In this dark situation there appear here and there some signs of hope, renewal, and new inspiration. One of the most hopeful among them is certainly the return to the liturgical life as the very focus of the parish, as the means of its respiritualization and revitalization. Parish life again begins to be centered on the Eucharist and the sacraments, on liturgical cycles. The Church begins again to be experienced as the Body of Christ. This process inevitably raises new questions, creates new difficulties. Mistakes no doubt are made, wrong or questionable steps taken. Yet at least the motivations, the zeal, the intentions are pastoral, aimed at priceless souls and their communion with God. It is in such parishes that the statutes are not opposed, all financial obligations are gladly met, all Church projects-national, diocesan, charitable, educational, missionary-are gladly and enthusiastically supported, new, confident and truly loving relations with the Bishop established and and nurtured. It would not be difficult to prove that this renewal is rooted in a genuine interest in the true Orthodox Tradition, in the Holy Scriptures, the Fathers, the Liturgy, and above all in a deep concern for the religious and not merely "ethnic or social" orientation of the Church.
Needless to say, it is only such parishes and the priests who at least "try to do something" that are the targets of the instruction, whereas the document will not trouble, but to the contrary, will give comfort and a sense of self-righteousness to the parishes in which curtains are duly drawn and all litanies duly chanted, where Vespers and Matins raise no problems simply because they are either not served or served in empty churches, when, the members threaten to leave, and sometimes actually leave for another "jurisdiction" whenever the Church requests them to fulfill their financial obligations or to accept the statutes adopted by the entire Church. We are still waiting to see any real abuse-moral, canonical, liturgical -to be condemned or even simply denounced! Our practices concerning divorce and remarriage are in open contradiction to canons, some fund-raising techniques in parishes are more immmoral than those of non-religious groups, the inroads of secularism, moral elativism and cynicism are appalling-but here, alas, patience, understanding, and "oikonomia seem to be truly unlimited....
V
In saying alll this I do not wish to imply in any way that it is enough for a priest to have pastoral zeal, and in general to "mean well" in order to do whatever he wishes: to alter services, to introduce new practices, to restore old ones, etc. There is no room in the Church for anarchy, and certainly it is the sacred duty of the Episcopate to guide, correct, lead, and decide in this area as in any other area of Church life. But what I most emphatically advocate and beg for is that decisions to be made in this most sensitive area, which in many ways determine all other aspects and the very spirit of the parish, be made on the basis of serious study, of the evaluation of all factors and mplications. Being personally not "guilty" of any of the "abuses" enumerated in the instruction, I feel free to state that behind nearly each one of them there is a problem which cannot be reduced simply to disobedience or to "abuse" in the true sense of this word. Not everything that has been done for a hundred years and to which people are accustomed is necessarily correct in the light of the true liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy, and something which seems "new" and even "revolutionary' may very well be a much needed return to genuine tradition. Although the final decision is always reserved for the Episcopate, there should be time while searching for that decision, while trying to discern what is right and what is wrong, for study and consultation, for that blessed "sobornost" of which the Orthodox speak so much and which they practice so little.
I would like to add here that in all liturgical discussions the constant and popular reference to uniformity as a decisive argument is both useless and harmful. Perfect liturgical uniformity has never existed in the Church, even as an ideal, for the Church has never considered it to be the condition and _expression of her unity. Her liturgical unity was always that of a general structure or ordo, never that of details and applications. Even today the Orthodox Church does not have one single Typikon, and there exits a great variety in practices among Orthodox Churches. Such variety has existed also within the same national Church: thus in Russia, for example, there were differences between Moscow and Kiev, between different monastic traditions, etc. It is simply dangerous- spiritually and pastorally- to make our people believe that uniformity in all practices is the touchstone and essence of Orthodoxy; dangerous because they already seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the externals at the expense of meaning. It is dangerous also because of the great liturgical diversity in America where all traditions are represented in one way or another. If the Orthodox Church in America is to be the sign of Orthodox unity in this country, it will never achieve that unity by imposing on all one tradition- be it Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, or any other. It will achieve it only by searching, on the one hand, for that which is truly universal in the Orthodox Tradition and, on the other hand, for that which will incarnate that Tradition in our own situation. Yet even then, I am sure there wilt remain an inescapable and healthy diversity for, as Church history shows, it disappears only when a Church begins to die and her worship, rather than being life and the source of life, is progressively touched by rigor mortis.
VI
If we now briefly analyze the prescriptions themselves we cannot fail to see that virtually all of them deal not with "abuses," i.e., arbitrary and anarchic innovations or alterations, but precisely with those aspects of worship where real problems do exist- and where mere references to "standard books" or existing practices solve nothing.
