Logos

A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Revue des études de l’Orient chrétien Журнал східньохристиянських студій

Volume 46, Nos. 3–4 (2005)

This periodical is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, the Index to Book Reviews in Religion, Religion Indexes: RIO/RIT/IBRR 1975– on CD- ROM, and in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Flr., Chicago, IL 60606, E-mail: [email protected], WWW: http://www.atla.com

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Revue des études de l’Orient chrétien Журнал східньохристиянських студій

A continuation of Logos: Periodicum Theologiae Trimestre (1950–1983) ISSN 0024–5895 Published by Metropolitan Institute of Eastern Christian Studies and the Yorkton Province of the Ukrainian Redemptorists © 2005 Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies

Editor-in-Chief: Andriy Chirovsky (Sheptytsky Institute) Managing Editor: Andrew T. Onuferko (Sheptytsky Institute) Associate Editor: Deville Distribution: Lorraine Manley Layout & Design: Key-Co. Enterprises tel. (613) 824-3878 fax (613) 824-9799

Editorial Board Peter Galadza (Sheptytsky Institute), (Ukrainian Catholic University), Metropolitan , OSBM (Archeparchy of ), John A. Jillions (Sheptytsky Institute), John Sianchuk, CSSR (Yorkton Province of the Ukrainian Redemptorists).

International Advisory Board Johannes Madey (Paderborn), Jaroslav Pelikan (retired, Yale), Ihor Ševčenko (retired, Harvard), Robert Taft, SJ (retired, Pontifical Oriental Institute), Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (retired, Oxford).

The editors and publishers assume no responsibility for statements of fact or opinion made by contributors to this journal.

Editorial and subscription offices: 223 Main Street, , Ontario, K1S 1C4 Tel. (613) 236–1393 (ext. 2332) Fax (613) 782–3026 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ustpaul.ca/sheptytsky

Subscription rate: Canada CDN $45.00 GST included; outside Canada US $40.00 If airmail add US $15.00 Contact [email protected] for airmail and shipping rates

Cover design: Gilles Lepine Logo: Jacques Hnizdovsky

Logos A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Revue des études de l’Orient chrétien Журнал східньохристиянських студій

Volume 46 2005 Nos. 3–4

Table of Contents

Editorials

† Bishop Ivan Khoma (Choma) (1923–2006): Scholar and Shepherd after the Lord’s Own Heart...... 283

† Victor Pospishil (1915–2006): An Appreciation of a Pastoral and Scholarly Life...... 287

Inspiration rather than Imitation: Seeing the Papacy of the Third Millennium through the Eyes of the First ...... 289

A Note from the Editor-in-Chief Regarding Terminological Issues...... 301

Articles

A New Development in the Malankara Catholic : Major Archiepiscopal Church or Catholicate John Madey...... 303

Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance: ’s Contribution at Vatican II and the East-West Encounter Today Will Cohen...... 327

Logos: Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4 Table of Contents

Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions: An Evaluation of Its History Melita Mudri-Zubacz ...... 347

Documents

Pastoral Letter of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy in Canada to the , Religious, Monastics and Faithful...... 455

Пасторальний Лист Української Католицької Єрархії в Канаді Духовенству, Монахам, Ченцям і Всім ...... 461

Archival Sources for the Study of Eastern at the Library and Archives of Canada ...... 467

Ruthenian – And a French Catholic : A Scene from Emigrant Life...... 477

My Dinner Among the Indians From “Scenes from Canada”...... 483

Scenes from Canada: II Sunday in Ottawa...... 489

Fr. P. Filas about Canadian Rus’...... 495

Notes, Essays, Lectures

Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations: Toward a New Beginning John A. Jillions ...... 501

The School of and Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Twentieth Century Antoine Arjakovsky ...... 513

The Way of a Pilgrim: A Synopsis of Recent Scholarship on a Spiritual Classic Suzette Phillips...... 525

iv Logos: Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4 Table of Contents

Book Reviews

Lucian Turcescu, ed., Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernity in (Andriy Chirovsky)...... 543

Andreas Andreopoulos, Metamorphosis: The Transfiguration in Byzantine Theology and Iconography (Shawn Tribe)...... 552

David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Brian Anastasi Butcher) ...... 556

John Sianchuk, C.SS.R., ed., Blessed Bishop Nicholas Charnetsky, C.SS.R., and Companions: Modern Martyrs of the Ukrainian (Adam DeVille)...... 561

Peter Galadza, The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptysky (1865–1944) (Andrew Quinlan)...... 565

Jim Forest, Confession: Doorway to Forgiveness (Stephen Wojcichowsky)...... 569

Antoine Arjakovsky, Entretiens avec le Cardinal , Vers un christianisme post-confessionel (Philip J. Sandstrom) ...... 573

Briefly Noted ...... 579

Books Received...... 593

Contributors...... 607

v Logos: Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4 Table of Contents

The Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies

Resources, Books, Academic Programmes

vi Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 283–285

Bishop Ivan Khoma (Choma) (1923–2006): Scholar and Shepherd after the Lord’s Own Heart

The long-time editor-in-chief of our sister journal Bohoslo- via [Theology], Bishop Ivan Khoma, of Patara, fell asleep in the Lord in on 3 February 2006. Born on 27 November 1923 into a large family of a rail- road worker and First World War veteran, in the town of Khyriv, near , Ivan Khoma received his primary and secondary education in his hometown of Khyriv and then in Peremyshl’ (Przemysl) and Sambir. He completed his theolo- gical studies in Rome after the Second World War as a semi- narian of Josaphat’s Pontifical College for and obtained a doctorate from the Pontificia Università Urba- niana in 1951, having been ordained to the presbyterate by Ivan Buchko on 29 June 1949. It was Buchko who invited Khoma to serve at the chancery of the apostolic visitator for Ukrainians in Western Europe, a position which had been of immense importance for the large numbers of displaced Ukrainian Catholics who had found themselves in various countries occupied by the Allies at the end of the war. This apostolic visitatorship was very much the nerve-centre of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (UGCC) in Western Europe until the arrival in Rome of the head of the UGCC, Metropolitan (later /) Josyf Cardinal Slipyj. Father Khoma became the second secretary and archivist at Buchko’s chancery, receiving the title of “papal ” in 1959 from John XXIII. His work at the chancery ended in 1963 when he became secretary to the newly released Metropolitan Josyf. He was later named chancellor and, from 1978 to 1992, a of the chapter (Krylos) of Lviv. 284 Andriy Chirovsky

After having learned of agreements between “ecumenists” representing the Roman and the Moscow , which signified a death-sentence for the UGCC in the wake of any significant liberalization in the , Patriarch Josyf decided to ordain several trusted individuals to the episcopate in order to ensure the for the UGCC. Thus, on 2 April 1977, Ivan Khoma received episcopal from the hands of Slipyj and Ivan Prasko and . Ordained with him were Stepan Chmil and none other than Lubomyr Husar, now cardinal and major archbishop/patriarch of the UGCC. All three accepted ordination under obedience and out of their deep respect for Patriarch Josyf the of the Faith. All three remained unrecognized by Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, and, until 1996, by Pope John Paul II, who was reported to have responded to the requests of Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk and other UGCC hierarchs that he could forgive this indiscretion of Cardinal Slipyj, but he could not regularize the status of these bishops because that would mean that he approved of the action. Nonetheless, in 1996, Pope John Paul II confirmed the election of Khoma, granting him the titular see of Patara. With the shadow of the unrecognized consecration having disap- peared, Myroslav Ivan Cardinal Lubachivsky, the successor to Slipyj as major archbishop, felt free to appoint Bishop Khoma to the position of apocrisarius of the UGCC to the Roman See. The late Bishop Khoma was known for his quietly industrious nature. To say that he was quiet is actually an understatement: the man had one of the softest voices I have ever heard. This had a double effect in the classroom: it put some students to sleep but simultaneously made others strain with the utmost attention to catch every word. He served as secretary of the Ukrainian Theological Scho- larly Society from 1960 to 1997 when it returned to Lviv after half a century in exile. During those years, Khoma was editor- in-chief of the Society’s journal, Bohoslovia. His life was also intimately connected with the Ukrainian Catholic University. From its founding in 1965 until 1999, he was professor of Church history at this institution; and from 1985 to 2001, he Editorial 285

held the position of of the university until its head- quarters were officially transferred from Rome to Lviv, where the Lviv Theological Academy, founded in 1928 by Metropo- litan Andrey Sheptytsky as the first step en route to the creation of a Ukrainian Catholic University, finally evolved into what it was meant to be from the very beginning but impeded from becoming during the interwar years because of the mendacity of Polish occupational government, which had promised Ukrainian cultural autonomy but would not even allow the Church to start a Catholic university. From 1989 to 2002, Bishop Khoma was the president of the Saint Sophia Society, the charitable foundation responsible for the upkeep of the patriarchal institutions of the UGCC in Rome, including the Santa Sophia Cathedral, the Ukrainian Catholic University, and other significant institutions. An historian by predilection, and an archivist from the very first days at the chancery of the apostolic visitator until quite recently, he edited a nearly complete set of the works of Patriarch Josyf, about whom he also wrote books and scholarly articles. He also prepared a number of manuscripts in Ukrai- nian and universal Church history, several of which were pub- lished over the years. He also exhibited fatherly love to seve- ral of us who now work in the editorial board and committee of Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. The UGCC owes a debt of gratitude to this quiet and unassuming man who served his Church and its protohierarchs with great loyalty and personal affection. To your servant, the hierarch Ivan, grant rest, O Lord, in a place where there is no sorrow or sighing, but only life everlasting; and may his memory be eternal! Вічная пам’ять

Andriy Chirovsky, Editor-in-chief

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 287–288

Archimandrite Victor Pospishil (1915–2006): An Appreciation of a Pastoral and Scholarly Life

The editorial staff of Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christ- ian Studies learned with sadness of the death of Victor J. Pospishil in New Jersey on 16 February 2006 at the age of 91. It seems no exaggeration to say that Eastern Catholic would not be the discipline it is today save for his extra- ordinary efforts, which must not go unremarked. Archimandrite Victor Pospishil was born in in 1915 and attended the University of Vienna. Following stu- dies at the Theological Academy and Seminary in Djakovo, Croatia (then in Yugoslavia), he was ordained a priest in June 1940. He spent the rest of the Second World War serving pas- toral charges in Austria and Yugoslavia. When the war ended, he resumed studies in Rome. He received a bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate in canon law from the Gregorian University and Pontifical Oriental Insti- tute; he also received a master’s degree in oriental canon law and liturgics. His doctoral dissertation was on “The Patriarch in the ,” which was published pri- vately in Vienna. After completing studies in Rome, he immigrated to the in 1950 and became a priest of the Ukrainian Catholic Archdiocese in Philadelphia, serving parishes in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania to his retirement from work in 1981. Along the way, he was appointed a papal chamberlain in 1960, with the title of “,” and in 1976 in Toronto was named an archimandrite of the Ukrainian Catholic Church by Patriarch Josyf Cardinal Slipyj. 288 Andriy Chirovsky

A prolific writer and passionate teacher, Fr. Pospishil wrote more than fifty books and articles on everything from the of the to sexuality, the priesthood, the ordination of women, ecumenism, and the question of divorced and remarried Catholics. In 1966, he joined the at Manhattan College in the Bronx, where he served as a member of the Department of Religious Studies for ten years. His role as teacher and scholar was celebrated in 1994 when the Canon Law Society of America awarded him their Role of Law Award. Among his publications of note are his 1990 monograph Eastern Catholic Marriage Law According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. His Divorce and Remarriage: Towards a New Catholic Teaching was published in 1967 amidst not a little controversy that nonetheless did not prevent the work from being translated into several languages. Earlier works include Ex occidente lex: From the West, the Law: The Eastern Catholic Churches under the Tutelage of the of Rome; and Compulsory Celibacy for the Eastern Catholics in the Americas. These latter two works marked him as a sharp critic of the domination of the Eastern Catholic Churches by bureaucratic forces in the and the concomitant Latinization of their traditions. In 1994, on the occasion of the inauguration of the Sheptytsky Institute’s first endowed chair, Archimandrite Victor sent greetings in which he stated that in his estimation, the two greatest miracles of Metropolitan Andrey were, first, the resurrection of the Ukrainian Catholic Church which had been so brutally suppressed by the Bolsheviks and, second, the establishment of the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies. A man of many talents and a fearless champion of the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, Archimandrite Victor was an example of a good and faithful servant who had received much from the Lord, and in return gave much of himself for the Kingdom. May his memory be eternal!

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 1–2, pp. 289–300

Editorial

Inspiration rather than Imitation: Seeing the Papacy of the Third Millennium through the Eyes of the First

It is a matter of great joy for most Christians – except, of course, those who believe that ecumenism is the last and greatest, indeed the pan-heresy – that the international Ortho- dox-Catholic theological dialogue is soon to resume. For Eastern Catholics, it is a great relief that the rather artificial focus of Orthodox-Catholic discussions and even polemics in the last two decades will be turned instead to the real issue that needs attention, namely the papacy. In place of the serious yet dispassionate examination that this last and greatest of ecumenical hurdles requires, we have seen in the past decade an unhelpful focus on unproven atrocities attributed to Eastern Catholic faithful, chiefly in Western Ukraine1, where they constitute a religious majority but where they had been suppressed and had formed the world’s largest banned religious body until 1 December 1989. Despite the erection of several joint commissions of Eastern Catholic and Orthodox bishops, who were to study the supposed “acts of violence” committed by Eastern Catholics anxious to reclaim the church buildings that had been taken away from them by Stalin and given to the Moscow Patriarchate, no credible evidence has ever been presented to substantiate the claims of Orthodox polemicists.

1 Andrij Yurash examines the statistics and “myths” about violence and debunks many of them in his insightful and very detailed “Orthodox-Greek Catholic Relations in Galicia and their Influence on the Religious Situation in ,” Religion, State & Society 33 (September 2005): 185–205. 290 Andriy Chirovsky

The same, unfortunately, is not true for the claims of Eastern Catholics that the Moscow Patriarchate collaborated with the Stalinist government in the liquidation of the Greco- Catholic Church in Ukraine. Archival evidence has been very clear in this regard: even the current patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, received special commendation from the KGB for twenty-five years of loyal service. No less eminent an Orthodox authority than Bishop Kallistos (Ware), in his best-selling introduction to , The Orthodox Church, can be adduced to attest to the sad state of affairs when the Moscow Patriarchate coopera- ted with atheistic authorities in the destruction of another Christian Church and reaped significant material gain from this alliance. It is interesting to read the various editions of the classic paperback. Issued under the lay name of Timothy Ware, the book’s early editions explain that Catholic and Orthodox views of the so-called Council of Lviv of 1946 differ and that the truth probably lies somewhere between the two versions. Within a few years, as then-Archimandrite Kallistos came into contact with actual living Ukrainian Catholics in the , and began to dig a little deeper into the evidence, subsequent editions of his book would explain that the truth probably lies more on the Catholic side. In the most recent, revised edition (1993), Bishop Kallistos would say that

the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, in conniving at the persecution of their fellow Christians by Stalin and the atheist authorities, were placed in an unen- viably equivocal situation. Surely, as a matter of basic principle, no Christian should ever support acts of violence against the conscience of other Christians. The fate of the Greek Catholics after the Second World War is perhaps the darkest chapter in the story of the Moscow Patriarchate’s collusion with Commu- nism (p. 165).

Contrast this attitude with the recent announcement of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) of Editorial 291

preparations for celebrations of the so-called Council of Lviv.2 His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr “emphasized the importance of the 1946 Lviv Church Council for the history of Orthodoxy in Ukraine – this year marks the 60th anniversary of its being held. The decided to honor this historically important event. A special commission was created for this purpose, headed by the archbishop of Ternopil and Kremenetz, Serhiy.”3 Returning to Bishop Kallistos, this Orthodox hierarch, in an interview for Radio Resurrection in Lviv, Ukraine, taped on 12 August 1992, said:

What I would say in the first place is that we need to forgive one another. If we will think only about the past and about the hurts that we experienced, if we speak only about that, then there is no way forward. The only way forward is through repentance, meta- noia, and asking forgiveness of one another. There- fore I, as an Orthodox, as a bishop of the Orthodox Church, would like to ask forgiveness of my Catholic brothers and sisters in Ukraine and wherever they might be found for all the hurts, which they experi- enced from the side of the Orthodox. I have in mind

2 Many prominent authorities have issued letters on this occasion. First, the synod and chief hierarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church herself has issued a statement and called for its own sorrowful but not vengeful commemoration of this event. See http://archeparchy.ca/documents/1946_ Lviv_Pseudo-Council_-_eng.pdf. Second, Pope Benedict XVI has also is- sued a letter in late February: see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ bene- dict_xvi/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060222_husar-ucraina_ it.html. Third, the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, also issued a letter commemorating the “pain” of a “tragic” and “violent massacre.” See http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;9450/. 3 http://orthodox.org.ua/News-R_ooua.php?id=732 (accessed 22 Feb- ruary 2006). Translation our own. To be fair, just as Logos was going to be press, the website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate issued a clarification that it “does not ‘justify the methods of the totalitarian Soviet past when the Lviv Sobor of 1946 was held’ but, on the other hand, it recognizes ‘the events which took place in Brest in 1596 as illegal.’” The story and translation are from the website of the Religious Information Service of Ukraine: see http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/ article;9464/. 292 Andriy Chirovsky

how we begin the great fast on Forgiveness Sunday at Forgiveness . We hope that every one of our parish communities will be able to start over, and we need to do something similar in our relationships as Churches. We need to mutually ask for forgiveness in the spirit of the holy . This is the fundamental beginning.4

This interview took place at the end of the first Oxford Con- sultation of the Kievan Church Study Group. Asked by the interviewer, Father Andrew Onuferko, about the worries that Bishop Kallistos might have had going into the first consulta- tion and any surprises that he might have experienced, Orthodox theologian had this to say:

To tell the truth, I have had certain doubts inasmuch, obviously, as I had read some of the history of what had happened in Ukraine from 1946 on, about how the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church had been suppres- sed, and for me, as an Orthodox, this was the cause of great sorrow that my Christians, Ukrainian Catholics, were persecuted in this way and that we Orthodox were to benefit from this persecution. For me, this was always wrong. Obviously I had read in newspapers or heard from my various acquaintances who visit Ukraine about the difficulties of the last years, about the tension where there are Orthodox and Catholics in one village and how it is possible to relate justly to one and to the other. Thus I knew that there were various tensions; I knew that the past was marked by great suffering; and I was aware that the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church was a Church of martyrs and ; and I asked when we come together: will all of this not be too painful? I was amazed that I was very much at peace that in reality, despite all of what happened, we can still meet as brother Christians. I had not expected so much personal warmth, so much

4 This interview has been transcribed into print in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 34 (1993): 314–18. Editorial 293

brotherly love in Christ, as there was at our consulta- tions. I am really surprised that despite all of these burdens that we carry from the past, we can gather together in the present and realize that we are united in our fundamental faith.

