages of Upper Egypt pray using inappropriate liturgies, outside the three known ones, which are the liturgy of St. Basil, the Liturgy of St. Gregory, and the Liturgy of St. Cyril. And I have prohibited whoever allows otherwise."
Cf. O.H.E. Burmester, "The Canons of Gabriel ibn Turaik, LXX Patriarch of Alexandria," OCP 1(1935): 5-45.

For contextual reference, we have for example the Great Euchologion of the White Monastery, a Sahidic euchologion copied in the Monastery of St. Shenouda in the early 10th century and it contains 12 different anaphoras. Standardization is a very normal practice or phenomenon in any Church. It is true that one great concern is the theological purity of the liturgical texts used, and the fact that without some measure of control over the liturgical practices in far away areas, heretical ideas may indeed creep into the liturgical life of the community. More generally however, it is very natural for the central location of a patriarchate or local church to exert this kind of influence, whether passively or actively. All of the major liturgical families of rites (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and yes Alexandria) grew around these focal centers of ecclesiastical power. Sometimes this happens through legislation from the patriarchate, many times it is a natural organic process that is simply a byproduct of the jurisdictional and theological dependence of these areas on the ecclesiastical capital (in this case, Cairo.). One is also reminded of the centrality of the bishop and the bishop's Eucharist (i.e. the central Eucharistic gathering with the bishop as its presider) to the entire understanding of the Church's catholicity and unity. This goes all the way back to the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. So, while I agree that countless extinct liturgical texts represent treasures of theological expression, I don't particularly have a problem with liturgical standardization on this broad level (which anaphoras to use, not necessarily on the micro level of which hymns to chant and so forth). Standardization most often implies some sort of choice and selection.

RamezM

3- Remenkimi, the monks of St. Macarius never used the Byzantine rite of the Presanctified. They indeed reserved the Eucharist on Palm Sunday for communion during Holy Week. We have no idea what rite accompanied this communion during Holy Week. Since the body and blood were already consecrated, one would not need to pray a full anaphora. However, the story gives no details. It was also not just the practice of St. Macarius monks. It was widespread in various forms and reasons, but declined by the time of Pope Christodoulus to the point that he was unfamiliar with it, and offended by it. Even in a general sense, the idea of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is not just a Byzantine thing, although today the Byzantine Rite is the most famous and widely celebrated with this type of service. However, all eastern traditions had some sort of similar service (not in content or outline, but in purpose and function). Here is the entire story of Pope Christodoulus and the monks of St. Macarius:

"The monks of the Monastery of Abba Macarius and the priests of Alexandria used to leave some of the Eucharist over and keep it covered up from the Sunday of Olives [Palm Sunday] till Great Wednesday. The father, the patriarch, expressed disapproval to them of what they did with regard to the Eucharist, and he mentioned to them what might happen to it in the way of decay, change, insects, and other things besides, which it is not possible for me to describe. He commanded this (practice) to be abolished, and he anathematized him who should do it afterwards […] Then the monks rose up against the father, the patriarch […] and they said to him, “Thou art not better than the fathers who preceded thee”. Then he (Christodoulos) arose, and he was angry, and he departed to his cell, and a great tumult ensued. Then the father, the patriarch, brought out from the library of the Monastery of Abba Macarius a homily (mîmar) in this sense, and Abba Michael, his secretary, read it to the assembly. The Lord Christ aided this father to suppress this custom, and he abolished it until now, and no one after that reverted to leaving over (some) of the Eucharist"

‘Aziz S. Atiya, Yassa ‘Abd al-Massīh, O.H.E. Khs. Burmester, History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, vol. 2.3 (Cairo 1959) 262

The subject of the Presanctified or Eucharistic Reservation in Egypt is complex and our knowledge of it is quite fragmentary. I am afraid that Taft's information on this subject is quite lacking, especially that he is not a Coptic liturgical scholar, but a Byzantine one, so he goes off the common academic knowledge in the field, not the particular knowledge of a Coptic scholar. This happens to be the topic of my MA Thesis, so there is a lot more to share but it would be quite tangential to the original post.

RamezM

4- Finally, regarding the anaphora of Serapion of Thmuis: We do not know at all the extent of usage of this anaphora. All we know is that the text seem to have been written in the 4th century, some time between the Council of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). For all we know, it could have been a local text used in the diocese of Thmuis itself. Scholars at some point in the past even doubted its Orthodoxy, since it makes no mention of the Holy Spirit. In the years after the Council of Nicea, a controversy arose around the person of the Holy Spirit, and whether He was indeed God (look up Pneumatomachian controversy). I don't think anyone anymore feels the Anaphora of Serapion is heretical, but we still don't know if it was used for a long time or in a wide area. Besides, liturgical texts develop and grow to reflect the Church's theological language and definitions. This anaphora is a case in point, which was probably written before the development of clear language about the Holy Spirit. I don't think it would be a good idea to use such a text, which for historical reasons fails to communicate the fullness of the Church's faith in the Trinity the same way that our current anaphoras do.

