In twenty years of serving in America I have seen such an incredible variety of Vespers that the prescription to follow a "complete order" seems to me almost ironic. For the first question to be raised is - what is their "complete" order? Does, for example, the reference to "other elements" imply the singing or rending of -psalms 141, 142, 130, and 117 in their totality or in their present form - reduced to some verses following "Lord I call upon Thee"? What about the kathismata? What about the different combinations of the Octoechos and the Menaion depending on the "signs" of the Typikon? Is it not clear that here also there is a problem, and that our present parish practice (in the very few parishes where Vespers are served at all) needs more than general references to a "complete order"?
What is meant by "elements from Matins" introduced into Vespers? This is not explained in the instruction, and one simply does not know what is implied here. If, as I saw it done in some parishes, Solemn Vespers on the eve of certain great feasts are followed by the festal elements of Matins (excluding the specifically "matinal" elements" this seems to me to be an intelligent way to salvage at least something of the very essence of the feast, especially in view of the absence in many parishes of trained choir directors and psalmists, making it a necessity - possibly a good thing!-to have congregational singing. It is certainly one possible way to react against the rapid disappearance of the celebration of the eves, the reduction of even the great feasts to the Divine Liturgy alone. This practice ought therefore to be discussed and regulated, but certainly not summarily condemned as a "distortion." What the instruction seems to ignore altogether are the conditions in which at least some of our priests struggle for the restoration of festal cycles, of the very liturgical reality of the feast.
III. In Matins:
A. The Six Psalms (not three) are to be read in their entirety.
It seems to me that, on the contrary, if Matins is to be shortened for any valid reason, the shortening of the Hexapsalmos is, liturgically speaking, the reasonable way to do it. The Hexapsalmos is clearly composed of two triads of Psalms: 3, 37, 52, and 87, 102, 142. The first triad, or at least Psalms 3 and 62, is very ancient and belongs to the early core of the Church's morning services, whatever the complexity of their development. As for the second triad, Psalms 87', 102, and 142 "have no special connection with either midnight or morning. Besides, the fact that the priest recites the matutinal prayers while these Psalms are read shows that they are an addition. These prayers, or at least one of them, recited in this place, formerly had to be said aloud" (I. Mateos, "Some Problems of Byzantine Orthros," in French, in Proche-Orient Chritien, 11 [1961], p. 7; see also M. Skaballanovich, Tolkovyi Typikon, Vol. II [Kiev: 1913], pp. 199-201, and I. M. Hanssens, Nature and Genesis of Matins in French [Rome: 1952]).
B. At least one full Canon (that of the Resurrection) is to be said on Sundays (the Heirmos of the Ode is sung and the other troparia are read). But suppose Sunday falls within the octave of a great feast which, because it was kept on a weekday, was practically "missed" by the overwhelming majority of the parishioners - would it not be more pastoral, more liturgical to sing "at least" the canon of that feast rather than that of the Resurrection? In general, the Canon (which as everybody knows was at first a musical composition and whose present "reading" makes it the most incomprehensible part of Matins), if it is to survive at all in our parish worship (it has virtually disappeared in many other Orthodox Churches), must be the object of much study and rethinking. The present rubrics prescribing two or three canons at each Matins are simply `not applied, and it might be better to decide which canons are to be used (great feasts, Triodion, etc.) in parish practice and which should remain in the usage of monasteries.
C. The complete order of Matins is to be observed without the omission of any litanies, proper verses, or other elements. Concerning Matins I would reinforce the remarks I made on Vespers. Do the "other elements" include kathismata, Psalm 50, and the gradual antiphons so often omitted in Russian practice? What about the Praises at the end of Matins? Rubrics or katabasia? Why, for example, should prayer 9 of the matutinal prayers be read if there is no Gospel reading for which it prepares? Either the instruction, if it is to be taken seriously, must lead to the appointment of a special commission, to a study, to a plan - it will only increase the confusion which, according to the Russian Bishops' Reports, had already existed for decades, if not for centuries.
IV. Churches in which there is no curtain behind the holy doors must install one within two weeks. ...
V. The holy doors are to be closed at three points in the Liturgy:
A. during the litany of the catechumens and the first and second litanies of the faithful;
B. after the Great Entrance, during the litany of the Prothesis;
C. during the communion of the clergy;
D. the curtain is likewise to be drawn during (B) and (C).
I think it is a great and even tragic mistake to absolutize that which the Church herself has not absolutized, maintaining that only this or that practice is correct and any other inadmissible. Thus, for example, no rubric in the text of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as printed in the Russian "standard" books (I have before me a beautiful edition by the Moscow Synodal Press, 1904) even mentions the curtain. If the closing of the holy doors during (A) and (B) were truly an organic and essential part of the Eucharistic celebration, they would not remain open when the celebrant is a Bishop or, as it was customary in the Russian practice, a priest of a certain rank. In the curtain appeared long before the iconostasis, and certainly had a meaning very different from the one sometimes ascribed to it today, i.e., that certain acts are not to be seen by the faithful (see Symeon of Thessalonica in Writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church Concerning the Explanation of Orthodox Worship, in Russian, Vol. II ,[St. Petersburg: 1856], pp. 186-87). The term `Royal Doors," until a relatively recent date (in the works of the same Symeon, for example) was applied to the doors of the Church itself, and not to the doors in the iconostasis. Whatever the meaning of subsequent developments, it is clear that today the curtain merely duplicates the iconostasis. Personally I am convinced that the contemporary Greek practice of not closing the doors at all during the entire Liturgy is much more faithful to the true spirit of the Eucharist and the Orthodox understanding of the Church than the one adopted in the Russian Church which seems constantly to stress the radical separation between the people of God and the clergy. It is from this latter practice that there developed real abuses: the singing, during the communion of the clergy, of the so-called "concerts," the transfer of preaching from its original time, i.e., after the Gospel, to the time of the koinonikon ("in order to occupy the attention of the faithful," writes with irony a Russian Bishop), and even the alteration of the liturgical order itself ( thus, for example, in the Russian "standard" books the prayer of thanksgiving for receiving the Holy Gifts was simply transferred from its original place, i.e. alter the litany "Having received. . " to the time after the communion of the clergy alone). That there is confusion here is also indicated by the rubrics which state that when "he sees the Priest taking the Holy Bread" at the moment of Elevation, the Deacon, standing outside the sanctuary, is to say, "Let us attend." Exactly how is the Deacon to see this if the Royal Doors are closed and the curtain drawn as is done today in the Russian practice? In Russia, moreover, the Royal Doors were closed throughout the entire Anaphora, while in America - thanks be to God - we at least open them at the Creed. It is to be hoped that when the Orthodox understanding of the Divine Liturgy as corporate prayer, corporate offering, corporate thanksgiving, and corporate communion is restored, i.e., when from our recent and dubious customs we return to the genuine Orthodox Tradition clearly revealed in our liturgical texts and patristic commentaries, the sad state of affairs prevailing today which makes the faithful "attendants" rather than participants of the divine services will be corrected.
Your Beatitude: All these remarks are meant to say only one thing - we urgently need a real concern for worship, a real effort to make it again that which it is meant to he in the Church: the source of her life, the revelation and communication of her faith, the means of her growth and sanctification, the focus and fulfillment of her unity. May this concern, this urgent task-the fulfillment of which we expect from our Bishops-be rooted in these words of our Lord: "The Spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail: the words which I have spoken to you are both spirit and life" (Jn. 6:63).
Epiphany, 1973