Perhaps we should not be surprised at such a loving attitude toward Greco-Catholics from Bishop Kallistos. In that same interview, he was asked whether he remembered attending vespers at the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic parish of Volodymyr and Olha in Chicago. He responded:

[I remember] very well. This was, I think, in the mid- 1970s.5 I remember when I walked into the church – this was a very large church – and again, this was on Saturday evening. I had been invited. I fell in love with the beauty of the holy , and later they told me that the icons were painted by an Orthodox icono- grapher, a hieromonk, who later became a bishop.6 To tell the truth, at that service in Chicago, I experienced that which I had experienced as a much younger man when I had first entered an Orthodox church: I again had that same feeling of heaven on earth – although there weren’t so very many people there but I felt the unity of the visible and the invisible Churches. When we pray, we are never alone: we are always a part of the whole Church.

One is tempted to ask whether Bishop Kallistos was experien- cing the Church of the iconographer who had produced such wonderful icons or his own Church of (of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), or even the Church that was visibly at worship. Dare one propose that the “whole Church” of Bishop Kallistos’s experience in Saints Volodymyr and Olha Ukrainian Catholic parish cannot be reduced to jurisdictional realities? Far be it from me to propose any notions of a

5 Editor’s note: It was actually early 1980. 6 Editor’s note: The reference is to now-Archbishop Alypy of the ROCOR of Chicago and Detroit. 294 Andriy Chirovsky

“spiritual” Church opposed to any Church that exists in space and time – as some Protestant ecumenists have been wont to propose. But as Bishop Kallistos is fond of retelling, great saints and mystics have often thanked God that the walls of Christian division do not rise as high as heaven. How one wishes that more people could experience more often the “heaven on earth” that was such a central part of Bishop Kallistos’s conversion and of his participation in vespers of a Church that his co-religionists consider not a Church, but at best an ecclesiologically anomalous or aberrant product of politico-ecclesiastical intrigue and betrayal! Is it too much to ask the Lord to open the eyes of Orthodox and Catholics to this heavenly reality to such a degree that the disappointments of history move off centre stage, their impor- tance not ignored but also not over-estimated? Is it naïveté to think that the newest phase in the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic communions might in- clude a new way of understanding the papacy and so move us towards the longed-for goal of full and out of the present impasse of “uniatism”? Professional ecumenists may think that by defining “unia- tism” as an unacceptable method of pursuing the restoration of the unity of the Church they have actually accomplished something. Be that as it may, it nonetheless papers over signi- ficant differences of history, method, and purpose, and it is not unimportant that we explore whether the various Eastern Catholic Churches followed the same or even similar paths on their way to union with Rome. Can one, e.g., really equate the preparation of thirty-three conditions for union by the ecclesio- logically ideal (by Orthodox standards) council of bishops and monastic superiors of the Metropolia of Kiev in the 1590s with the conversion of one or two Orthodox lower clerics to Catholicism and the building of a manifestly inorganic struc- ture that held little resemblance to the local Orthodox Church – as was the case with some missions to the East conducted by imperially minded Roman religious orders? Is it fair to paint all Eastern Catholic reality with one extremely broad brush? Or does truth require a conversion of how we see and what we see and what we are willing to perceive? Editorial 295

When categories are missing, and it is difficult to fit the life of millions of Orthodox, who find themselves in full and visible communion with the Church of Rome, into any neat and pre-existing ecclesiological framework, is it illegitimate to allow the Lord of resurrection to surprise us? Is surprising us with love when we least deserve it, and life when it is most horribly extinguished, not the essence of how the Lord saves us from our preconceived despair? If it is excessively romantic to hold tenaciously to hope as the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue sputters fitfully back to life after an exhausting and dreadful period of distraction, then so be it. The fact remains that humanity stands at a threshold: it can be a threshold of hope or it can be the threshold of annihi- lation. Hatred is, it seems, available at bargain prices in the world today. Can Christians afford to be tempted into such commerce? Repentance, mutual forgiveness, and a willing- ness to be surprised seem to be the only way forward. I have no illusions about the need for the Greco-Catholic Church of Kyiv to seek forgiveness – again and again – for an attitude towards our Orthodox brothers and sisters that was lacking in love. When His Beatitude Myroslav Ivan, as chief hierarch of this Church, extended a proposal of mutual forgive- ness to the Moscow Patriarchate on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the of Kievan Rus’, his kenotic move was met with disdain on the part of many of his faithful. “What have we done to the Russians that requires us to ask for their forgiveness?” they asked in frustration and confusion. “It is the Russians who have persecuted us,” they claimed. His answer cut straight to the heart of the matter: “We have hated them for it! And for that we must repent and beg their forgive- ness.” His successor, our present patriarch Lubomyr, has asked the Orthodox of whatever jurisdiction for forgiveness on seve- ral occasions. The same was done by Pope John Paul II. Thus, in hoping for mutual forgiveness between Ukrainian Greco-Catholics and Russian Orthodox, let nobody infer some sort of attitude of moral superiority on my part. The re- pentance and the forgiveness need to be truly mutual. By no means am I implying that the Moscow Patriarchate needs to 296 Andriy Chirovsky

repent more or is somehow more culpable. That kind of thinking is certainly a dead end from which we will never emerge successfully; it is a tomb from which no resurrection can shine forth, surprising the world with unimaginable healing. I would venture to relate a story of my own surprise. It was 1996. Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, then- of Saint Vladimir’s Seminary in New York and distinguished theolo- gian of the Orthodox Church of America, was invited to speak at a conference at Saint College in the Uni- versity of at Saskatoon, a conference which brought together Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and others who love the Eastern Churches. Very much his junior colleague, I was also invited to speak at the conference, an annual ga- thering called “Windows to the East.” It would take much to convince me that it was not Divine Providence that put Fr. Thomas and myself next to each other on a return flight to the east from the Canadian prairies. We began discussing what it would take to make the exer- cise of papal primacy acceptable to the Orthodox Churches. It is no great revelation to state that Orthodox and Catholic ecumenists have agreed in recent years on the normativity of the first millennium. But what in the first millennium could be the real key to restructuring the Church in such a way as to make the Roman primacy acceptable to the Orthodox without stripping it of the authority needed for it to remain an effective guardian of the unity of the Church? The late Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk7, archbishop of Winnipeg and long-time of the Ukrainian Greco- Catholic Church in Canada, had discussed with me on nume- rous occasions the question of how the present, ineffective papal synod of bishops could become much more effective if it were to function as a sort of permanent synod, or synodos endemousa, as exists in a number of Eastern Churches, Ortho- dox and Catholic. We discussed how, mutatis mutandis, a

7 May 3, 2006 commemorates the tenth anniversary of his falling asleep in the Lord. For more on his life and work, see Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 37 (1996): 1–6. Editorial 297

creative application of the wisdom behind Canon 34 of the so- called was needed. That canon reads:

it behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The relationship in this canon between the bishops of a given region and the one among them who exercises primacy is the basis for how the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches – currently the general law in force for all Eastern Catholic Churches – structures the operation of primacy of an Eastern Catholic patriarch and regulates his interactions with his synod of bishops. The bishops can initiate legislation when gathered together in synod but never without the one who holds pri- macy, who alone can call them together. The primate, on the other hand, does not act in isolation but always works together with the synod. The primate may not single-handedly create new legislation for his Church, but he does have a significant authority inasmuch as he decides if, when, and how to promulgate the legislative decisions of the synod. This, we felt, offered the possibility to envisage a primacy that was not cut off from the general episcopate but rather was organically tied to it and, in fact, impossible without it. At the same time, this model afforded the one who exercised primacy an effect- tive authority, strong enough to be able to act as a guardian of what was truly important, especially the very unity of the Church. There is an old adage in the Russian Orthodox tradition that states: “we are not afraid of the pope of Rome. It is his helpers that we fear.” This statement, in fact, encapsulates 298 Andriy Chirovsky

much of the apprehension that most Eastern Christians, whether Orthodox or Catholic, have felt throughout the ages. The Roman Curia may in fact be the oldest human bureaucracy on earth: it is, in a sense, the continuation of the bureaucracy of the Roman Empire, itself an extension of the bureaucracy of the Roman Republic. Much more nuance is required, of course, but the fundamental question of the legislative power that seems to fall into the hands of Roman curial by accident is crucial and must be addressed. Metropolitan Maxim was at pains to return the legislative power of the Church to the bishops acting under the leadership of the one who holds special primacy among them. It is for this reason that in the Catholic Church in Canada, Metropoli- tan Maxim is often remembered as the “father of collegiality.” (Whether he himself exercised the best sort of collegiality in dealings with suffragan bishops, or in his shepherding of his own Archeparchy of Winnipeg, is an entirely different matter.) He is, of course, not the only one to propose models of collegiality, but unlike the others, his ideas flowed from a truly Eastern source. That this was the case is borne out by the fact that he was accosted by many of the high and the mighty in the who asked him, with unfeigned incredulity, whether he really believed that an Eastern approach to eccle- siastical governance was superior to the existing Latin model, which was thought by these eminences as being nearly perfect, if not expressly divine. Metropolitan Maxim lectured on the topic, “How can the Catholic Church be governed in a truly collegial manner?” in Ottawa in 1994. On this occasion, when questioned, he re- vealed his deep frustration with the many bishops who prefer- red to abdicate their responsibility for leading the Church and instead liked to hide behind the excuse that “Rome made me do it.” Thus they would not have to take a stand, or could avoid taking responsibility, when difficult issues were discus- sed and the governance of the Church on thorny issues was called into question. When Metropolitan Maxim and I discussed this question in greater depth, we looked at various possibilities for the in- clusion of bishops who were of in the legisla- Editorial 299

tive structures of the universal Church. Our concern was that too much power resided in the hands of career bureaucrats who might be dedicated and even holy people but who were cut off from the real, lived circumstances of the Church in various parts of the world. We discussed the problems involved in having bishops serve in a capacity that would require them to be in Rome, away from their own dioceses. He explained how these issues were worked out during the various sessions of the Second Vatican Council. We discussed the new possibilities afforded by modern technology, which allows for instanta- neous communication from all parts of the world. What was essential was that bishops, successors of the apostles, should be the ones who effectively made decisions for the Church on a day-to-day basis, rather than bureaucrats who often did not have the grace of the episcopate, and who sometimes had very limited pastoral experience. Metropolitan Maxim had raised similar questions about the way that the Congregation for the Eastern Churches func- tioned. He made no secret of the fact that he did not think that the staff of this Roman had an adequate grasp of the real pastoral situations of the Churches for which they made decisions day after day. When he suggested that a permanent council of bishops (or perhaps the actual primates of the Eastern Catholic Churches) should be charged with all of the decision-making in that congregation, and that the existing and future staff of that dicastery should be limited to carrying out the decisions of the bishops, his ideas were treated with not a little condescension. The Roman Curia knew what it was doing, thank you, and no wisdom was required from outside – even if it came from bishops in their local Churches. As I unfolded these ideas to Fr. Thomas Hopko during our airplane trip of several hours, it became quite clear to me that this Orthodox theologian – for whom I had immense respect but who had serious reservations about the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches (and not without good reason, I might add!) – was listening quite actively and testing various scenarios which I proposed. I was eager to hear what he thought the reaction of Orthodox theologians and bishops might be to a papacy that would function in the spirit of Canon 300 Andriy Chirovsky

34, cited above. Fr. Hopko, with an evident depth of love for the Church, said to me:

if ever the pope of Rome would agree to such a synodos endemousa, and limit himself to promulgating or vetoing its decisions, and that permanent body, composed of successors to the apostles would by de- finition include the heads of the autocephalous Chur- ches, then I cannot see why the Orthodox would have any reservations.

I believe I have related accurately Fr. Hopko’s response. I was surprised, genuinely surprised, that our agreement seemed so total. I do not presume to know what Fr. Hopko felt in his heart, but I do know that my being was consumed by prayer and joy. That day and that simple, perhaps naïve, conversation – from my side – has left an abiding joy and hope in my heart. I did not see heaven and earth united; I did not, as Bishop Kallistos had, see the visible and invisible Churches worship- ping together in fullness; but what I could see was a vision of Orthodox and Catholics in full and visible communion, a com- munion that seemed so very attainable. That vision will sustain me until I leave this earth. Let us pray for the further progress of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue of truth. We should not rush to embrace; we should be wary of false union; we should allow no indifferentism into our struggle for the union of the holy Churches of God. But for the life of the world, we cannot do less than strive to see the unity that the Lord wants us to see. His truth will set us free.

Protopresbyter Andriy Chirovsky, Editor-in-Chief

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 301–302

A Note from the Editor-in-Chief Regarding Terminological Issues

Several questions of nomenclature have arisen lately, and for the benefit of clarity and consistency, we want to note the following. In the first few years of Ukraine’s independence, the spel- ling of the name of its capital was still in flux, with at least two transliterations being proposed. At that time, Logos chose to wait until the issue was more settled. It is now certainly settled. The Ukrainian government has selected “Kyiv,” and much of the world is increasingly following this transliteration. While certain place names have an historically fixed English form, and it is acceptable according to most manuals of style to use that form, it is certainly no less acceptable to use a trans- literation which has been requested by the government of a given nation. “Kiev” is one of those historically accepted English spellings of a foreign place name. It corresponds to certain ancient ways of pronouncing the word in Old Slavonic. But it also corresponds to the Russian pronunciation, which conjures up painful memories of a not-so-distant subjugation. For these several reasons, then, “Kyiv” will be used and is henceforth the editorial policy of our journal. Secondly, I would like to remind contributors that The Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies and its journal, Logos, decided some years ago that the term “греко-католицька Церква” would be rendered in English as “Greco-Catholic Church” rather than “Greek Catholic Church” because Greco-Catholic is closer to the Ukrainian usage, which gives us “греко-католицька,” rather than “грецька католицька.” In fact, the latter, in Ukrainian would rather clearly designate a Hellenic Catholic reality while the former, as it appears in the , suggestss something that is “Greek-like” rather than “Greek.” It seems obvious that, having received Christianity from Constan- 302 Andriy Chirovsky

tinople, the Kyivan Church is “Greek-like” but after more than a thousand years of inculturation, this Church is not simply “Greek.” Thus, submissions to Logos will be edited with these terminological decisions in mind. Exceptions will be made, of course, where documents are being quoted, so as to preserve the originals in tact. The name of this Church has been the center of much discussion for many years. Labelled “Griekische Katholishche Kirche” by the Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa, in order to distinguish them from her other Catholic subjects of the Roman tradition, members of this Church found themselves being referred to as “Ukrainian Catholics” in Rome’s Annuario pontificio several decades ago. Rome began referring to certain bishops of this Church as “for the Ukrainians.” Thus we find the “ of St. Nicholas in Chicago for the Ukrainians” among several such curiously named ecclesial structures outside Ukraine and even the “major archbishop of L’viv for the Ukrainians,” until recently the title of the chief hierarch of this Church. Today the latter is titled “major archbishop of Kyiv-Halych,” a way of designating all of Rus’ , as opposed to the “Lands belonging to Rus’,” or “Rus’kaia zemlia,” a name for the empire whose capital was Kyiv. It is important to underscore that “Ukrainian Catholic” or “Ukrainian Greco-Catholic” should not be taken in an ethni- cally exclusive sense, especially in a context outside Ukraine itself. The faithful of the Catholic branch of the Church of Kyiv, now scattered throughout the world, turn to Ukraine simply in the hope of ressourcement and of receiving inspira- tion from this Church of martyrs. The homes of the faithful, in various corners of the world, are to be understood as staging points for a new evangelization by a Church that may come historically from the Ukrainian people, but exists for the entire human race.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 303–326

A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church: Major Archiepiscopal Church or Catholicate

John Madey

Abstract (Українське резюме на ст. 326)

The author continues his study of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, of which he is a leading scholar. This cur- rent research is based on new ecclesiological developments within this Church, which has recently been raised to the rank of a major archiepiscopal Church according to Ca- tholic canonical norms. Madey traces the history of those developments in the canonical and conciliar literature, with special but not exclusive attention to the developments in the 20th century, chiefly in Cleri Sanctitati of Pope Pius XII; Orientalium Ecclesiarum of the Second Vatican Council; and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The author differentiates ecclesial structures and canonical norms in Oriental Churches governed by a patriarch, major arch- bishop, catholicos, or maphrian. He details the role and responsibilities of the catholicos in particular, especially his election, his relationship with the other bishops of his Church, his internal responsibilities to his Church, and his external relationship to the Church and bishop of Rome, with which he, as head of the Syro-Malankara Church, is in full com- munion.

®®®®®®®®

304 John Madey

On February 10, 2005, the Vatican Press Office published the following news:

the Holy Father raised the Syro-Malankara Metropoli- tan Church sui iuris to the rank of a Major Archiepis- copal Church and promoted His Excellency Cyril Mar Baselios Malancharuvil, O.I.C., to the dignity of Major Archbishop of Trivandrum of the Syro-Malankarians.1

The apostolic in India, who communicated this news to the public, explained that the new dignity is equivalent to that of catholicos.

What is a Major Archbishop? What is a Catholicos?

The title of “major archbishop” does not have a long tradi- tion. It was used for the first time by the famous Greek- canonist Acacius Coussa2 in order to distinguish this class of who enjoy patriarchal rights in almost all aspects. Vatican II took up this title in its Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE), saying: “what has been said of is valid also, in accordance with the norms of law, in respect to major archbishops who rule the whole of some individual Church or rite.”3 This statement stresses, before all, the supra- episcopal and even the supra-metropolitan authority of the major archbishop. From OE, the term came into the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), where four canons are devoted to the major archiepiscopal Churches4: i) a major archbishop is a metropolitan who presides over an entire Church sui iuris;

1 Bollettino della Sala Stampa della Santa Sede (in Italian). Available at http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/16106.php?index=16106&p o_date = 10.02.2005&lang=it. 2 Epitome Praelectionum de iure ecclesiastico orientali, vol. I (Grottaferrata, 1948). The author eventually became the pro-secretary and secretary of the Oriental Congregation (the pope being himself the then) and cardinal. 3 No. 10. 4 CCEO cc. 151–154. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 305

ii) the norms regarding patriarchal Churches and patri- archs are generally applicable to archiepiscopal Churches and major archbishops; iii) the major archbishop is elected in the same manner as a patriarch. In contrast to patriarchs who ask the Roman pon- tiff for ecclesiastical communion, the major archbishop must petition the confirmation of his election from the Roman pon- tiff; iv) major archbishops hold precedence of honor im- mediately after patriarchs according the order in which the Church over which they preside was erected as a major archiepiscopal Church.