Here is a link to one early edition of this text freely available: https://archive.org/details/bishopsarapionsp06sera

Remnkemi

Katanikhoros,

This is what I was trying to explain.The natural, organic development of the number of liturgies for Coptic Egypt emerged into 3. Asking why it happened, is like asking why do biological cells have cell membranes. We can guess at a reason. But the reality is cells have cell membranes and the Coptic Church has 3 liturgies. Anything more is merely theory. Trying to find a casual relationship, while being necessary, is never going to be more than a theory. As such, we can't say one theory must be upheld and another dismissed based on our own understanding. (Acceptable liturgical methodology and social science will rarely dismiss a theory based on preference). In fact, even if there is a legitimate reason explaining why the Liturgy of St Serpion stopped, it doesn't uphold the claim that we should return back to this liturgy. History may give reason for the change in use of this liturgy, but it will not justify returning to the custom. So we can not say that our Church must follow the other Eastern Churches have more than 3 liturgies or let Coptic priests pray more than three liturgies. 

Cyril,

Thanks for the reference. I will caution that Robert Taft is a giant in liturgics. But he draws conclusion with little support as if it was already understood. In this example, he has only one example of a 10th century pre sanctified communion and has concluded that this was the custom in Alexandria. The fact is we don't know where this one 10th century text came from or who used it or why it was used. For all we know he is referencing a Byzantine text and concluding that it was in the Coptic Rite. As I said, this is a very complex subject.

Amoussa, 

I will check for the Coptic sources.

cyril

Thanks Rem :)

RamezM

Rem,

The problem of Taft's passage is not that it wrongly generalizes based on little evidence, but that it provides very little evidence for something that is in fact true. Taft is just not a Coptic scholar...he knows about Coptic liturgy generally, not nearly as well as he knows the Byzantine tradition and its history. However, what he is essentially saying, that there was once communion from the Presanctified gifts in Alexandria, is certainly true and is continuously becoming affirmed as new evidence surfaces....he just did not have that evidence at his disposal when this passage was written, neither is this his area of expertise.

For Serapion, there is no Coptic source. It's a single Greek manuscript. The best study is this:
Maxwell Johnson, The Prayers
of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical, and Theological Analysis
(Rome: Pontificum Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1995).

Remnkemi

Agreed Ramez. I remember reading some other things Taft writes. He takes certain things as facts - and they ARE facts in the Byzantine liturgical rites. But he seems to offer little to support these facts. Maybe it is because he is talking to liturgists and I'm not one, just like he is not a Coptologist. So it is all good. But he is definitely not the only one who does this.

Ramez, as a liturgist, can you comment on katanikhoros' questions on the number of liturgies in the Coptic Church?

Thank you Ramez for the info. Now you see why you have to post more often.

RamezM

Hi Rem,

I tried to touch upon this above in an earlier response:

"Standardization is a very normal practice or phenomenon in any Church.
It is true that one great concern is the theological purity of the
liturgical texts used, and the fact that without some measure of control
over the liturgical practices in far away areas, heretical ideas may
indeed creep into the liturgical life of the community. More generally
however, it is very natural for the central location of a patriarchate
or local church to exert this kind of influence, whether passively or
actively. All of the major liturgical families of rites (Rome, Antioch,
Constantinople, Jerusalem, and yes Alexandria) grew around these focal
centers of ecclesiastical power. Sometimes this happens through
legislation from the patriarchate, many times it is a natural organic
process that is simply a byproduct of the jurisdictional and theological
dependence of these areas on the ecclesiastical capital (in this case,
Cairo.). One is also reminded of the centrality of the bishop and the
bishop's Eucharist (i.e. the central Eucharistic gathering with the
bishop as its presider) to the entire understanding of the Church's
catholicity and unity. This goes all the way back to the 2nd century
writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. So, while I agree that countless
extinct liturgical texts represent treasures of theological expression, I
don't particularly have a problem with liturgical standardization on
this broad level (which anaphoras to use, not necessarily on the micro
level of which hymns to chant and so forth). Standardization most often
implies some sort of choice and selection."

Also, please see my post above about the Anaphora of Serapion specifically.

katanikhoros

Thank for your very informing answer Ramez and Rem.

My question is more addressed to how we can make the prayer itself more fluid and alive as it once was. I only say this because in my personal experience the liturgy has become a dry and boring duty and ritual for many in the church and people are having a hard time seeing the connection with the Mystical Supper and the early church when prayers were being composed then. I don't see why we have stopped this spirit and life of liturgy to prevent us from composing prayers now.

Let me know what you guys think we can do about this.

Thanks

cyril

Hi katanikhoros, May God one day raise from among us, a St Romanos the Melodist.

katanikhoros

I'm not sure a Romanos' hymns will be accepted to be put into the liturgy. We have looked at our hymnology and liturgy as a fixed prayer and that any change or modern day addition would be seen as an innovation and against orthodoxy.

Out of interest, what were the 12 different anaphoras described in the manuscript Ramez?