I. In the Divine Liturgy:
A. The two little litanies between the antiphons are not to be omitted. Obviously the omission of these two litanies merely for the sake of shortening the service cannot be justified. If, however, is to allow the celebrant to read the beautiful and deeply corporate prayers of the antiphons, now read secretly, this may be a step in the right direction. It is clear that the original form was: an invitation to pray ("Let) us pray"), the reading of the prayer, and the ekphonesis. Incidentally, it may be surprising to learn how many priests while saying all the litanies, quietly omit the reading of the "secret prayers"-including the Eucharistic Canon. This I consider to be a much greater "abuse" than the attempt to return to the real meaning of the pre-entrance portion of the Liturgy.
B. The litanies between the Gospel and Hymn of the Cherubim, i.e., the augmented litany, the litany of the catechumens, the first and second litanies of the faithful, are not to be omitted.
As long as the "augmented" litany remains de facto a repetition of the great litany, the temptation to drop it will also remain. In the liturgical manuscripts (see the Euchologia published by A. Dmitrievsky [Kiev: 1901]) there are no greater variations than those between "augmented" litanies; the reason is clear- the augmented litany, in contrast to the "great" one, is to reflect the needs and the particular petitions of a given Church or congregation. The problem here then is to rediscover its real meaning and function within the Liturgy.
The omission of the litany for catechumens was advocated, as we have seen, by several Russian Bishops. The Greeks omit it. Personally I would be in favor of omitting it only during certain seasons-Pascha, Nativity, Epiphany-or for great feasts. Once again the problem here is that of communicating its meaning to the people.
The two litanies of the faithful present problems similar to those posed by the little litanies between the antiphons. As long as they simply "cover" the reading of the two prayers of the faithful, they really add nothing to the Liturgy and make this whole part of it, especially in the absence of a deacon, incomprehensible. If, however, the practice of reading aloud the prayers, which in both orders-Chrysostom and Basil-are extremely meaningful and beautiful, were to be reintroduced, the corporate preparation of the Church for the Offertory would acquire its full significance.
C. The litany after the Great Entrance and that before the Lord's Prayer are not to be omitted. The repetition - within some fifteen minutes - of two identical litanies is a problem. Based on the oldest manuscript containing the full orders of St. Basil and of St. John Chrysostom, the famous Codex Barberini, I would suggest that the first one be omitted for it is absent from this early text, while the second one- after the Anaphora- is present (see Sobranie Drevnikh Liturgii, Vol. II [St. Petersburg; 1875]: pp. 64 and 76 for St. Basil; pp. 124 and 129 for St. John Chrysostom). While the first one only obscures the organic transition of the Liturgy from the Offertory to the Anaphora (cf. Codex Barberini: Prayer of the Offertory [proskomidis] is read after the placing of the Holy Gifts on the Holy Table upon completion of the mystical hymn of the Cherubim; People: Amen; Priest: Peace to all; People: And with thy spirit; and after the kiss of peace, the Deacon: The doors, the doors; People: I believe; Deacon: Let us stand aright. ..; and the rest of the Anaphora), the second one is in continuity with the prayers of intercession and leads to the prayer before the Our Father.
D. The First Antiphon (Ps. 102/3) must consist, at least, of verses 1, 2, 3, 9, 1, ending with the words, "Bless the Lord, O my Soul."
E. The Second Antiphon (Ps. 145/6) must consist, at least, of verses 1, 2, 3, 10.
What "standard" book, what Typikon prescribes this? The origin and development of the antiphons - in fact, of the entire pre-entrance portion of the Liturgy - are extremely complex (see, for example, P. N. Trembelas, Three Liturgies, in Greek [Athens: 1935, p. 27f., and especially J. Mateos, "Evolution historique de la liturgie de St. Jean Chrysostome, I. From the initial blessing to the Trisagion," in Proche-Orient Chretien, 15, [1965], pp. 333-351), but even if one takes the contemporary Russian practice, it prescribes psalms and not verses(see Archimnandrite Kiprian, Evkharistija [Paris: 1947], pp. 163-164) as well as different antiphons for Sundays, certain feasts, and weekdays - prescriptions not even mentioned in the instruction. Are these to be explained by the fact that Bakhmetev put to music a few verses and not the entire psalm?
F. The troparia and kontakia are to be sung according to the rule. I would like to find one parish in our Church where the troparia and kontakia are sung "according to the rule." Therefore either this rule should have been spelled out, or its application left to local possibilities. The rules in this matter vary greatly from Church to Church and from one period to another. The Typikon of Stoudion knows nothing of such singing. The present Greek practice is different from the Russian Church (cf. Kiprian, p. 172, Trembelas, pp. 39-40). There is no reason why our Church could not promulgate simple and practical guidelines.
II. In Vespers:
A. No elements from Matins or any other service are to be introduced into Vespers so that the shape of the service is altered or distorted.
B. The complete order of Vespers is to be observed without the omission of any litanies, proper verses, or other elements.