Within the communion of the Catholic Churches, we have to distinguish the apostolic patriarchal Churches, the patriar- chal Churches of later origin, and the major archiepiscopal Churches.

Table 1: The Apostolic Patriarchal Churches

Historic Liturgical Church(es) Center Tradition Rome Church of the Occident Roman (St. Peter’s primatial see)5 Maronite Church Syro-Antiochene Greek Melkite Church Byzantine Syriac Church Syro-Antiochene6

5 Other Roman Catholic (e.g., Jerusalem, Venice, Goa, Lisbon) are archbishops having the title of patriarch ad honorem, but they do not enjoy the patriarchal authority. 6 We have followed the order of precedence according to CCEO c. 59 § 4. 306 John Madey

Table 2: The Patriarchal Churches of Later Origin7

Historic Liturgical Church(es) Center Tradition Babylonia Chaldean Catholicate- Syro-oriental Patriarchate of the East Cilicia Armenian Catholicate- Armenian Patriarchate

Table 3: The Major Archiepiscopal Churches8

Historic Liturgical Church(es) Center Tradition Kiev and Ukrainian (or Kievan) Byzantine Halych Church Ernakulam- Syro-Malabar or Indo- Syro-oriental Angamaly Chaldean Church Trivandrum Syro-Malankara Church Syro-Antiochian

This survey reveals that two Catholic Churches sui iuris are catholicates recognised as equivalent to . The title of catholicos has been originally used outside the ancient Roman Empire to designate the chief hierarch of a Church because of his universal (“catholic”) jurisdiction. In fact, in the Armenian and in the Chaldean Churches, the title of catho- licos is more ancient and superior to that of patriarch. The two Orthodox Armenian patriarchates of Jerusalem and of Istanbul are titular patriarchates and depend on the Supreme Catho- licos9 of all the Armenians in Etchmiadzin. The patriarchal title was later added to that of catholicos.

7 According to CCEO c.59 § 3, the Chaldean catholicate-patriarchate has precedence because it was re-established in 1553, while the Armenian one only in 1742. 8 Cf. CCEO c. 154. The major archbishops follow immediately the patriarchs according to the time the Church over which they preside was recognised for its major archiepiscopal status. 9 At present, the Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church has two catholicoi, the Supreme Catholicos and His Beatitude the Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, who resides in Beirut, Lebanon. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 307

The former legislation mentions the catholicos10 as well as the maphrian,11 while the CCEO does not mention them at all. These two dignities are seen as (major) archbishops. The of Pope Pius XII, Cleri sanctitati, stated in regard to the catholicos: “the catholicos who does not have the title of patriarch is equal to an archbishop,” and in regard to the maph- rian (mafryōnō): “the metropolitan who has the title and dig- nity of a maphrian is equal to an archbishop without prejudice to the duties which come from his subjection to the authority of the patriarch.”12 Maphrian is a title particular to the Syriac Church of Antioch. It concerns that part of the Church which is situated in the ancient empire of the Sassanides. This office has its beginning in AD 628/629. The designation maphrian (“the fructiferous”) was given to the chief metropolitan in Persia in the eleventh century because he transmitted the Holy Spirit in the ordination of the bishops. It points to his authority in the territories outside the ancient Roman Empire. He was entitled, as the patriarch’s delegate, to appoint and ordain metropolitans and bishops as well as to consecrate the holy myron (µύρον) for all the belonging to the maphrianate.13 Being the highest hierarch after the patriarch, the maphrian had the right to consecrate and enthrone the patriarch of Antioch.14 The maphrians resided successively at Tagrit, Mossul (AD1089– 1155) and at Mar Mattai monastery. In contrast to the catho- licos, the maphrian was not elected by the synod of bishops, but appointed by the patriarch. Therefore he could be removed by the will of the patriarch.

10 Pius XII, Cleri sanctitati (motu proprio promulgated 2 June 1957), c.335 § 1. 11 Ibid., c. 335 § 2. 12 The maphrian was not entitled to have an apocrisiary, i.e., procurator, at the Roman apostolic see (Cleri sanctitati cc. 220 and 331; CCEO c. 61). This is the exclusive right of patriarchs and major archbishops. 13 Cf. V.J. Pospishil, Code of Oriental Canon Law: The Law of Persons (Ford City, PA, 1960), 159; W. Hage, in Kleines Wörterbuch des christ- lichen Orients (Wiesbaden, 1975), 251; J.D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Chu- rches: Constitution and Governance (New York, 1992), 368. 14 This right has devolved to the Indian catholicos in communion with Antioch. 308 John Madey

Consequently the terms catholicos and maphrian are not interchangeable, as has been sometimes supposed and has oc- curred. In the document of establishment of the catholicate in India (1912), Patriarch Mar Agnātīyos ‘Abd al-Masīh used the two words in the same sense: “in response to your appeal we installed a Maphrian, that is, Catholicos, with the name Baselios.”15 The document does not say that the catholicate in India is a re-establishment of the former maphrianate (catholi- cate) which existed outside the boundaries of the ancient Roman Empire, i.e., in Mesopotamia, as a continuation of the former Syriac metropolitanate of the East, until the eighteenth century. Also it does not mention the title “of the East,” which is nowadays used by both the non-Catholic Indian catholicoi, the one in communion with the Syriac Orthodox patriarch of Antioch, as well as the other claiming . The Roman document of 2005 raises Cyril Mar Baselios to the dignity of major archbishop (catholicos) of Trivandrum, avoiding thus any misinterpretation, because the Syro-Malan- kara Catholic Church is in no way dependant on the Syriac Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, but an autonomous Church sui iuris within the communion of Catholic Churches.

Patriarch and Catholicos

The catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church has neither the title of patriarch nor of catholicos-patriarch. Vati- can II emphasised that

the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches are to be accor- ded special honor, seeing that each is set over his patriarchate as father and head…. The patriarchs with their are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, with-

15 Quoted from G. Chediath, The Malankara Catholic Church (Kotta- yam, 2003), 86; cf. G. Chediath, The Catholicos of the East (Trivandrum, 2005), 97. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 309

out prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman pontiff to intervene in individual cases (OE no. 9).

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches expressly says that the patriarch “enjoys the power over all bishops in- cluding metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church” (c. 56). The canon makes plain that there are different levels of authority in virtue of the power of jurisdiction: the Roman pontiff enjoys supreme (full, immediate, and universal) ordinary power in the Church16; patriarchal and major archiepiscopal authority is supra-metropolitan; and metropolitans exercise supra-episco- pal authority within their province. With the exception of the major-archiepiscopal Ukrainian and Syro-Malabar Churches, there are no metropolitan struc- tures established in any patriarchal Church. Hence the patri- arch or major archbishop exercises metropolitan authority in those places where provinces are not erected; and eparchial authority in his own eparchy, in patriarchal (“stauropegial”) monasteries, and in places of the patriarchal territory where neither an eparchy nor an exarchate is established.17 The Syro-Malankara Church is currently organised in only one metropolitanate with its suffragan sees.18 This does not mean that further metropolitanates could not be established. In that case, the catholicos who is the first among the metropoli- tans would continue as the head and father of the Church, enjoying quasi-patriarchal authority.

Election of the Catholicos

As a rule, the catholicos (major archbishop) is elected by the synod of bishops. However, as the first catholicos of the Malankara Catholic Church was promoted to this dignity, being already the metropolitan of Trivandrum and chief hie- rarch of this Church, and thus recognised by the Roman pontiff

16 CCEO c. 43. 17 Cf. CCEO c. 101. 18 Tiruvalla, Battery, Marthandom, Moovattupuzha. 310 John Madey

as the father and head of the Malankara catholicate, neither an election nor an express confirmation was needed. This means that c. 153 of the CCEO will be applied only in regard to his successors. The rules of election are the same as for patriarchs. Only the synod of bishops has the right to elect him. The has to be executed within fifteen days after the con- vocation of the electoral synod. Elected is that candidate who obtains two thirds of the votes, unless particular law offers the possibility that, after an appropriate number of ballots – at least three – an absolute majority of votes suffices. If the votes are equal after the third and eventually a fourth ballot, that person deemed elected is he who is senior by sacred ordination.19 If the synod fails in its efforts, the matter de- volves to the pope of Rome, who then can directly nominate the future catholicos; he also can give orders to repeat the election once again.20 Membership in the electoral synod is exclusive to ordained bishops of the pertinent Church sui iuris: (a) the eparchial bishops inside and, if there are some, outside the territory of the catholicate; (b) coadjutor bishops; (c) auxiliary bishops; (d) bishops of the curia; (e) retired bishops.21 Their participation in the synod is obligatory. Resigned bishops, however, have the right to be summoned to the synod, but are not obliged to attend.22 The electoral synod is presided over by the administrator of the catholicate who is either the curial bishop senior accor- ding to episcopal ordination or, if there are not any, chosen from among the bishops who are members of the permanent synod.23 During the first session of the synod, a president is to be elected by the participants for this particular assembly. The administrator is also eligible for this function.24 The one who

19 Cf. CCEO c. 183 §§ 3–4. 20 This was done for the latest election of the Chaldean Patriarch Mar Emmanuel III (Delly) in 2003. 21 See CCEO c. 102. 22 Cf. CCEO c. 104 § 1. 23 See CCEO c. 127. 24 See CCEO c. 70. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 311

presides over the electoral synod has the duty to inform the person about his election25 and also to proclaim who is elected.26 The manner in which this happens is settled by the particular law.

Acceptance and Confirmation of the Election

The elected one has to declare, within two days, whether he accepts the election. If he does not accept it or does not res- pond, he loses all rights acquired by the election. The Syriac synod of Sharfet, Lebanon, describes the election of the patri- arch in detail. After the ballots, the president proclaims that the Most Reverend N. was elected as patriarch and father.

“Therefore, in the name of the whole synod I proclaim and declare that the Most Reverend Mar N. was elec- ted the Father and Patriarch of all of ours and of the whole nation….” If the elected one is present and gives his agreement, the first of the Fathers with two bishops and two secretaries approaches him, kneels down towards him and says: “The Holy Spirit calls you to be the Patriarch of Great Antioch and all the jurisdiction of this apostolic see, that is, the Father of all our people.” Then all the Fathers and the two sec- retaries bow their knees. Then also the elected one, kneeling and after a short prayer, says: “I accept and obey.”27

In a similar way, the ritual of acceptance of the catholicos’s election would be conducted in the Syro-Malankara Church, which also follows the Syro-Antiochene liturgical rite. After the acceptance of the election by the new catholicos (major archbishop), the synod of bishops (that is identical with the electoral college) has to send a synodal letter to the Roman pontiff in order to notify him that the election was conducted

25 See CCEO c. 73. 26 See CCEO c. 956 § 2. 27 Synodus Sciarfensis Syrorum in Monte Libano celebrata anno MDCCCLXXXVIII (Rome, 1896), 219–21. 312 John Madey

canonically. The one elected to office for his part is obliged to send a personally signed letter in order to petition the con- firmation of his election.28 Here the procedure differs from that in the patriarchal Churches sui iuris, where the new patriarch requests ecclesias- tical communion from the Roman pontiff.29 Some may not be able to grasp the reason for this difference. During the Roman synod of 2001, the former Syriac patriarch of Antioch – who eventually became the prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Mār Agnātīyos Mūsā I (Cardinal Daūd) – said in his intervention in regard to the election of hierarchs:

we should entrust the canonical research made by (the Patriarch and) the bishops of the Synod and to come back to the ancient and traditional practice on the mat- ter … that the name of the hierarch elected by the Synod may be published immediately and that the elected hierarch then asks the Pope to accord ec- clesiastical communion to him.30

Having been granted ecclesiastical communion or obtained the confirmation, the elected one has to make a profession of faith and in the presence of the synod of bishops promise to carry out his office faithfully. Afterwards, he is to be pro- claimed as the catholicos and enthroned, at which time he obtains full rights to exercising his office.31 Before his con- firmation (receiving the ecclesiastical communion), the catho- licos (or patriarch) is not entitled to summon a synod of all the

28 “If, however, the confirmation is denied, a new election is to be conducted within the time established by the Roman Pontiff” (CCEO c.153 § 4). 29 CCEO c. 76 § 2. 30 “Bollettino Synodus Episcoporum” of 11 October 2001, available from the Vatican Information Service (see http://www.vatican.va/news_ services/press/vis/vis_en.htmlican.va); cf. J. Madey, “The Catholic Syro- Malankara Church: Some Reflections on its Canonical Status Past and Future,” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 43–45 (2002–2004): 198. 31 See CCEO c. 153 § 3; cf. c. 77 § 1. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 313

bishops of his Church sui iuris nor to ordain bishops.32 How- ever, if he is not yet ordained bishop, the enthronement can take place only after his episcopal ordination.

The Power of the Catholicos

Canon 55 names the patriarch and/or the catholicos “father and head” of his Church. According to the canons and the legitimate customs, all bishops, including the metropolitans (if there are any) and the other Christian faithful of his Church, are subordinate to the power of the catholicos.33 This power is ordinary and proper but personal, which means that it may not be delegated to a vicar for the entire Church sui iuris.34 It is ordinary, because it is obtained with the office and is not received from the Roman pontiff through a separate act. It is proper, because it is exercised on the strength of right and not of a vicarious, delegated power. Neither the patriarch nor the catholicos is a representative of the pope of Rome or the delegate of the bishops of his Church sui iuris. It is also personal, because it remains tied to the person of the patriarch or catholicos. This is why he cannot appoint a () for the patriarchal Church, although he can occasionally delegate certain powers. A delegation of the full patriarchal power to somebody else would make the election of the patriarch or the catholicos more or less absurd. There- fore normally there cannot be a coadjutor with the right of succession for a patriarch or catholicos. However, being also the bishop of an eparchy, like any other bishop, he has to appoint a protosyncellus for it.35

32 Not only the bishops working or residing in the territory of the catholicate are to be invited, but also those of the eparchies existing even- tually in the diaspora. Until now neither the Coptic Catholic nor the Malan- kara Catholic Church has had bishops established on other continents. 33 See CCEO c.56; cf. Vatican II, Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 7. This saying is based on the ecu- menical councils of Nicea, c. 6; Constantinople I, c. 4; Constantinople IV, c. 17; and the motu proprio, Cleri sanctitati, of Pope Pius XII, c. 216. It equally refers to a patriarch as well as to a catholicos (major archbishop). 34 See CCEO c. 78 § 1. 35 See Ibid., c. 245. 314 John Madey

From what has been said, it follows that the patriarch’s or catholicos’s power is not immediate, because in his relations with the faithful he cannot ignore the respective metropolitan or bishop. He does, however, exercise an immediate, epar- chial authority: 1. in his own eparchy; 2. in a stauropegial (i.e., autonomous) monastery; 3. in those places where neither an eparchy nor an exar- chate has been established;36 4. in a vacant eparchy until an eparchial administrator is appointed.37

The power of the catholicos is, like that of the patriarch, not absolute or boundless; he exercises his power according to the norm of law. The limits of this power are strictly defined. This power is also not universal, because the patriarch or catholicos exercises his power validly only within the ter- ritorial limits of his Church sui iuris, “unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman pontiff establishes otherwise.”38 Though the patriarch or catholicos is the father and head of the faithful of his Church everywhere, his jurisdiction outside the territorial limits of his Church sui iuris exists only in exceptional cases, because it is the Roman pontiff, as the head of the , who possesses there the immediate jurisdiction for all the Catholics of Oriental tradition.39 This fact could be explained otherwise: outside the limits of the patriarchal Church, the pope exercises a patriarchal jurisdiction over the bishops and the other faithful of this Church except in those cases in which the CCEO or the particular law approved by the Roman pontiff establishes otherwise. Hence the bishops outside the limits of the patriarchal Church have the same rights and obligations with regard to the synods as the other bishops.40 The patriarch (catholicos) and synod can enact laws

36 See Ibid., c. 101. 37 Ibid., c. 220 no. 2. 38 Ibid., c. 78 § 2. 39 See Ibid., cc. 146–150. 40 See Ibid., c. 150 § 1; cf. c. 102 § 2. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 315

and directions in liturgical matters that are binding all over the world.41 In other matters, the laws promulgated by the synod receive binding force for the diaspora eparchies, i.e., the epar- chies outside the patriarchal territory, when the respective eparchial bishop, as far as this is within his competence, pro- mulgates them as particular law. If this does not happen, these laws need the approbation of the Roman apostolic see.

Relations with the Roman Apostolic See

As regards the relations with the Roman pontiff and the of the Roman apostolic see, the patriarch/catholicos is, so to speak, a mediator. Documents of the Roman pontiff or his curia concerning bishops or others are to be com- municated through the patriarch/catholicos unless in a certain case the Roman apostolic see has directly communicated it.42 The catholicos can have a procurator, i.e., an apocrisiary, at Rome after having obtained the prior assent of her bishop.43 The appointment of a procurator is not obligatory, but prior assent is needed before an appointment is made.44

Competencies of the Catholicos

By his own right, the catholicos can issue, within the scope of his competence, decrees that determine the precise modes of applying and observing the laws. He has, further, the right to publish instructions for the faithful of his Church sui iuris that explain sound doctrine, foster piety, correct abuses, and ap- prove and recommend practices that favour the spiritual life. Last but not least he can address to his entire Church concerning questions with regard to the Church and

41 See Ibid., c. 150 § 2. 42 See Ibid., c. 81. 43 See Ibid., c. 61. 44 At present, the Syriac Church of Antioch, the Melkite Church of Antioch, the Maronite Church of Antioch, the Chaldean Church, the Arme- nian Church and the Ukrainian Church have their respective procurator at the Roman apostolic see (see Annuario Pontificio 2005, [Vatican City, 2005], 3–9). 316 John Madey

her rite.45 As he has the right to communicate with all the members of his Church through encyclicals, he can order the hierarchs as well as the other clerics and the religious of his Church to read and explain publicly his decrees, instructions, and encyclicals.46 The catholicos will normally consult in advance the bishops of the permanent synod or the synod of bishops in all more serious affairs.47 The catholicos has also the right and the duty to conduct a pastoral visitation in the eparchies of the other bishops. Par- ticular law determines the time. The chief responsibility, the right and obligation of the eparchial bishop of canonically visiting his own eparchy, remains intact.48 For serious reasons, however, the catholicos can, with the agreement of the per- manent synod, conduct a of a church, a city, or an eparchy either in person or through another bishop. During the visitation he can do all those things the eparchial bishops can do during a canonical visitation. As the visitation by the catholicos is a serious interference into matters that pertain to the eparchial bishop, it can take place only for very urgent reasons and with the consent of the permanent synod. Traditionally this visitation would be the obligation of the metropolitan,49 but if there is no proper metropolitan50 it goes over to the duties of the catholicos.51 When the catholicos himself is the proper metropolitan of the respective eparchy, he has no obligation to obtain the consent of the permanent synod, because the metropolitan has this obligation in virtue of the law.