Remnkemi

katanikhoros, 

As I said in many previous threads, we should not remove or add or change the liturgical practice we have now based on personal experience. What is beautiful to you (such as "this spirit and life of liturgy" of the early church), another sees as down right atrocity. Beauty does not last and no one can define it. The same with changing services based on "dry", "boring", "duty", "more authentic", "more useful", etc. These are all terms that cannot even be defined, much less be the catalyst for universal change of the liturgical rites. 

As Ramez showed, just because we can write new hymns, doesn't mean it should be put in the liturgy - not because the liturgy is fixed and static, but because without consciously knowing it, we will place a text that may very well be controversial at best and heretic at worst. The fact is it takes a lot to add or remove liturgical texts, regardless whether we think this is an appropriate approach to liturgical rites.

katanikhoros

My concern is not whether the liturgies themselves are dry and boring, far from it. My concern is that our dealings with the liturgy have become static and treat it like a set in stone ritual. It is exactly that phobia of heresy that is the problem. I'm not asking to write my own prayers and set it into the liturgy, but a Bishop like Anba Rafael or Anba Youssef, why can they not for instance write prayers that flow naturally and organically from the heart, and are at the same time spiritually edifying and theologically sound? 

Were people only capable of writing liturgical prayers with sound theology 15 centuries ago? That is my question that we see the liturgy itself as something exclusively to be made in the past, and so many members of our congregations see it as a thing of the past or as merely a ritual or duty of words rather than a life, a liturgical life that flows naturally from the heart.

Remnkemi

Again, this is a very complicated issue. Bishop Rafael and Bishop Youssef theoretically can write and prayers into the liturgy as bishops and spiritual men. But they haven chosen to submit to the Synod's Rites and Liturgy committee. 

Now there may very well be people capable of writing liturgical prayers today as they did 15 centuries ago. But our recent experience is that many people, with good intentions, write hymns that end up having covert Protestant terminology or heresies (especially in English). This is probably one reason the bishops submit to the Synod's committee instead of writing their own hymns. 

I personally see nothing wrong with the liturgical prayers of the past. They are time tested and have produced many saints. In fact, the bulk of our liturgical hymns is taken from the Psalms. And God found David to be after his heart. I wouldn't mind using King David's proven psaltery to get that result. I would prefer it over modern extemporaneous hymns that seem to be questionable and emotionally charged at best.

katanikhoros

Again, my problem is not with our liturgies as if they were inadequate. I cherish these prayers. My concern is with having prayerful composition come to halt. What makes this the case today? Have we become spiritually static or on a decline? And yes many of our hymns and liturgical texts are strongly founded on Scripture, but are bishops today incapable of composing such prayers (I am aware of some fractions that have recently been added)?

Its the spirit of liturgy that I am addressing (its dynamic life) rather than the actual text. Too often today, you see youth view the liturgy as an ancient ritual (even if so much beauty and meaning is hidden it) and are unable to see that these are heartfelt prayers guided and lead by the Holy Spirit who can still work through His saints on earth today to produce such works.

Maybe I am asking the wrong question. But what can we do to change the attitude of much of the church?

God Bless

qawe

@katanikhoros

This is a fantastic question. Actually I don't think I exaggerate if I say this (and the presuppositions underlying it) may be *the* most important question we face in the Patriarchate of Alexandra today. However, to me the solution is much more simple.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the current liturgical texts. There's nothing wrong with the rites of the Church, which have stood the test of time. What is wrong is the relatively recent phenomenon of divorcing liturgy from life. (This is also why people turn to Protestant worship, because they have equated the liturgy with taking Holy Communion to satisfy John 6 and get to heaven - as for a basis for actual worship, they turn elsewhere). This needs to be solved by education, education, education. If the liturgy is not the centre of our life (and for many of us, it is not), we are not true Christians.

I don't rule out modification of the rites as being part of the solution, but I think we need to be careful that we are not "tickling people's ears" with mere novelty. Our fathers prayed the same liturgy every week without ever getting bored.

Amoussa01

Kata,

I think the first thing we need to have is knowledge regarding the Liturgy. Of course it will be boring if you do not understand the rituals or prayers; but when you do, you see it in a whole new light. It is subjective to the congregant how he wants to experience the liturgy. When the deacon and priest take off the prospherine symbolizing the earthquake and rolling of the tomb, I am reminded of a great and wonderful act of God that was done on my behalf and I am filled with joy that I can partake of this resurrection in Christ. In turn, I pray that my mind may be 'resurrected' to new heights during the liturgy (you get my point).  However someone may see it as something that is just a silly action with no meaning. Our rituals are there in order for us to contemplate on the glory of the Lord and its affect in my life. it can also relate to us what is happening at that particular moment in the Liturgy (such as the Epiclesis).

I remember stumbling upon this book, maybe it can be of some use: http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/node/105

Also regarding your comment about making new prayers... I believe bishop Raphael already wrote a fraction for St. Mary's fast which I heard him pray.