45 CCEO c. 82 § 1. 46 Ibid., c. 82 § 2. 47 Ibid., c. 82 § 3. 48 Ibid., c. 83 § 1. 49 See Ibid., c. 133 no. 5. 50 With the exception of the Syro-Malabar Church, there are no metro- politanates with their respective suffragan eparchies within the territory of the patriarchates and major archiepiscopates/catholicates. 51 See CCEO c. 80 no. 1. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 317

Establishment of new Eparchies and Appointment of Bishops

As mentioned above, Vatican II expressly recognised the right of the patriarch and of the catholicos with their synod to establish new eparchies and to appoint bishops within the limits of their territory. Canon 85 § 1 affirms this right, ad- ding, however, that this can be done “for a serious reason” and that “after having consulted the apostolic see” he can “erect provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer eparchial sees.” As regards the election of bishops:

unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff determines otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the can- didates and draw up by secret ballot a list of the can- didates. This list is to be transmitted through the patriarch [catholicos] to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff (c. 182 § 3).

The “assent of the Roman pontiff,” once given for “in- dividual candidates … is valid until it is explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candidate is to be removed from the list” (c. 182 § 4). This prescription has met with serious objections from Oriental Churches.52

52 See, e.g., fn. 30. The Melkite Greek Catholic Holy Synod established a commission of four bishops to study this issue. The document elaborated by this commission was studied and adopted by the fathers of the synod in January 2000 and sent to the pope. We quote according to the French trans- lation of the original text, published in Le Lien. Revue du Patriarcat Grec-Melkite-Catholique 67/1 (2002), 46f.:

Regarding the patriarchal jurisdiction the Melkite Greek Catholic Church declares: 1. The election of the bishops on the patriarchal territory is due to the Holy Synod. The practice to draft a list of episcopable candidates confirmed by Rome is an innovation that goes back to the 50s (1956). This practice has been reinforced after Vatican II and was ratified in canon 192, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO).

318 John Madey

This was the case still more with regard to eparchial bishops, coadjutor bishops or auxiliary bishops outside the boundaries of the patriarchal Church. The actual legislation prescribes that the synod of bishops has to elect three can- didates and to propose them to the Roman pontiff for appoin- tment.53 Here the right of the patriarch or catholicos with their

This new canon, result of a Roman decision, is contrary to the fundamental principles of the ecclesiology of the East and con- stitutes an obstacle in the ecumenical dialogue. It is equally a practice foreign to the traditional ethos of the Melkite Church, as well before as after her union with Rome.

Authentic oriental tradition on the contrary recognises the Oriental patriarchs and their respective synods as the higher authority in all matters, not excluding those regarding the election of the bishops, save for the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in “individual cases.” Consequently the Holy Synod asks [for] the abolition of the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the canon 182 of the CCEO. The Holy Synod also asks for a change of the canon 149 of the CCEO regarding the election of bishops outside the patriarchal territory. This right belongs, as for the patriarchal territory, to the Holy Synod. Indeed, patriarchal jurisdiction concerns all the faith- ful of the patriarchate which place they ever may be, because these faithful continue to be of the rite of the patriarchate, which is defined as the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris (CCEO canon 182, § 1).

Further, the patriarchal jurisdiction, inside and outside the patriar- chal territory, is based theologically on holy baptism and holy myron. It is well known that the consecration of the holy myron is reserved to the patriarch who distributes it to all the bishops. This liturgical custom is a theological and ecclesiological proof of his jurisdiction over all his faithful, wherever they are.

One can also emphasise another theological aspect characterising the Oriental Catholic Churches. An Oriental Catholic bishop is in communion with the bishop of Rome through the intermediation of his patriarch and his Holy Synod. This theological principle is applied to every bishop as well inside as outside the patriarchal territory…. The fact that Rome reserves for herself the nomination of the bishops for the countries of emigration is contrary to the theological and ecclesiological principles quoted above. 53 See CCEO c. 149. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 319

respective synods is reduced rather to that of some German cathedral chapters. At present, the Malankara Catholic Church does not yet have any eparchies outside the boundaries of its territory. The looking after the pastoral care of emigrants in Europe and North America is an of the eparchy of the catholicos. The issue, however, would become acute when the establishment of an eparchy in the diaspora would need to be treated by the synod of bishops. Within the boundaries of the catholicate, the catholicos, with the consent of the synod, can give a or an auxiliary bishop to an eparchial bishop.54 For a grave rea- son he can also transfer a metropolitan, eparchial bishop or titular bishop to another metropolitical, eparchial, or titular see. If the bishop refuses this measure, the synod of bishops has to resolve the matter or defer it to the head of the college of bishops, the Roman pontiff.55 The catholicos is also competent, with the consent of the permanent synod, to erect, modify, and suppress exarchies.56 The patriarch or catholicos has to inform the Roman apostolic see about these decisions as soon as possible.57 He is also competent to give the elected metropolitan or bishop a letter of (staticon); this letter should be remitted within ten days after the election. The patriarch or catholicos has also the right to ordain and enthrone metropolitans and bishops, either personally or, if impeded, through other bishops. Particular law has to be observed.58 There is no restriction as regards the territory. By virtue of law he also possesses the faculty to ordain and enthrone a metropolitan and other bishops of his Church appointed by the Roman pontiff outside the boundaries of the same Church

54 Ibid., c. 85 § 2 # 1; cf. c.181 § 1, 182–187, and 212. 55 Ibid., c. 85 § 2 # 2. 56 Ibid., c. 85 § 3. This paragraph does not concern the apostolic exar- chies that are under the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. The Maronite Church has two patriarchal exarchies, the Syriac Church four, the Armenian Church two, the Melkite Church two, and the Ukrainian Church three (see Annuario Pontificio 2005, 1138–1141). 57 CCEO c. 85 § 4. 58 Ibid., c. 86 § 1. 320 John Madey

“unless in a special case it is expressly stipulated otherwise.”59 The Roman apostolic see should be notified as soon as possible of the episcopal ordination and enthronement.60 For his curia, the catholicos can ask the fathers of his synod to elect some bishops, though not more than three, if provision is made for their support. He confers on them the office with residency in the curia.61 Retired bishops are not counted among the bishops of the curia, even if they fulfil some activities there.62 The catholicos has the duty and the right to exercise vigi- lance over all clerics, i.e., bishops, , and , according to the norm of law. He is to take action against a cleric if he merits punishment and the hierarch to whom he is immediately subject disregards the catholicos’s warning.63 Furthermore, he can charge any cleric of his Church sui iuris, after having consulted with the eparchial bishop or the major superior of a , with a function of conducting affairs that concern the entire Church. He can also subject the cleric immediately to himself for the time he is exercising this function.64 It is equally within his competen- cies to confer a dignity in his Church on any cleric with due regard for c. 43065; he needs, however, the written consent of the eparchial bishop or the major superior to whom the cleric

59 Ibid., c. 86 § 2. 60 Ibid., c. 86 § 3. 61 Ibid., c. 87. 62 There are two curial bishops in the Coptic, two in the Syriac (a third one is a metropolitan emeritus), two in the Melkite, three in the Maronite, two in the Chaldean, and one in the Armenian Churches (see Annuario Pon- tificio 2005, 3–7). 63 See CCEO c.89 § 1. 64 Ibid., c. 89 § 2. The Armenian Church has a particular institute for the patriarchal clergy (Bzommar, Lebanon). The members of this institute are under the immediate authority of the catholicos-patriarch of Cilicia. See N. Setian, “Das armenisch-katholische Patriarchat,” in Die Kirche Arme- niens, ed. F. Heyer (Stuttgart, 1978), 229. 65 “It is not permitted to confer on religious merely honorific titles of dignities or offices; unless the typicon or statutes permit this in regard to the title of major superior which the religious already has exercised.” A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 321

is subject.66 The same is valid in regard to conferring dignities to clerics of the Church of the West.

“Stauropegion”

For an important reason and after having consulted67 with the eparchial bishop and obtained the consent of the permanent synod, the catholicos can grant, within the boundaries of his Church, a place or a juridical person, which is not linked with a religious institute, exemption from the eparchial bishop, sub- jecting it immediately to himself.68 Such an exemption could be granted to certain schools, a major seminary, hospitals, or other institutions whose importance and impact transcend by far the limits of an individual eparchy. This power has its origin in the ancient right of the stauropegion.69 It comprises all the buildings and persons, the members of a community and its employees. Monasteries also can be stauropegial. A stauropegial monastery is directly subject to the catholicos in such away that only he enjoys the rights and obligations of an eparchial bishop toward the monastery, its members, and the persons who dwell day and night in the monastery. Other persons connected with the monastery are subject directly and

66 It is not reasonable to petition from Rome western prelatical titles for clerics of a Church sui iuris of oriental tradition. The chief example is that of a “monsignor” (either “ of His Holiness,” or “papal honorary prelate,” or “”). Still in recent years, Melkite patriarchs conferred the title of archimandrite to of other Churches sui iuris who did not even enjoy the privilege of “bi-ritualism.” Syriac patriarchs or bishops sometimes granted the dignity of chorepiscopus to merited Latin rite priests (who then appeared at occasional functions dressed like Roman Catholic bishops!). Cf. Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Istruzione per l’Applicazione delle Prescrizioni Liturgiche del Codice dei Canoni delle Chiese Orientali (Vatican City, 1996), no. 78; J. Madey, Liturgy and Canon Law in the Light of the Instruction “Il Padre Incomprensibile” of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, [HIRS 10] (Changanassery, 1996), 70. 67 Although the catholicos must consult with the eparchial bishop, he does not need to obtain the latter’s consent in order to confer exemption. 68 CCEO c. 90. 69 See J.D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches, 262. 322 John Madey

exclusively to the catholicos only in those aspects which con- cern their duties and offices.70

Catholicos and Liturgy

Being the “father and head” of a Church sui iuris, the catholicos must celebrate the for all the faithful of his Church on feast days established by particular law.71 As an eparch, the catholicos should also celebrate the Divine Liturgy for the people of his eparchy.72 By celebrating the for the entire Church over which he presides, he also fulfils the obligation of celebrating the Divine Liturgy for the eparchy entrusted to him. Furthermore, it is a right of the catholicos to be commemorated immediately after the Roman pontiff, in accor- dance with the liturgical books, in both the Divine Liturgy and in the (divine praises); this applies to all the churches of the catholicate inside and outside its boundaries. The commemoration is to be done by all the bishops and other clerics belonging to the catholicate Church.73 In this way, their communion with the catholicos and also the orthodoxy of the celebrating community find their explicit expression. A cons- cious, intentional omission of the commemoration has to be seen as a schismatic act on the part of the cleric and can result in the imposition of an appropriate penalty, not excluding a major .74 The catholicos himself must commemorate the Roman pontiff75 as a sign of with him according to the

70 CCEO c. 486 § 2. 71 CCEO c. 94; see also c. 96. 72 CCEO c. 101. 73 Ibid., c. 91. 74 Ibid., c. 1438. Major excommunication corresponds to what formerly was called an anathema. 75 It has been an ancient custom that patriarchs and other heads of autocephalous or autonomous Churches commemorate all the heads of those Churches with which they are in full communion. The Syriac Orthodox liturgical books have a commemoration of the Coptic pope and patriarch. Should not the catholicos of the Malankara Catholic Church commemorate, after the Roman pontiff, at least the Syriac Catholic patriarch of Antioch, the A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 323

prescriptions of the liturgical books, as well in the Divine Liturgy as in the divine praises.76 It is also his duty to see that all the bishops and other clerics do this faithfully. Liturgical commemoration of the Roman pontiff is not only a prayer for him or his intentions, but also a public declaration of ecclesias- tical (hierarchical) communion with him.77

Obligations of the Catholicos

The catholicos has the obligation to manifest the hierarchi- cal communion with the Roman pontiff, successor of . It finds an expression in the loyalty, veneration, and obedience due to the head of the college of bishops.78 In order to keep the pope informed about the status of his Church sui iuris, the catholicos is required to submit periodic reports to him; no reference, however, is made in the CCEO to the required frequency or the formula to be observed for such reports.79 Although the catholicos is to reside in his see,80 he enjoys the liberty to absent himself for reasonable motives, for instance, when he visits his faithful living in different conti- nents or in order to take part in ecumenical gatherings or others having universal character. The catholicos also has to see that the eparchial bishops faithfully fulfil their pastoral duties in their respective epar- chies and reside in their eparchy. He should encourage them in their ministry. If a bishop has transgressed Church laws in serious matters, the catholicos has to discuss the matter with the members of the permanent synod and then warn him. If

highest representative of the Syro-Antiochene liturgical rite, not as a sign of subordination, but of full ecclesiastical and sacramental communion? 76 In some Churches, the Roman pontiff is commemorated numerous times (e.g., in Byzantine-Slav Churches), while in others, only bishops do it. In any case, the commemoration of the Roman pontiff always occupies the first place. 77 CCEO c. 92 § 2. 78 Ibid., c. 92 § 1. 79 See J.D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches, 265. 80 CCEO c. 93. 324 John Madey

the warning does not result in the desired effect, he is to defer the matter to the Roman pontiff.81 The catholicos is to convoke the permanent synod and to preside over it at least twice a year and whenever he deems it necessary.82 This means he has to convoke the permanent synod whenever actions which require the consultation or the consent of the permanent synod must be carried out.83 He also has to convoke the synod of bishops of his Church sui iuris and to preside over it; only the catholicos has this right.84 The bishops alone, without the patriarch or catholicos, cannot convoke the synod, not even through a collective act. This indicates that the personal participation of the catholicos is required. The only exception to this rule is the case of a va- cant patriarchal or catholicate see. Then the administrator has to convoke the synod of bishops for the election of a succes- sor.85

Rights of the Catholicos

According to the Syro-Antiochene tradition, the patriarch as well as the catholicos alone has the right to consecrate the holy myron (µύρον) and distribute it to all the eparchies belonging to their respective Churches.86 “Accepting the Holy Myron from the Head of the Church … signifies the unity of the local community with the entire Church sui iuris.”87 According to c. 829 § 3, the catholicos is endowed with the faculty to personally bless marriages everywhere in the

81 Ibid., c. 95 § 2. 82 Ibid., c. 116 § 1. 83 See Ibid., c. 120. 84 Ibid., c. 103. 85 Ibid., c. 65 § 1. 86 Bishops had this right until the tenth or eleventh century, as is witnessed by Yahya ibn Ğarir, Al-Muršid, ch. 32 (Ms Šarfeh 5/5, p. 220). The reservation to the patriarch or catholicos became established law already before the time of Barhebraeus (Mār Grīgōr abu l-Farağ ibn al-’Ibrī, 1226– 1286). See his III, 1 in Nomocanon Gregorii Barhebraei, ed., P. Bedjan (Paris, 1898), 29. Cf. also above, f.n. 50. 87 R.J. Whetstone-R.J. Flummerfelt, “The Mystery of with Holy Myron” in Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC, ed. F.J. Marini (Washington, DC, 2003), 25. A New Development in the Malankara Catholic Church 325

world, as long as at least one of the parties is enrolled in the Church over which he presides, observing the other require- ments of law. The former legislation on matrimony still res- tricted the patriarchal power to the territorial boundaries of his Church.88 This paragraph is important because it constitutes an exception from the general rule according to which his power is validly exercised only inside the territorial boundaries of the Church over which he presides.89 Consequently Eastern Catholics may have nowadays their marriage blessed by the patriarch or catholicos anywhere in the world.

Because of the wider territorial scope of the patriarch’s [catholicos’s] faculty, the canon in question also becomes more significant for the Latin Church. In the case of marriages of Eastern faithful subject to a Latin bishop (CCEO c. 916 § 5), the patriarch [catholicos] has the personal faculty to bless these marriages any- where in the world. With regard to inter-ecclesial and inter-ritual marriages, Latin local ordinaries and pastors will be aware that, by law, the patriarch [catho- licos] can also bless these marriages.90

As regards the dispensation from the form for the celebration of marriages, it is reserved to Rome or the patri- arch (catholicos), who will not grant it except for a most grave case. In this regard, the so-called “Kerala Agreement,” which is approved by the Roman apostolic see, is also to find due consideration.91

Conclusion

This study aimed at giving a survey of the extent of the rights and obligations of the catholicos, which are more or less

88 Pius XII, Cleri sanctitati, c. 284 # 2. 89 CCEO c. 78 § 2. 90 G.D. Gallaro, “The Sacramental Mystery of Marriage” in Compara- tive Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC, 186. 91 See J. Madey, “The Ecclesiological and Canonical Background of the so-called ‘Kerala Agreement’,” The Harp 11–12 (1998–99): 99–112. 326 John Madey

identical with those of the patriarch. His eminent position as the father and head of his catholicate Church, however, finds its limitations where the rights and obligations of others begin: of the Roman pontiff as the head of the entire college of bishops and the other organisms of episcopal collegiality inside the catholicate Church, particularly of the permanent synod and of the synod of bishops.

®®®®®®®®

Резюме

Автор, який є провідним науковцем та дослідником в галузі Сиро-Маланкарської Католицької церкви, продов- жує її дослідження. Подана праця стосується нещодавніх еклезіологічних змін у цій Церкві, яку було підвищено до статусу Архиєпископської церкви свого права (sui iuris) згідно з католицькими канонами. Мадей простежує істо- рію цих змін в канонічній та соборовій літературі, беручи також до уваги документи ХХ століття, насамперед такі як: Cleri Sanctitati Папи Пія XII; Orientalium Ecclesiarum ІІ Ватиканського Собору; Кодекс канонів Східних Церков 1990 року. Автор робить розрізнення між церковними структурами та канонічними нормами в Східній церкві, на чолі якої стоїть патріярх, архиєпископ , католікос або ж мафріян. А саме, він детально розглядає ролю та обов’яз- ки католікоса, насамперед все, що стосується його обран- ня, його стосунки з іншими єпископами своєї церкви, його внутрішні обов’язки у відношенню до своєї церкви та його зовнішні відносини з Церквою та з єпископом Риму, з яким він як глава Сиро-Маланкарської церкви, перебуває в повному сопричасті.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 327–345

Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance: Orthodoxy’s Contribution at Vatican II and the East-West Encounter Today

Will Cohen

Abstract (Українське резюме на ст. 345)

December 2005 marked the 40th anniversary of the con- clusion of the Second Vatican Council and in the weeks leading up to this anniversary, official word was given of the recommencement of the international Orthodox-Catholic joint dialogue. In such a context, the author offers a retrospective reading of the conciliar documents and meetings to draw out the extent of Orthodox influence on the same. He next reviews the various Orthodox criticisms of the council, chief among which is that some of its reforms did not go far enough, particularly in the areas of collegiality and greater au- tonomy of local Churches and, above all, in attempting to overcome the ecumenical hurdle which is the First Vatican Council. On this latter point, the author refers to the recent study of Hermann Pottmeyer, Towards a Papacy in Commu- nion, as offering some possible directions around this hurdle. Finally, the author notes that both Orthodox and Catholics need to continue research on ecclesiological models of the first millennium, all the while realizing that such historiogra- phy can be (in Robert Taft’s phrase) instructive but not nor- mative, not least because there is no one single model in the first millennium and because the context in which such models were created is irretrievably removed from our own.

®®®®®®®®

328 Will Cohen

I. Ecclesiological Renewal: The West’s Turn to the Past and to the East

As the official international Catholic-Orthodox dialogue is set to resume, there may be value in looking closely again at some of the ways that Orthodoxy influenced and responded to Vatican II.1 That council stands, at least from one perspective, roughly at the center of a century in which the primary eccle- siastical question was whether or not the Catholic West would strike a new – that is, an older – ecclesiological balance, in part through its renewed contact with the Orthodox East, which still embodied, in important respects, elements of the past common to both traditions. Certainly the influence of the Eastern tradi- tion on Vatican II deliberations and documents does not repre- sent the whole story of the council. Yet the extent of this in- fluence has not been widely noted. The following comment is that of a Catholic writer intimately familiar with the conciliar proceedings:

[A] rediscovery of the Eastern Church’s relevance to liturgical and theological thought had been made by numerous theologians and a small group of interested lay intellectuals in various western countries. It had been ignored, for the most part, by the bishops of the West. Hence, at the Council the latter were amazed to find Eastern prelates taking such an active part in the debates and coming out for solutions to problems raised by the schemata on Divine Revelation, Christian Unity, and the Nature of the Church, which western theologians had been years in discovering through hard research and fear (and for which they had had to fight strenuously with the authorities in Rome).

The notion, for example, of the collegial character of the organization of the Church based on the original body of Apostles was everyday doctrine among Mel-

1 See “Catholic-Orthodox Unity Talks to Reopen,” The Tablet, 17 September 2005, available at www.thetablet.co.uk. Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 329

chite, Greek, Syrian, Chaldean and Lebanese Catho- lics.2

In the West’s twentieth-century turn eastward, there were three channels or conduits by which elements from the East were absorbed into the bloodstream of the Catholic Church. The first – and certainly most controversial – was through the channel of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The second was through Latin theologians for whom the Eastern Orthodox tra- dition was of extraordinary interest and value. These were theologians, often considered together as practitioners of the “nouvelle théologie,”3 who were convinced that the Church in the West in the early twentieth century suffered from a certain self-enclosure, both from the East and from its own more distant past. It would be the lifelong work of such Catholic scholars as Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac to strengthen the contemporary Church’s connection with its deeper roots, an endeavor which involved them extensively with Eastern patro- logy, liturgy, and theology. The so-called “return to the sour- ces” that was long underway by the time Vatican II was called had done a great deal already to prepare the Church in the West to be receptive to elements of truth embodied in the Eastern tradition. As for the third conduit by which the West took in something from the East during the course of the twentieth century, this was directly through the counsel of the Orthodox themselves at Vatican II. It is well known that at the second pan-Orthodox assembly at Rhodes, in 1963, just after the opening of Vatican II, many of the Orthodox Churches had been inclined not to accept the invitation of Rome to send delegates to participate in the council as observers. As one writer put it at the time, “the Orthodox Church considers Vati- can Council II an internal affair of the Roman Catholic

2 X. Rynne, Vatican Council II (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999), 17. 3 Coined by their opponents, the term originally had derogatory over- tones but eventually came to be used in a positive sense. 330 Will Cohen

Church.”4 There was reason enough to see the matter in such cut-and-dried terms: Rome, after all, had called the council unilaterally, and the Orthodox delegates were to have no vo- ting power. Yet in the end the Orthodox saw the prospective council more hopefully, not simply as just one more illustra- tion of Rome’s self-enclosure but as a tentative step on Rome’s part to break out of it. It was on the basis of this kind of hope and charity that the Orthodox made their decision to attend the council in spite of its obvious formal limitations from their perspective.5 Had they been convinced that Rome would always remain deaf to their concerns, there would have been no reason for them to go. Once the council opened, the question of whether or not Orthodox voices might be heard was a natural preoccupation of observers at the proceedings. One of them expressed dis- couragement from the outset. “No interest was shown,” wrote E. Stephanou from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in North America, “in the position of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the doctrinal questions that were discussed by the council nor in Orthodox reaction to the documents voted upon by the bishops.”6 Stephanou had been accustomed to being shown greater attention at ecumenical gatherings. He was therefore struck by a lack of “the normal curiosity as to possible Ortho- dox reservations” while he was in Rome.

I am referring naturally to private conversations. It was very obvious that their one and only concern was to expose the Orthodox as far as possible to the articu- late witness which the council was bearing to the vita- lity and authority of the Roman Church. We were there to see, not to be heard.7

4 C. Athans, “’s Response: Orthodoxy and Vatican II,” The Christian Century (9 January 1963): 52. 5 All but the sent official delegate-observers to at least one of the sessions of Vatican II. 6 E. Stephanou, “Vatican Council II: An Orthodox Evaluation,” Diako- nia 1 (1966): 141. 7 Ibid. Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 331

The accounts of other observers paint a remarkably dif- ferent picture. Next to the one cited above, a comment from the Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimov, of the Russian émigré community in , gives the impression that two en- tirely different councils took place. “The bishops and theolo- gians openly and constantly paid the greatest attention to the reactions and suggestions [that] were passed along to the commissions of theologians, and it was not rare to discover their repercussions in the speeches of the bishops.”8 If, at Stephanou’s Vatican II, Rome remained as self-enclosed as ever, at Evdokimov’s Vatican II the Catholic bishops eagerly sought from the East what they felt was lacking in their own tradition. “How many times,” Evdokimov recalled, “one heard these simple and moving words: ‘Help us,’ for, without an agreement from the Orient, without its complementary con- tribution, no purely Occidental solution would ever attain its desired fullness.”9 Consistent with Evdokimov’s perception of the openness of Catholic bishops to Orthodox contributions during the council, the Orthodox theologian Nikos Nissiotis was pleased by certain changes made in the revised schema De Ecclesia. Nissiotis, the most prolific Orthodox writer on the council, had himself written an extensive analysis of an earlier draft of the schema, which he had criticized for its inadequate pneumato- logy. With the new version at the end of the third session, he remained less than fully pleased; but he felt that it had sub- stantially improved. His comments on how the change had come about are illuminating.

Now however, after the severe criticism of the Fathers of the Council and of the observers, the new revised Schema De Ecclesia mentions the Holy Spirit at four crucial places in the text, and, what is most encoura- ging, the event of as contributing to the realization of the first community of believers. This is a very positive sign that everyone greets with joy,

8 P. Evdokimov, “An Orthodox Look at Vatican II,” Diakonia 1 (1966): 169. 9 Ibid. 332 Will Cohen

because it shows the openness of the Council to such suggestions.10

What we see here again is an instance in which an Ortho- dox observer understands himself not simply as an outsider but as a participant in the unfolding developments at the council. A further illustration of this is the report that some of the text of paragraph 21 of Lumen Gentium (the portion concerning the bishop as sanctifier) can be attributed directly to Nicolas Afanassieff, who, like Evdokimov, belonged to the Russian émigré community in Paris, and whose eucharistic ecclesiolo- gy was to have such a great influence on twentieth-century theology in both East and West. Problematic as it certainly is, from an Orthodox point of view, to use the term “ecumenical” to describe a council from which Orthodox bishops were excluded as equal members with actual voting power, the irony is that Orthodoxy’s real effect on the council was significant. More than at any other Western council of the previous five centuries, the voice of the Eastern tradition was indeed heard at Vatican II. One cannot possibly quantify Orthodoxy’s influence on the council. It is possible only to take note of some of the ways, direct as well as indirect, by which there was a kind of transfusion of ecclesial lifeblood from the East into the West. This occurred, as we have seen, in some measure through the conduit of the Eastern Catholic Churches, in some measure through the already longstanding and unobtrusive appropriation of Eastern thought by Latin theologians with extensive knowledge and love of Orthodoxy, and in some measure through the direct input at Vatican II by Orthodox observer-delegates such as Evdokimov, Nissiotis, and Afanassieff. As Thomas Hopko has succinctly written, observing in a more general context the impact that Orthodoxy has had through the ecumenical move- ment in the twentieth century: “[C]ountless changes in the ways of understanding, confessing, worshipping, and living the Christian faith have occurred in non-Orthodox Churches

10 N. Nissiotis, “The Main Ecclesiological Problem of the Second Vatican Council,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 2 (1965): 49 (emphasis added). Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 333

because of the witness of the Orthodox. The decisions of Vatican II are an example of this.”11 Vatican II’s greater em- phasis on the Holy Spirit’s role in the birth and ongoing life of the Church, on the importance of the , and on episcopal rather than strictly papal authority are a few of the ways in which it is often seen to reflect understandings that had pre- viously tended to be more characteristic of Orthodox ecclesio- logy.

II. Farther to Go

If, in these kinds of ways, Catholicism seemed to move closer to Orthodoxy, it did not go as far in this direction as most Orthodox hoped. Though the decisions of Vatican II were found praiseworthy, the Orthodox ultimately expressed disappointment as well over what the council did not do. In particular, they expressed regret that the council did not go farther than it had in restoring episcopal collegiality and in strengthening the prerogatives of the local Church. Thus Nissiotis complained that “Vatican II does not alter the line of Vatican I.”12 Nicholas Arseniev expressed the same regret: “so much has happened, but not the most important thing: the mitigation, yes, the restatement (because it was clear that this restatement was as things stand, unavoidable) in mitigated terms of the Vatican formula.”13 And so too John Meyendorff: “Vatican II, despite certain appearances to the contrary, has in no way modified the position which has dominated since the fall of the Roman Empire.”14 Alexander Schmemann, in an article published in 1966, noted with par- ticular reference to Orientalium Ecclesiarum that

11 T. Hopko, Speaking the Truth in Love: Education, Mission, and Witness in Contemporary Orthodoxy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Semi- nary Press, 2004), 158. 12 N. Nissiotis, “The Main Ecclesiological Problem,” 41. 13 N. Arseniev, “The Second Vatican Council’s ‘Constitutio de Eccle- sia,’” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965): 23. 14 J. Meyendorff, “Vatican II: A Preliminary Reaction,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965): 32. 334 Will Cohen

the decree solemnly proclaims the equality of the Eastern tradition, yet, at the same time, formulates and regulates it in terms of a Western and even juridical ecclesiology hardly adequate to its spirit and orienta- tions. To a great degree it thus remains a Latin text about the Eastern tradition.15

At times, Orthodox writers were more inclined to reserve judgment. Evdokimov observed that “the true value of the Council must be sought in the years which will follow it.”16 Meyendorff himself acknowledged, too, that “the real signifi- cance of the decrees adopted will be fully revealed only through the manner in which they are put into effect.”17 How do developments of the past forty years in Catholi- cism either confirm or controvert the skepticism, felt by many Orthodox just after the council, as to whether there had been a genuine reform in that would be able to address the most urgent concerns of the East? A negative appraisal might be possible in light of persisting, or even worsening, tendencies in the late twentieth century toward an over-centralization of authority in the hands of the Roman Curia as this has been decried, for example, in a 1996 speech by the retired Catholic archbishop of San Francisco.18 The slowness with which the Vatican has moved to support the canonical discipline of allowing married clergy in Eastern Catholic parishes in North America has also been cited as an

15 Alexander Schmemann, “A Response” in The Documents of Vatican II: Introductions and Commentaries by Catholic Bishops and Experts; Responses by Protestant and Orthodox Scholars, ed. Walter M. , trans. Gallagher (Piscataway, NJ: New Century Publishers, 1966). Available on-line at http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/responsetodecree.html. 16 P. Evdokimov, “An Orthodox Look at Vatican II,” Diakonia 1 (1966): 166. 17 J. Meyendorff, “Vatican II: A Preliminary Reaction,” 26. 18 J. Quinn, “Considering the Papacy,” Origins (18 July 1996): 119–28. “Large segments of the Catholic Church as well as many Orthodox and other Christians,” Quinn remarked, “do not believe that collegiality and sub- sidiarity are being practiced in the Catholic Church in a sufficiently meaningful way” (p. 125). Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 335

example of how Vatican II’s ideal of legitimate diversity in ecclesial customs has been insufficiently realized in practice.19 On the other hand, by singling out other, more positive developments during the same forty-year period, a different portrait might emerge, highlighting innumerable gestures of respect and goodwill toward the Orthodox from the Catholic side, noting how remarkably favorable from an Orthodox point of view is most of the presentation of the Christian faith in the 1992 of the Catholic Church, and affirming the tremendous historical significance of Pope John Paul II’s in- vitation in his Ut Unum Sint that all might join him in a fraternal conversation on how the function of the papacy might be differently carried out.20 Only God knows in precisely what direction the Catholic Church as a whole will turn out to have been moving these past forty years. The picture appears to be sufficiently mixed, in any case, for one to be able to say that the opening toward the East that was one of the salient marks of Vatican II is something that is still ongoing, still incomplete in the life of the Catholic Church, and that the positive impact that Ortho- doxy is therefore able to have by remaining as faithful as possible to the ecclesiology of the first millennium remains significant today. One can say, in other words, that the disap- pointment of those Orthodox observers at Vatican II who felt that the council’s step in the right direction was too small, too

19 For historical background and for analysis of the present state of the question of married clergy among Eastern Catholics, see “Married Priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches: 1884–1998: A Report to the Australian Bishops Conference,” Eastern Churches Journal 9 (2002): 7–71. 20 “As Bishop of Rome I am … convinced that I have a particular res- ponsibility in … acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation…. This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church.” Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, nos. 95–96. 336 Will Cohen

ambiguous, was not entirely without warrant. The question, at least, remains an open one: is Catholicism now securely on the path of reform that it was beginning to take in the twentieth century, guided in substantial measure by its receptive en- counter with the Eastern tradition? This question gives rise to another: might the Catholic Church now, today, take the cru- cial further steps that most Orthodox observers at Vatican II regretted were not taken at the time of the council? Both because of its intrinsic value and because of its author’s place on the International Theological Commission21, an important book that indicates the possibilities for such fur- ther movement in a direction the Orthodox have long en- couraged is Towards a Papacy in Communion, by the Catholic theologian Hermann Pottmeyer.22 To a significant extent, Pottmeyer’s analysis and recommendations accord with the vision frequently articulated in Orthodox responses to the developments of Vatican II. As in the passage below, Pottme- yer urges a further return to the ecclesiology of the ancient undivided Church:

the full application of the three principles of catholici- ty, collegiality, and subsidiarity is not possible … without the restoration of the original three-membered, or triadic, form of Church structure. In the early Church this form was the most important principle at work in the organization of the universal Church: the

21 The International Theological Commission (ITC) is an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and is headed by the prefect of the CDF. The ITC is a way for Catholic theologians to contribute the fruit of their research directly to the highest echelons of the Roman hierarchy. It was set up in 1969 and is composed of members who are “eminenti per scienza e fedeltà al Magistero della Chiesa:” see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_ con_cfaith_pro_14071997_ictheology_en.html. For more on the structure and competence of the ITC, see also the motu proprio of Pope John Paul II, Tredecim Anni, of 6 August 1982, available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_060819 82_tredecim-anni_it.html. 22 Hermann-Josef Pottmeyer, Towards a Papacy in Communion: Per- spectives from Vatican Councils I and II, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Crossroad, 1998). Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 337

particular Church with its bishop; the regional ec- clesiastical units, especially the patriarchal Churches with their patriarchs; and for the universal Church, the pope.23

Pottmeyer maintains that what was lost in the West in the course of the second millennium was the intermediate level, comprised of the regional ecclesiastical units, or patriarchates. Vatican II itself, he points out, begins to give renewed support for these structures, ascribing their historical development in the life of the Church not merely to contingent circumstances but to divine providence. He contends that much of the ec- clesiological imbalance from which the West has suffered can be corrected by a retrieval of the proper distinction between the role of Rome as patriarchal see (vis-à-vis the West) and its role as primatial see (vis-à-vis the universal Church). The breakdown of this distinction lay behind many of the develop- ments in the West to which the Orthodox have objected.

Only when the patriarchal structure of the West came to be understood as the structure for the universal Church did the two-membered, or dual, structural form replace the triadic. Only then did the Church of the West lose its character as a communion of Churches and replace this with uniformity and centralization.24

Pottmeyer, as we shall see, regards Orthodoxy in the se- cond millennium as having also suffered from an ecclesiolo- gical imbalance, a corresponding loss of one of the three elements of the normative triadic structure – in its case, that of the universal primate, so that it was left with only the regional structures and the particular, local Churches and with a resul- tant diminished capacity for coordinated action and witness. We shall take up this aspect of his thinking shortly. In his prescription for the Church in the West, in any case, Pottmeyer closely echoes the plea made by many Orthodox during and

23 Ibid., 132. 24 Ibid., 133–34. 338 Will Cohen

after Vatican II in calling upon the Catholic Church to return to the common tradition of the undivided Church.

III. Recovery of Balance for the West – and for the East

If Pottmeyer is correct, then, just as many Orthodox sug- gested after Vatican II, the Catholic Church indeed has a further distance to go in returning to the organization and structure operative in the Church more than a millennium ago. “It will not be easy for the Roman Church to revert to the faith and polity of the ancient Church by taking giant steps in that direction,” wrote Stephanou, “although it is obvious that Vati- can II marks the beginning of such a reversion.”25 Nissiotis warned that for the Orthodox the problem remained “whether Vatican II is pursuing this effort to reform the administration in a way which is consistent with the sound ecclesiology of the apostolic Church.”26 Meyendorff lamented that

the premises of our common past, which Vatican II has done so much to recover, have not yet been exploi- ted to their entire capacity; [and] that many statements have been made on the basis of the obvious common tradition of the ancient Church, without leading yet to all the conclusions which are possible for the present situation.27

Nicholas Arseniev, in his disappointment that at Vatican II there was still no change in Vatican I’s dogmatic formulation concerning papal infallibility,28 and thus that Rome still had not fully acted on the East’s great concern to remain faithful to their shared past, also framed the issue in terms of a return.

25 E. Stephanou, “Vatican Council II: An Orthodox Evaluation,” 146. 26 N. Nissiotis, “The Main Ecclesiological Problem,” 35. 27 J. Meyendorff, excerpt from a speech at Notre Dame, printed in Diakonia 1 (1966): 98. 28 Specifically, he regretted that there was no reformulation of the con- troversial assertion in Vatican I’s central document aeternus (see Denzinger 1821) that the pope’s ex pronouncements are infallible ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae – in themselves, and not from the consensus of the Church. Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 339

“Will it ever take place and shall we become reunited, in faithful acceptance of the traditions of the ancient undivided Church, our common mother and authority?”29 As analyses such as Pottmeyer’s suggest, the question is still pertinent forty years later. There do remain these further steps Catholicism might take, steps that would involve some- thing of what Pottmeyer calls a “restoration.” In this journey there is indeed much reason to be guided by what Meyendorff refers to as the “obvious common tradition” of the past shared by West and East alike but preserved, at least in significant respects, more obviously today in the East than in the West. At the same time, it is Pottmeyer’s observation that not all of the significant elements of the common tradition were preserved intact in the ecclesiological orientation of the East in the wake of the great schism. We have seen that his view of the Church in the West is that it lost “its character as a commu- nion of Churches” and replaced this “with uniformity and centralization.” But he then also goes on to make the follow- ing unvarnished statement: “On the other hand, the Eastern Church, now lacking the center of unity and the ministry of communion, saw its unity disintegrate into a multiplicity of autocephalous or autonomous Churches, which have not found their way to a workable communion among themselves.”30 Many Orthodox would be quick to object that it is untrue that the communion of Orthodox Churches is unworkable; the rejoinder might be that perhaps things look this way only through the eyes of those in the Catholic West where for centuries there has been far too much concern with efficiency and control. An Orthodox defending the structural soundness of his or her own communion might point to the coordinated action in May of 2005 by which the patriarch of Jerusalem was ousted by the other Orthodox patriarchs at a synod summoned by the Ecumenical Patriarch.31

29 N. Arseniev, “The Second Vatican Council’s ‘Constitutio de Eccle- sia’,” 23. 30 H. Pottmeyer, Towards a Papacy in Communion, 134. 31 Details of the ouster are available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ middle_east/4517223.stm. More extensive coverage is available in the SEIA 340 Will Cohen

Yet an Orthodox Christian today might also recognize an element of truth in Pottmeyer’s critique. One who has done so is Orthodox Bishop Vsevelod of Scopelos, who has written that “the Roman Primacy is and should be a gift of God to His Church, a service to the Church which we need.”32 Striking a similar chord, the French Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément has written as follows:

criticism of the ways in which Roman primacy is exercised is certainly called for, especially if it is a question of the mediaeval and modern forms…. But at the same time it is important to recall the “mystery” of the presence of Peter (and Paul) in Rome, and the “presidency of love” vested in consequence in the Church of that city, a mystery fully recognized by the East from the fifth century, and indeed to recall too the special role of Peter (protos and not arché) which the attests.33

Schmemann wrote more than forty years ago that along with “local primacy” and “second-degree [i.e., regional] pri- macy,” there is also “the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy.” Like Clément and Vsevelod, Schmemann here acknowledges the same three-fold form of ecclesial structure that Pottmeyer identifies as normative, including the one level – the universal – that Eastern ecclesiology in the second millennium has sometimes sought to eradicate. Schmemann says of this that

an age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Ortho- dox canonists simply to deny the existence of such

Newsletter on the Eastern Churches and Ecumenism 116 (31 May 2005): 1– 6. 32 Bishop Vsevelod of Scopelos, “Divisions and Healing,” originally presented as a Kievan Church Study Group paper at the consultation in Rome in June 1995 simultaneous with the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew, and reprinted in Bishop Vsevelod’s book We Are All Brothers (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian Publications, 1999), 177. 33 O. Clément, You Are Peter (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2003), 87. Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 341

primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition can- not fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local “centers of agreement” or primacies, the Church had also known a universal primacy. The ecclesiolo- gical error of Rome lies not in the affirmation of her universal primacy. Rather, the error lies in her identi- fication of this primacy with “supreme power,” which transforms Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church herself. This ecclesiological distortion, however, must not force us into a simple rejection of universal primacy. On the contrary, it ought to encourage its genuinely Orthodox interpretation.34

Nothing in the remarks of Vsevelod, Clément, or Schme- mann serves to deny the appropriateness of the sense shared by numerous Orthodox and Catholics alike that in the West the right ecclesiological balance has yet to be struck, that Vatican II, however promising as a development, did not achieve this balance in itself, and that such a balance will not be reached without further follow-through in a direction that would again involve contribution from the East. What they do suggest, however, is that in the return to the ecclesiology that was actually operative in the first millennium, the Church in the West is not alone in being faced with the need to find its way back to what has been lost. Such a re-discovery, of a parallel if different sort, is required also of the East. In large measure, this will involve the collective recovery of the memory that, as Schmemann has put it, “the early tradition clearly indicates the primacy of the Church of Rome.”35 It will involve the overcoming of what Clément calls the East’s “inferiority- superiority complex with regard to the West,” in order that there may be less incentive to maintain “a certain amnesia in

34 A. Schmemann, “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology,” in The Primacy of Peter, ed. John Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), 163. 35 A. Schmemann, “The Idea of Primacy,” 165. 342 Will Cohen

the Orthodox tradition” with regard to Rome’s ministry of uni- ty.36

IV. Beyond the Call to Return

As the official bilateral dialogue resumes between Catho- lics and Orthodox, it will no doubt be apparent that in their mutual discovery of the genuine ecclesiological balance – which will be not only acceptable to both sides (as though it were a mere matter of negotiation) but be joyfully recognized by both as an inspiration and gift of the Holy Spirit – more will ultimately be involved than simply a return to a state of affairs that existed at some point in the past. A complete return is not possible, and this is something that we Orthodox have not always found congenial to our way of approaching ecclesial and ecumenical questions.37 Strict and simple adherence to the patterns in place in the past is not always possible for two reasons. First, because what the pattern actually was at a given point in the past is not always evident – either because the sources do not reveal this or because the pattern itself was unfixed. In either case, as the last four decades in scholarship have shown us, it is actually far more difficult to discern the precise shape of the common ancient tradition than some Orthodox have been inclined to

36 O. Clément, You Are Peter, 72. 37 Two of the “giants” of Orthodox and in the twentieth century, George Florovsky and Hans Urs von Balthasar, respectively, both argued very strongly against the idea that one can “return” to some supposed golden age of the Church – be it the first millennium, the patristic age, the conciliar era, or whatever. In his essay “The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves” (originally published in 1939 and here cited in translation in Communio 24 [1997]: 347–396), von Balthasar demonstrates how fatuously romantic and therefore undesirable – indeed, impossible – the idea of a return is: “no time is completely like another, and the Church is always standing before a new situation, and therefore before a new decision in which she can let herself receive advice and admonition from her past experiences but in which, however, the decision must be faced directly: The past can never lighten, let alone dispense from, the decision itself” (p. 370). Cf. Florovsky’s “St. and the Tradition of the Fathers,” Sobornost, 4 (1961): 165–176; also available on line: http://www. myrio biblos.gr/texts/ english/florovski_palamas.html. Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 343

suggest. We have tended at times to regard the undivided Church of the first millennium in overly static terms. As an illustration of how much more fluid developments during that period could be than we sometimes suppose, we might con- sider a curious and generally under-appreciated circumstance to which Schmemann calls attention. This is “the process which transformed the original ‘episcopal’ structure of the local Church into what we know today as parish.”38 A deve- lopment of the fourth century, this involved the shift from the Ignatian model of the bishop as the one around whom every local community gathered at the Eucharist to the common situation we know today in which presbyters, or priests, func- tion in local communities as a bishop’s proxies. Schmemann notes some of the far-reaching consequences of the change – e.g., that those who consult most closely with each eucharistic celebrant are no longer elders (who also perform liturgical functions) but parish council members (whose competencies tend to run to business or law) – and then makes the following observation: “this process, although it represents one of the most radical changes that ever took place in the Church, re- mained, strange as it may seem, virtually unnoticed by ecclesiologists and canonists.”39 Needless to say, insofar as Orthodox criticism of Vatican II took the form of a call upon the Catholic Church to return to doing things the way they used to be done before they changed, it did not include the call to return to the original episcopal structure alluded to above by Schmemann: nobody suggested there was any need of going all the way back to having a bishop resident in every parish! It is not, then, just to the ways things were always done in the first millennium that Orthodox ask Catholics to return, but to certain ways things were done, and not others. For Orthodox today especially, it is important to keep this in mind: change was a mark of the first millennium itself, and not every deviation from what was done previously has always been seen to require that the former pattern be completely

38 A. Schmemann, “Towards A Theology of Councils,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 6 (1962): 177. 39 Ibid. 344 Will Cohen

restored. In fact, the history of the Church has seen many in- stances in which hard-line opposition to a certain development turned out to be nothing other than a rigid, fundamentalist rejection of orthodoxy itself. It was Eutyches who once insis- ted, writing to Pope Leo, “I introduce nothing strange into the faith, which has already been handed down to us from earliest times,”40 and it was precisely his refusal to accept a terminolo- gical change that was rejected by the Chalcedonian Church. This brings us to the second reason why a return to patterns in place in the past is not always possible. It is be- cause a context within which those patterns were able to ope- rate effectively may no longer exist. When Orthodox speak of the need for Catholicism to return to the common ways of the first millennium, we must recognize again that while some of those ways may be fruitfully and beneficially rediscovered and implemented, others cannot be. The problem here, as Schme- mann pointed out in another connection, is that “[t]he Ecu- menical Councils cannot be isolated from the imperial context within which they operated.”41 In other words, when the call for a return to the faith and polity of the undivided Church is, as it can only be, a call to go back to doing things as they were done during the time of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and if the way things were done then depended heavily on the role of the emperor, and if that role is no more – with no prospect of returning any time soon – is it really any wonder that there has been a certain Western resistance to following, all the way, to its avowedly logical conclusions, the call for such a return? And are the Orthodox Churches themselves witnesses more to the plausibility or to the implausibility of such a return today? Surely, in a reunified Church of East and West in the third millennium, the role of the papacy will have to be more like it was in the first millennium when the intermediate, patriarchal structure in the organization of the Church played a strong role as it still does among the Orthodox. Yet it is true as well that in the absence of the emperor as a locus of unity, the ecclesio- logical balance of the third millennium cannot entirely follow the pattern of the first millennium. Thus, the Orthodox contri-

40 Leo, Ep. 21:3. 41 A. Schmemann, “Towards A Theology of Councils,” 171. Recovery and Discovery of Ecclesiological Balance 345

bution in the years ahead will necessarily involve more than a call to return to the way things were once done. Instead, in- spired by the common past but suitable to the profoundly changed circumstances of today, the real way forward will necessarily be a synthesis, drawing on the richness and creati- vity of East and West alike, a solution both old and new.

®®®®®®®®

Резюме

В грудні 2005 року минуло 40 років відтоді, як завер- шився ІІ Ватиканський собор і саме тиждень перед цією знаменною датою офіційно пролунали слова про віднов- лення спільного православно-католицького діялогу. Саме на тлі цих подій, автор пропонує знову перечитати собо- рові документи та рішення, щоб з’ясувати до якої міри саме Православ’я вплинуло на них. Тоді він розглядає різні критичні думки щодо Собору, чільне місце серед яких посідає думка про те, що деякі реформи не були пов- ністю втілені в життя, а саме ті, що стосуються колегіяль- ності та більшої автономії помісних церков, а насамперед спроба подолати екуменічну перепону, якою став І Вати- канський собор. Саме цю останню думку автор розглядає в контексті недавньої праці Германа Потмеєра До папства в сопрчасті, на основі якої, автор пропонує можливі шля- хи подолання цієї перешкоди. На завершення він зазна- чає, що як католики так і православні повинні і надалі досліджувати еклезіологічні моделі першого тисячоліття, водночас усвідомлюючи, що така історіографія (за Робер- том Тафтом) може бути лише повчальною а не норматив- ною власне тому, що в першому тисячолітті не існує жод- ного такого моделя, та й контекст, в якому створювались такі моделі втрачений для нас назавжди.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 347–414

Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions: An Evaluation of Its History

Melita Mudri-Zubacz1

Abstract (Українське резюме на ст. 414)

By means of original research into various liturgical and musical manuscripts, especially those pertaining to the East- Slavic Churches as found in the Hilandar Research Library and Resource Centre for Medieval Slavic Studies, the author demonstrates that the eclipse which congregational singing suffered among the East-Slavic Churches during the latter part of the second millennium was an inorganic development of an earlier tradition in which the lay people, aided by va- rious “musical ministers” and led by the clergy, retained pride of place in singing the responses and participating actively in the eucharistic liturgies as well as the other services such as matins, vespers, and . This eclipse of lay congrega- tional participation was brought about in part by the rise of

1 I would like to acknowledge my family for their support throughout the research and writing of this article. My research advisor, the Rev. Pro- fessor Peter Galadza, must also be acknowledged for his invaluable guidance and insights; without his inspiration and help this project could never have occurred. Further, I would like to acknowledge Hilandar Research Library and Resource Centre for Medieval Slavic Studies at the Ohio State Univer- sity: I am especially indebted to the of Hilandar Monastery and to Dr. Predrag Matejić and his staff for their financial assistance and help in locating the appropriate East- and South-Slavic manuscripts preserved on microfilm. Finally, I must also acknowledge the generous financial and mo- ral support of the Ukrainian Catholic Redemptorist Fathers, the School Sisters of Notre Dame, Sisters of the Holy Cross, Sisters of the Assumption of the Blessed , Sisters of St. Joseph of London, les Soeurs de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Missionary of St. Boniface, and Sis- ters of Charity of St. Louis. 348 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

choral ensembles, polyphonic arrangements, and increasingly vastly – and in some cases needlessly – complicated settings of liturgical chant, all of which required trained “specialists” whose role came, in most Churches, to supplant entirely the role of the laity, who were thus rendered passive, mute spec- tators, deprived of the spiritual benefits which attend fuller participation in the liturgy.

®®®®®®®®

Sigla and Abbreviations Used in this Article

BNL. = Slavic Manuscript Collection, Bulgarian National Libra- ry “Cyril and Methodius,” Sofia FEKULA. = Private Collection of Paul M. Fekula GLZ. = “Z,” non-Byzantine Collection, Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos HM. SMS. = Slavic Manuscript Collection, Hilandar Monastery, Mount Athos IVERON. = Slavic Manuscript Collection, Iveron Monastery, Mount Athos P.G. = Migne, Patrologiae Graeca Cursus Completus VATICAN SLAV. = Vatican Slavic Manuscript Collection, Bib- lioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City

Introduction

Many aspects of the study of liturgy have been extensively explored over the centuries. One thing taken for granted by many liturgical scholars, particularly of the liturgical traditions of the Christian East, is liturgical singing. Yet the study of congregational singing is unfortunately one of the more neg- lected aspects of Eastern Christian liturgics. Individual studies of particular issues concerning liturgical singing as a whole have been done, but none of them have of- fered detailed analyses of congregational participation. The complete lack of congregational singing in some East-Slavic, especially Orthodox, Churches may suggest that this practice Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 349

is foreign to the Orthodox tradition in general. Without a history of this question, it is hard to accept such a conclusion. On the one hand, congregational singing has been preserved among the Subcarpathians and Galicians, while, on the other, is almost non-existent in the current practice of other East- Slavic Churches. It is the hypothesis to be advanced here that the former communities have in fact preserved an older and more genuine tradition of liturgical worship. Mystagogically and allegorically speaking, in liturgy, the medium is the mes- sage, and a crucial part of that medium is singing. Much of what we communicate is remembered due to the way in which we express it. Expression of the text through proper liturgical music enables liturgy to fulfil its epiphanic function. In order to demonstrate this hypothesis, we will employ primarily an historical method. Thus, after summarizing what- ever findings do exist in the literature, we will review chrono- logically a variety of East-Slavic sources and manuscripts for evidence of congregational singing. More specifically, one of the highlights of this thesis will be the analysis of ancient leitourgica (sluzhebnyky) consulted on microfilm at the Hilan- dar Research Library (Ohio State University) for the purpose of studying the evolution of liturgical singing from the late fourteenth to the late nineteenth century. Finally, we will synthesize and offer an evaluation of the discoveries stemming from the aforementioned literature and sources. We begin with a contextual analysis of two crucial Byzan- tine liturgical sources, namely the Codex Barberini gr. 336, and the Typicon of the Great Church, in order to establish the characteristics of liturgical singing near the end of the first millennium. Following this, we next delve into the primary sources and liturgical manuscripts containing key data re- garding liturgical singing in general, and congregational par- ticipation in particular. These crucial texts will offer insight into the traits of liturgical singing of Rus from its inception to the late nineteenth century. Our final section will explore the polyphonic era and the rise of the choral tradition, as well as the survival of congrega- tional singing in more isolated areas of Rus’, leading eventual- ly to the awakening and gradual restoration of congregational 350 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

singing in some territories of East-Slavdom. This will con- clude with the Decree Regarding Church Singing of the arch- eparchial Synod of Lviv, whose prescriptions not only encap- sulate the thrust of our study very succinctly, but also illustrate the concern to maintain and disseminate congregational sing- ing in western Rus’.

I. Late Byzantine Antecedents a) Codex Barberini gr. 336, and the Typicon of the Great Church

Codex Barberini gr. 336 is the oldest extant Byzantine , dating from the middle of the eighth century. Significant parts of it reflect usage that also entered euchologia used in other Churches of the Byzantine tradition, such as the Church of Kiev. The Codex is composed of the manuscripts containing the texts of eucharistic prayers, presidential prayers of the liturgy of the hours, numerous , and a wide collection of prayers and blessings for various needs. Similarly, the Typicon of the Great Church, which was compiled in the tenth century, provided the necessary frame- work for the various liturgies inherited by the Slavic Churches. It consists mostly of concise outlines directing numerous ser- vices prescribed for both the immovable and the moveable liturgical cycles, as well as various prayers prescribed for those services. The following will explore the patterns of liturgical singing inscribed in the texts of the services contained in these two documents. More specifically, the study of Barberini gr. 336 and the Typicon will be directed by the overarching ques- tion of who is given the responsibility of singing various chants and responses at the divine services. Due to the ample references to those who sing the respon- ses at liturgical gatherings, the texts of the three eucharistic liturgies found in the Codex prove to be of special interest. These texts are permeated with references to the people, who appear to be the principal respondents. More specifically, in the texts for the Divine the Great and Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 351

Saint , the Codex identifies only one group that sings the responses, and that is the people (Ð laÒj). Of course, the lector chants the readings and singers initiate certain hymns.2 Nonetheless, the Codex preserves an abun- dance of references to the people. Hence, the following will consider the services contained in the Codex that offer insights into the identity of vocal ministers. The prescriptions found in the text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil reveal that all of the following responses are sung by the people: the cherubicon, “And with your spirit,” the creed, “We have lifted them to the Lord,” “It is right and just,” the , “Amen,” the Lord’s Prayer, and “One is holy.”3 In like manner, in the Chrysostom liturgy, the people sing the cherubicon, “Amen,” “And with your spirit,” the creed, “The mercy of peace,” “We have lifted them to the Lord,” “It is right and just,” “We sing of You,” the Lord’s Prayer, “One is holy,” and “In the name of the Lord.”4 It is the text of the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts that finally provides a concrete reference to a corpus of vocal ministers other than the people. This liturgy testifies to the following: the singer (Ð y£lthj) chants the prokeimena, the readings, and Psalm 140; and the people sing “Now the powers,”5 the Lord’s Prayer, “Amen,” “And with your spirit,”

2 While the Codex seems to make an explicit reference only to the people (Ð laÒj) and the singer (Ð y£lthj), it does contain references to nu- merous hymns and responses that are “being sung” or “that are being completed,” without providing an insight into who actually sings them. 3 See Appendix I. 4 Ibid. 5 The text of the Divine Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts provides only a simple note which indicates that “Now the powers” is actually sung, but no clue is given as to who sings it. The section entitled Diakonika tîn prohgiasmšnwn, however, clearly ascribes the singing of this hymn to the people. See Appendix I. Also, cf. Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska , eds., L’Eucologio Barberini Gr. 336 (Rome: CLV – Edizioni Liturgiche, 1995), 45 and 313. Likewise, the “Only-begotten Son” is noted at vespers, but no prescription is given regarding who sings it. Cf. Parenti, L’Eucologio, 54. However, based on Mateos’s conclusion that this hymn is the “appendix,” or rather the conclusion of the preceding , it would have been sung by the people as well. Also, cf. Juan Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole dans la Liturgie Byzantine: Étude Historique (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1971), 19. 352 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

“One is holy,” and finally, “In the name of the Lord.”6 Thus, according to the Codex, it is clear that the people are the dominant body of singers at the eucharistic liturgies. The text for the service of Christian initiation indicates that following the three-fold pouring of the holy oil into the font, the priest sings “” three times together with the assembly.7 Then, once the catechumen has been baptized, the singer chants Ps. 31:1. Curiously, however, according to the rubrics indicated in the text later on, the priest chants “All who have been baptized.” Naturally, one may presume that all attendants joined in singing this pivotal hymn, even though the text simply refers to the priest.8 During the service of the great blessing of water at Theophany, the Codex notes that all respond with “Lord, have mercy.” Furthermore, as he is sprinkling the people with the holy water, the priest together with the “crowd” sings the troparion. At the dedication of a church, the following prescriptions are found: the singers intone the troparion; later on, once they have sung “Glory,” the singers continue with the and the rest of the Divine Liturgy. As is evident, this service does not contain any explicit references to congregational participa- tion in liturgical singing. Nonetheless, as we shall see below, the evidence derived from the Typicon of the Great Church indicates that it is very likely that the people are involved in singing both the troparia and the trisagion. During the rite of the consecration of a bishop the singers sing the trisagion (and once they complete the hymn, they descend from the ambo). More importantly, the text notes very specifically that the people chant “Lord, have mercy” three times following the readings.9 Similarly, at the ordina- tion of a priest, the people sing “It is right and just.” Finally, at the ordination of a lector and a singer, the singer receives the – the paramount text of his ministry – and then

6 See Appendix I. 7 This practice is generally preserved in the Slavic Churches even to this day. 8 See Appendix I. 9 See Appendix I. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 353

intones the . Presumably, the people join in sing- ing the refrain for the prokeimenon. The main impression that emanates from the Codex is that the people are the custodians of liturgical singing during the eighth century. Thus, even though the other groups of vocal ministers actively fulfill their role in worship, the people are fully involved in a great number of responses. This is espe- cially true of the eucharistic liturgies. b) The Typicon of the Great Church (10th century)

From the perspective of this study, the Typicon of the Great Church provides information which apparently contrasts with that found in the Codex. When reading the Typicon, one finds endless references to singers (oƒ y£ltai). Naturally, this discovery is rather striking because, as noted above, Barberini gr. 336 is replete with references to the people (Ð laÒj) as the cardinal corpus of liturgical singers. However, one must keep in mind that the Typicon contains references to texts that are intended to be intoned by the singers. Certainly in previous centuries the people would have been expected to take up the refrains intoned by them. More research would be required to determine whether the relative absence of references to “the people” is the result of their being marginalised from participa- tion, or the result of the Typicon’s presumption that the people will do what they always have done. The following is a synthesis of our inquiry into the Typicon of the Great Church. It presents the principal findings recovered from the document, and, as such, it does not enter- tain all references to the singers and singing found in the Typicon. Appendix I, however, provides a more exhaustive compilation of references to the vocal ministries recorded in the Typicon, namely, the people, the singer, and the singers, and it also contains a number of references to singing in gene- ral. On September 1, during the all-night , “he” (the singer) says the last antiphon, “Incline, O Lord” and “O Lord, I have cried to You.” Once the patriarch has completed the en- trance, the singer/lector (Ð y£lthj) intones the usual prokeime- 354 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

non, following which the singers begin chanting “The Virgin .” Having finished singing this, the singers intone the troparion from the ambo.10 On the same day at matins, the singers sing the prokeimenon and the troparion. Furthermore, prior to the Divine Liturgy, as the from the Great Church is about to commence, the singers ascend the ambo and intone the trisagion, which, in this case, is the processional chant.11 Once they reach the Forum, the singers conclude the chant with “Glory.” Shortly thereafter, as the procession con- tinues, the singers sing the troparion and again “Glory” at the next stational church.12 It is important to note that the ordo for this procession (which is given in the appendix of Mateos’s transcription of the manuscript) clearly states that once the singers intone “Glory” at the Forum, the people sing the “great”13 trisagion as a conclusion. Hence, the text unequi- vocally affirms that the people indeed participate in singing the processional chant, not only at the end, but most likely throughout.14 The notes regarding the feast of the exaltation of the Holy Cross are also quite important because they contain explicit reference to people’s participation in public worship. Thus, at matins, the singers begin the troparia from the ambo. They continue singing the troparia repeatedly until the patriarch

10 See Appendix I, where a similar outline is provided also for May 11 and Lazarus Saturday. 11 Mateos comments that the processional troparion was initiated during this period by first having the singers sing it three times, with the people repeating it three times. See Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole, 18–19, also 37–38. 12 See Appendix I. All of the referred to in the Typicon have a very similar structure to the one described above. The outlines for this pattern of troparia-singing during processions can be found on the following dates: September 25, November 6, February 2, March 25 (the Typicon provides a series of processions for the Feast of Annunciation based on the day on which the feast might fall), June 29, August 15, August 16, Lazarus Saturday, Bright Monday (the processional troparion in this case is “Christ is risen”), Monday after Pentecost. 13 Mateos remarks that the trisagion in this case is qualified as “great” because it is sung as a troparion to a psalm in contrast to a trisagion that is sung without a psalm. See Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole, 116. 14 See Appendix I. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 355

ascends the ambo. The then brings the cross to the patriarch, and as the patriarch elevates and then bows down with it, the people exclaim “Lord, have mercy.” At the Divine Liturgy, the Typicon notes that the singers sing “To Your Cross, O Master” instead of the trisagion. However, it is very likely that the people joined in singing of this hymn as well. During matins on September 25, much like on September 1, the assembly begins the procession from the Great Church accompanied by the trisagion. Once they arrive at the Tribu- nal, the Divine Liturgy begins. Noteworthy is that just prior to the gospel reading, the people respond to the patriarch’s blessing with “And with your spirit,” and shortly thereafter, the people also chant “Glory be to You, O Lord.” One interesting note found in the Typicon regarding the procession on December 18 is that once the assembly reaches the narthex of Our Lady of Chalcoprateia and the singing of the troparion ceases, the orphans15 enter the church singing “Lift up your gates.” Following their interlude, the singers continue with “Glory,” and the rest of the Divine Liturgy follows. Even though in this case the Typicon does not in- dicate that the singers sing a troparion as a conclusion to “Glory,” during a similar rite on July 9 there is a prescription indicating that the singers repeat the same troparion sung by the orphans right after they intone “Glory.” Curiously, after the orphans have sung the troparion, and the clergy have com- pleted the , the singers intone not only the trisagion, but also the prokeimenon. The expectation here might have been that a singer would intone the prokeimenon. Regardless, the Typicon does not provide any consistency regarding the chanting of prokeimena. Thus, at times it is a singer who is responsible for this task, and in other instances, the singers.16

15 See Appendix I. A similar liturgical practice involving orphans who sing this troparion as they enter the church is also outlined on December 22 and July 9. Cf. Juan Mateos, ed., Le Typicon de la Grande Église, Ms. Sainte-Croix no. 40, Xe Siècle, vol. 1 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1962), 144 and 334. 16 See, for example, matins for September 1, the ordo for September 1, procession on December 22, Divine Liturgy for December 24, the ordo for Pannychis during the first week of . 356 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

On February 2, while the are being sung in the narthex of the Great Church, the patriarch descends from the ambo and the singers enter the church. The patriarch, having entered the , begins the prayer of the trisagion, and the singers, having ascended the ambo, intone the troparion “higher”17 (that is, in a higher pitch), which marks the begin- ning of the procession. Thus, the pattern of initiating the pro- cessional chant from the ambo, which is then, presumably, also sung by the people, is reiterated once again. On Wednesday of Cheesefare week, the singers intone “Now the powers” (instead of the cherubicon) from the solea. Then, the rest of the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts follows.18 Similarly, on Monday of the first week of Lent they (the singers) chant Psalm 50 from the solea, and then the troparion.19 On evening, the Typicon makes a note of responsorial psalm-singing between the singer and the people during the rite of initiation. Once the Old Testament readings have been completed, the singer, standing on the ambo, intones the entrance . The people respond by singing a refrain, which is a short troparion, following each verse. The singer then concludes the canticle with “Glory,” and the final repetition of the troparion follows.20 Then, just before the neo- phytes emerge from the baptistry with the patriarch, the singer intones the prokeimenon, and the people, once again, respond with the refrain. The singer then continues chanting the subse- quent verses and concludes with “Glory be to the Father.”21 At

17 See Appendix I. Also, cf. Mateos, Le Typicon, 222. A similar note regarding singing “higher” is also found at the Liturgy for Lazarus Saturday, and at the procession for the Feast of Annunciation when it falls on a Sun- day. See Appendix I. 18 See Appendix I. Curiously, the singers sing this hymn also on Good Friday in the context of the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts. 19 Ibid. 20 The Typicon uses the term ¹ periss», which translates as “the appendix,” to indicate this final repetition of the troparion. Mateos explains that this “appendix” refers to a double final repetition of the troparion in toto, first by the singers alone, and then by the people and readers. Cf. Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole, 17–18. 21 Even though the Typicon does not provide a specific note at this point, based on the overall evidence contained in the Rite of Initiation, it is Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 357

the point when the patriarch anoints the neophyte with myron, the lead singer (Ð prîtoj primik»rioj tîn yaltîn) of the first choir begins “All you, who have been baptized,” and shortly thereafter, the lead singer of the second choir initiates the chanting of Psalm 31:1. Such an arrangement clearly points to the antiphonal singing between the two choral ensembles. Furthermore, the singers seem to continue dominating the singing at the Divine Liturgy as well. Thus, instead of the trisagion, they sing “All you, who have been baptized”; instead of “Alleluia,” Psalm 81:8. It is also they who are listed as singing the cherubicon as well as the koinonikon. The Typicon contains only one more reference to the lead singer of a choir, and the term used in this case is the choir- master (Ð domšstikoj). The ordo for Pannychis during the first week of Lent prescribes that following the exclamation of the first Pannychis prayer, the choirmaster of the first week intones Psalm 119:1 and the troparion with its four verses. Subsequently, when he finishes singing “Glory … now and forever,” the troparion is sung one last time. Shortly there- after, following the and the exclamation of the second prayer, the choirmaster of the second week, conducting the choir on the left side, intones Psalm 120:1. The choirmaster then intones the second troparion with its verses, which is carried out in the same manner as the first one.22 It is important to note that the above description indicates that each choirmaster actually directs the singing of an antiphon. The troparia in this case are brief phrases, and, as such, they function as a refrain sung after every verse. Therefore, one can presume that the entire congregation participates in singing these troparia, and not the choirs alone.23 In sum, the Typicon indicates that the singers are respon- sible primarily for intoning and initiating appropriate hymns. They do this largely from the ambo. The people, while not

safe to assume that the people do sing the refrain following every verse of the prokeimenon. 22 See Appendix I. 23 According to Mateos, it is indisputable that the people do participate in such antiphonal singing of the troparia. See Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole, 22–25. 358 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

entirely absent from the Typicon, clearly do not occupy so pro- minent a role in public worship during the tenth century. Before drawing any conclusions, it should be noted that a complete parallel comparison between the Codex Barberini gr. 336 and the Typicon of the Great Church is not possible because, first, the Codex precedes the Typicon by two centu- ries, and second, one document is a euchologion and the other a typicon. Nonetheless, the data make it possible to propose several hypotheses. The most striking difference between these two documents is that the Codex is filled with references to active participa- tion of the people in liturgies, while such references in the Typicon are far less common. Instead, the Typicon testifies that the singers constitute the key group that directs liturgical singing. Furthermore, it seems that both sources attest to sing- ing by all the people as a single group. In other words, based strictly on these sources, it would appear that by the tenth century the practice of alternate singing between two groups has become reserved for the singers. Nonetheless, one may speculate that when the singers alternated in singing refrains, the people were also “divided” into two groups in order to follow the pattern established by the singers on their side. Ultimately, the data gleaned from the Codex and the Typicon suggests that while there is no doubt that the people did participate in singing certain liturgical hymns and res- ponses during the tenth century – especially troparia and processional hymns – their participation was not as central or pronounced as it was in the eighth century. Thus, an historical evolution, suggesting a diminishing role with respect to the active participation of the people and an increasing role towards specialized groups of liturgical singers, may be evident. Having said this, however, one must emphasize, again, the difference in the nature of these two sources. Spe- cifically, since the Typicon is dealing primarily with propers, rather than the ordinary of services (which is the case in Barberini gr. 336), it contains far more references to the singers. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 359

Now, with the foregoing considerations in mind, we turn to a consideration of medieval . This music follows the period and builds on the sources considered above.

II. Medieval Byzantine Liturgical Music: An Overview of Its Essential Traits

In order to grasp the fundamental characteristics of liturgi- cal music used in Rus’ liturgical traditions, it is important to understand the makings of Byzantine liturgical music. This, of course, is due to the intrinsic dependence of Slavic liturgical practice on its Byzantine predecessor. Consequently, the fol- lowing will explore the essential nature of medieval Byzantine liturgical music pertinent for our study. One of the hallmarks of Byzantine liturgical music is that it is exclusively vocal and monodic, or homophonic.24 In this unison chant, the only harmonic provision is the ison, that is, the dominant tone with its several alternations. Bishop Emilia- nos presents a most interesting mystagogical explanation of liturgical monody when he asserts that “the monodic style [of chanting] reflects man’s original situation: isolation.”25 (Can one assume, then, that polyphonic Byzantine liturgical music parallels the more perfect relationship man has with God and with others?) Conomos observes that “the most ancient evidence sug- gests that hymns and were originally syllabic or near- syllabic in style, stemming, as they did, from pre-octoech congregational recitatives.”26 Such recto tono chanting even- tually developed into simple liturgical chants performed using solo vocalization, antiphonal, or responsorial singing.27 In

24 Dimitri E. Conomos, Byzantine Hymnography and Byzantine Chant (Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1984), 30. 25 Timiadis, “Byzantine Music,” 203. 26 Conomos, Byzantine Hymnography, 30. 27 In his Explanatory Typicon, Skaballanovich notes that Saint Ignatius was first to introduce antiphonal singing into the liturgies of the Church of Antioch. Hence, as early as the second century, as Skaballanovich points out, antiphonal singing came to be the predominant manner of vocal worship in the Churches of the East. The responsorial singing, he claims, was much better known and practiced in the Western Church. It is important to note 360 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

antiphonal singing the congregation was divided into two equal groups, each with its own leader and refrain. This way of singing allowed the congregation – and, later on, two groups of singers – the needed periods of rest, since they sang alter- nately. In responsorial singing, a soloist intoned a particular verse, and the congregation, hearing the pitch, repeated the verse as a response.28 From the fourth century, and most evidently after the ninth century, Byzantine liturgical music started being characterized as kalophonic,29 meaning that it became far more melodious, elaborate, and ornamental. Furthermore, medieval Byzantine chant was also “strongly formulaic in design.”30 Such prog- resssion in Byzantine musical structure came about due to changes such as the embellishment and augmentation of litur- gical rites, and the introduction of trained choirs. Furthermore, with this advanced musical style, several different musical/ textual notations were introduced, the primary function of which was to compensate for the instability and multiplicity of musical practices in the oral heritage.

that while acknowledging that antiphonal singing originated in the second century, other scholars do not seem to make a distinction in terms of which Church favored what form of singing, nor do they put stress on antiphonal singing as the principal form of vocal worship in the liturgical life of the Christian East. Cf. Толковый Типиконъ: Объяснительное изложеніе Типикона съ историческимъ введеніемъ [The Typicon explained: Expla- natory exposition of the Typicon with a historical introduction] (Кіевъ: Н.Т. Корчакъ-Новицкий, 1910), 57. Additionally important to note is Juan Mateos’s study on responsorial and antiphonal aspects of liturgical singing in the Byzantine Church, which also reconstructs the performance of pro- keimena, antiphons and troparia. See Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole, 7–26. For the purpose of clarity, we make a distinction between “antiphonal” and “alternate” singing in our exposition. “Antiphonal singing” refers to the actual singing of antiphons, which involves alternate singing of short troparia or akroteleutia interpolated with psalm verses either between two groups of singers (as well as the two “sides” of the congregation who sing with their respective choral group), or between a lead singer and the congre- gation. “Alternate singing” simply refers to the singing of any liturgical hymns and responses between any two groups in an alternating fashion. 28 Cf. Mateos, La Célébration de la Parole, 7. 29 Conomos, Byzantine Hymnography, 30. 30 Ibid., 33. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 361

Byzantine liturgical music of the first millennium drew from a variety of different sources, which enriched it but did not distort its predominantly conservative character. Gradually increasing complexities of Byzantine liturgical music spawned the office of canonical singers. These singers performed a vital role, integral to the totality of public worship: they led congregational singing by intoning proper hymns and respon- ses, and so enabled the assembly to sing together in harmony. Hence, while there is evidence indicating that congregational singing was practiced in the Byzantine Church during the first millennium, a tendency favouring canonical singers may be observable at the twilight of the millennium. Byzantine liturgical music possesses an outstanding power, purity, and simplicity. Beautiful voices, perfect execu- tion, as well as the pleasure which this kind of music evokes are necessary, but are never to be understood as ends in them- selves. If they were the telos, liturgical music would be simply an aesthetic experience and entertainment virtually indistin- guishable from any other form of sacred music.31 The aim of Byzantine liturgical music is, first of all, worship of God and veneration of the saints, and secondly, self-perfection, that is, “cultivation of man’s higher thoughts and feelings and oppose- tion and elimination of his lower, undesirable ones.”32 When liturgical music becomes a tool for one’s spiritual edification, it fulfills its koinonic function because it serves to unify the entire assembly.

III. Rus’ Liturgical Traditions during the Second Millennium

As we hinted above, upon the introduction of Christianity as the “state religion” in Kievan Rus’ in 988, the plethora of liturgical practices adopted by the East-Slavs was largely that of the Byzantine Church,33 practices reinforced by the fact that

31 Morosan, “Liturgical Singing or Sacred Music?” 124–30. 32 Cavarnos, Byzantine Sacred Music, 10. 33 Kenneth Levy, “The Slavic Reception of Byzantine Chant,” Christia- nity and the Arts in (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 46–51. It is important to note that the liturgical tradition which Rus’ 362 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

for centuries following the inception of Christianity in Rus’, Greek hierarchs dominated the Kievan Church. However, Byzantine liturgical rituals, including the principles of church singing, had been developed to a rather intricate degree by the beginning of the second millennium, thus providing “the con- text for the practice, evolution, and transmission of musical forms”34 in the Slavic Church. We will focus here on a variety of primary East-Slavic sources and manuscripts in order to trace the historic evolution and dynamics of congregational singing in Rus’ from its inception to the late nineteenth cen- tury.

a) Pervonachal’nyi Slaviano-Russkii Tipikon [The first Slavic-Rus’ Typicon]

Thanks to the work of the eminent Kievan liturgist Mikhail Lisitsyn, contemporary scholarship is endowed with a key synthesis of early Rus’ liturgical practices outlined in his book, Pervonachal’nyi Slaviano-Russkii Tipikon [The first Slavic- Rus’ typicon]. This work is a compilation and analysis of ex- cerpts from various East-Slavic liturgical sources (both liturgical and canonical) ranging from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries.35 The main objective of Lisitsyn’s synthe- sis was to prove the unequivocal dependance of early Rus’ liturgical on the ordo established by the Typicon of the Great Church. He strengthens this hypothesis by showing that entire offices of the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite were fre- quently transplanted into the East-Slavic liturgical heritage.36 received from the Greek Church had already been “Slavicized” to some degree. Morosan writes that “the Bulgarians and other Balkan Slavs, con- verted to Christianity some one hundred years before the Eastern Slavs in Russia, could have already introduced certain Slavic characteristics (arising from differences in texts, linguistic articulation, and ethnic musical sensibilities) into the original Byzantine forms of singing.” Morosan, Choral Performance, 3–4. 34 Morosan, Choral Performance, 3. 35 This seems to be the general scope of Lisitsyn’s study. On occasion, however, he does cite sources dating from as late as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 36 Cf. М. Лисицынъ, Первоначальный Славяно-русскій Типиконъ: Историко-Археологическое изслыдованіе [The first Slavic-Rus’ Typicon: Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 363

This Greek Byzantine liturgical influence, Lisitsyn argues, thrived in all churches of Rus’ – and not only – with remnants of this evident even as late as the seventeenth century.37 Nonetheless, while the Typicon of the Great Church served as the backbone of East-Slavic liturgical life, it needed to be adapted to the particularities of Rus’ (the most immediate of which were the topographical differences).38 Additionally, exposure to South-Slavic liturgical practices, increasingly re- gulated by the Jerusalem Typicon, contributed to further ad- justment or even complete displacement of some Constantino- politan practices by Sabaitic usage.39 Like many Eastern liturgical texts, the first Slavic-Rus’ typicon is permeated with general references to singing at liturgical services,40 as well as references to singing by specific groups. It is important to note that even though Lisitsyn focussed on compiling excerpts from early Rus’ liturgical sources to clearly indicate Slavic dependence on Byzantine predecessors, he did cite numerous passages indicative of the execution of liturgical singing in the Church of Rus’. Con- sequently, the following will focus on several excerpts cited in Lisitsyn’s work that contain references significant for our study. Troparia-singing, one of the hallmarks of the Constantino- politan liturgical tradition, is given a prominent place in Li- sitsyn’s study. One of many examples of congregational sing- ing of troparia is recorded at the beginning of paschal matins in manuscript no. 138 of the Khludov Library: “b zfxztn7 thtb

An historico-archeological inquiry] (С.-Петербургъ: Типографія В.Д. Смирнова, 1911), 77 and 85. The cathedral office of the Great Church – the ¢smatik¾ ¢kolouq…a or the “sung office” – became widespread in the early East-Slavic manuscripts. A particular note should be made of kontakaria and asmatika from the tenth and the eleventh centuries, horologia from the thirteenth century, as well as triodia and stichiraria from the fifteenth century, since they show that the Constantinopolitan cathedral office was dominant in Rus’ during that period. 37 Cf. Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, vii, 149. 38 Cf. Ibid., 105, 113, 119. 39 Cf. Ibid., 53. 40 References such as “b gj.n777; b gj-nmcå777” or in other grammatical forms abound in the excerpts of the liturgical sources cited by Lisitsyn. 364 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

nhj^g7 ukfc7 t¿7 Lf dmcr¿hztnm ,m¿ b hfpbnløcå7 k.l-7 üc^m dm¿crhtc7”41 In terms of the execution of troparia and sessional hymns, Lisitsyn cites the following usage prevalent in Rus’ from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries: “Gj nhtnbb öl rfƒ6 cä^l d+ nhblb cn¿f ôw¿å7 -lbzj. † gädwå nfö † k.lbb7 b gj cbü+ cnbüjú htxtzjú † gädwå7 † k.lbb cälbkzj gj-ncå7 gjctvm htxtnm ckfdf7 b htxtnm d7 nfrj gj-ncå d+ dmcm7”42 This is a very clear example of how the people par- ticipated in the antiphonal singing of the troparia. Similarly, the fifteenth century stichirarion no. 96 from the Sophia Library contains antiphons for Good Friday matins which maintain psalm verses between the troparia.43 The verses, according to Lisitsyn’s description, were recited recto tono, while the troparia were sung according to the notation indica- ted above the text. Referring to a lengthy list of liturgical manuscripts dating from the twelfth to the seventeenth century, Lisitsyn notes: “There are countless instances recorded in liturgical sources which demonstrate that the people sang the concluding phrase of either troparia or sessional hymns.”44 Regrettably, Lisitsyn does not provide any concrete examples. Perhaps the most direct illustration of how the people were involved in alternate troparia-singing is recorded in the thirteenth century typicon no. 48. One of the prescriptions in the text of for Good Friday (the “royal hours”) reads as follows: “gj-nm gädtwm7 D+nj zt gkfxtn^m b.l¥7 nfö k.^l njujö nh^g7 rjzx^t 4 b gädtw7 ck^d7 bz¥^z7 gfrs7 k.^l7 nö+7 nh^gm7 gädw^m7 ghbhtx^nm rjztw7 njujö7 nhg^m b rjzmxftnm7”45 This practice of congregational singing of various troparia, as Lisitsyn points out, preserves the liturgical practice at the

41 Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 81, nt. 87. 42 Ibid., 88. 43 Cf. Ibid., 86–87. 44 “Далѣе мы имѣемъ многочисленный рядъ случаевъ въ разныхъ богослужебныхъ книгахъ, когда народъ подпѣвалъ конецъ тропаря, или сѣдальна.” Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 88. Emphasis added. 45 Typicon no. 48 is a Pogodinskii manuscript held at the Imperial Public Library. Ibid.,148. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 365

Great Church, which is evident in Rus’ as late as the sixteenth century.46 Refrain-singing was yet another prominent liturgical practice of the Constantinopolitan cathedral office later emula- ted in East-Slavic ecclesial circles. Hence, the kontakarion of the Monastery of the Annunciation contains an entire asmati- kon, which, while filled with anenaiky,47 is also marked by regular refrains following every psalm verse.48 Likewise, the practice of refrain-singing is evident at the “praises” of matins recorded in the thirteenth century of the Novgorod- Sophia Library.49 The significance of refrain-singing is that, similar to the singing of the troparia, it strongly suggests par- ticipation by the entire congregation. For the rite of the bringing out of the cross on the feast of its exaltation, the thirteenth-century euchologion no. 1056 indicates the following:

Gj7 î¿7 gä^c tulf gj.nm7 Ckfdf d+ dsizbü7 j,kfxbn^m cn¿km dhbps7 b cnfztnm ghtl+ cnj¿. nhågtpj. j,ktxtz+7 b d+pukfc^nm7 Ærj ndj- -cnm w^hcnd7 gädwbö gj.nm nhg^t7 Cg¿cb uc^b k.^l cdj7 lhÁub7 Öbdåob rh^cn+ 777 b zfxbzf-nm cn¿km7 ;kc^z+ üc^+ ,¿+ zfi7 Gädwb7 rhc^nú ndj-vú gjrkfz7 nhbilm7 nfö7 Lz^cm ghjh^xcrj-7 nfö7 Rhc^nú ndj-vú7 nfö7 Lz^cm ghjhjxcrj-7 nfö7 rjl7 D+pztcscå zf rhc^n+7 Ctvú gj-vú7 cn¿km7 b dcb k.lb- rkfzå.otcå7 wäkÁ.n7 777 cn¿km 777 djpvtn rhc^n+7 b bltn7 zf fv,jz+7 gjl+lthöbv+ ldävf7 gjlhúrjú7 b cndjhbnm7 nhb rhc^ns7 k.ltv+ pjdÁotv+7 rbhb- käbcjz+7 b d+pldbpf-nm zf d+cnjr+7 777 b pjdÁnmö7 rbhb-käbcjz+7 a¿7 b gjctv7 gädwb nhg^t7 Lz^cm ghjh^xrj-7 b dnjhsb7 d+pldbpf.nm rhc^n+ b uk¿nm7 rbhb- käbcjz+7

46 Lisitsyn cites the euchologion no. 377 from the Moscow Synodal Library copied at the beginning of the sixteenth century. “777lmfrz7 gh^vlhcnm7 ghj^c b k.lït ng^hm7 gfhtvb7 ukfc7 b¿” Ibid., 151, nt. 171. 47 This term refers to the nonsensical syllables called anenaiky inserted either in the middle or at the end of liturgical texts, the sole purpose of which was mere display of singers’ vocal abilities. 48 Cf. Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 83–85. 49 Cf. Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 85–86. 366 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

ú¿7 b gj.nm7 Njrvj djlhÁöbcb7 d+pldbpf-nm7 nhtnm--7 nfrjö7 b uk¿nm7 uc^b gjvbk^b7 n¿750

The fascinating rotation of the troparion and the hymn, repeated several times, suggests the possibility of alternate singing by the entire assembly. However, the crucial section of this excerpt is the exclamation of “Lord, have mercy” by the people in both Greek and Slavonic. (Incidentally, such inter- changeable use of languages, also evident in asmatika,51 highl- ights East-Slavic ecclesiastical dependence on Constantinopo- litan usage.) The text of the office of the washing of feet on Holy Thursday, preserved in the thirteenth-century Pogodinskii manuscript no. 48, contains the following dialogue:

b u^knm fhüblmærjz+7 ghtvjúl^hc7 tg^cg+7 h^xtnm7 vbh+ dcäv7 k.^l7 ïlü¿db ndj-vjú7 777 b gjrjzmxfzmb tú^uf7 d+pkjöbnm jvjajh+ zf cå7 k.^l7 uk¿.nm7 cgjlj,b ub¿7 b gj.nm d+ cn^üh+ vä^c7 777 ldä^c7 rf^z7 dtkbrf^u7 dn^x7 t¿7 .7 b7 q¿7 .7 gä^c7 c+júpjvm k.,+dt7 cn^ü7 ,kö¿z+ hfpjúvädfæï7 ng^hm7 böt ztjlmhöbvjú. lmhöfobü7 cn^ü7 d¿7 777 ckf^d7 b zs^7 ,j^u7 ,f¿ bcnt,t7 b zszå †gjúofti77752

Here, the people sing both the simple responses, as well as the lengthier hymns – specifically, the kataxioson (“Keep us this evening”). Also, the fact that psalm verses have been retained between the troparia further increases the possibility of congregational participation in liturgical singing. Interes- tingly, however, no singers are cited in this excerpt. Even though a complete absence of at least a leading singer is inconceivable, the textual composition of this manuscript reads as if the people alone conducted the whole sequence. In Moscow Synodal Library euchologion no. 371 from the late fourteenth-early fifteenth century, the text of tierce- indicates the following: “b gj töt j,¥xzff gänb gädwtv+7

50 Ibid., 120–22. 51 Cf. Ibid., 83–85. 52 Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 141. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 367

777 b fhüîlïærjzjú uk¿.ojú7 djbväv7 uk¿tn+ cn¿km7 Vbh+ dcäv+7 K.lït6 Ljúüjv+ ndjbv+7 777 lïfrjz+7 Vbhjv+ bpbltv+7 K.lït7 Bvtztv+ Uc^gbv+7 b frît †gjúoftn+7”53 This excerpt points to the well-established practice of the singers singing the chants “as usual,” and the people being prompted to sing simple responses. More importantly, however, the same euchologion con- tains a literal translation of the ordo for the celebration of the vigil as prescribed by the Typicon of the Great Church. The manuscript records the following: after the people respond with “Amen,” the singers begin singing the litya propers, “Glory,” and, later on, the troparia; the people sing the triple “Lord, have mercy” at the litany and respond also with “And with your spirit.”54 At the festal litya for the beginning of a new liturgical year, following the prescriptions of the Typicon of the Great Church, the people sing “Lord, have mercy” three times at the litany; the singer intones the prokeimenon and its verses; and, following the exclamation “Wisdom, stand aright,” once the people have settled (cks^i7 k.ltv+ vjkxfotv), the archbishop says “Peace be with all.”55 These litya accounts provide the concrete evidence for congrega- tional singing. The people are expressly mentioned regarding numerous simple responses, while they may also be presumed to participate in singing the processional troparia. The mid-fourteenth century leitourgicon no. 5 from the Imperial Public Library contains the following prescriptions in the text of the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts for Wednes- day and Friday of Cheesefare week: “777 b htxtn l¥frjz7

53 Ibid., 65, nt. 57. 54 Cf. Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 102–06. Lisitsyn notes that a very similar celebration of the festal litya is preserved in the Chinovnik of the Moscow Dormition Cathedral published by A. Golubtsov, p. 157 which dates from the seventeenth century (cf. Ibid., 106, nt. 119). Also, it is fascinating to note adaptations of certain Constantinopolitan practices (es- pecially topological) to the context of Rus’ Churches. Therefore, even though the translation of the ordo for celebrating the vigil is faithful to the original, when the Typicon notes that the procession in Constantinople goes to the Forum, the Slavonic translation, instead, has “ghbitlib öt kbnïb zf ghjcnhfzzjt väcnj7” 55 Euchologion no. 1056. Ibid., 110–12. 368 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

cdän+ nb^ü c{n+bf7 k.^l ,tcv{hnzfuj {wf z,^czfuj7 gjctv7 ghjrsv7 dtxthzbb gj ,sxf.7 nfö gfhtvmb7 nfö gz^ä-7 Lf júgjdf-nm bp¿km zf uf^c7 k.^l7 njöt7 gädw7 cnbü uc^b zt d+pztctcå ch^lwt7 k.^l lf júgjdf-n+ bpk7 lj rjzwf7 gädw7 njö7 lf júgjdf-n+ bp¿km7 k.^l7 rjztwm7 hmrjÁn 4 †ctkä b lj därf7 gädw7 njö7 † zszä b lj därf7”56 The leitourgicon no. 5 is testimony to a very vibrant congregation. The people are actively involved in both alternate singing of the refrains (in this case in the form of the prokeimena) and the musically more evolved liturgical hymns. It is somewhat unusual, how- ever, that a assumes the role of a singer (or a lector) in intoning “Tranquil light,” and the singer the role of a lector in singing prokeimena verses. Similarly, in the late fourteenth century molitovnik (actually a euchology) no. 4 at the Imperial Public Library, at the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts “l¥frjz7 htx^nm7 GhtvÁlh^c7 k.^l7 cdän+ ns c{nsæ ckfd7 nfö7 gfhtv¥f7 b gjnjvm7 gäzb- ct7 Lf júgjdf-nm bp¿km zf uf¿7777”57 Thus, just as in the leitourgicon no. 5, the people sing “Tranquil light,” but this time without any indication that anyone intones the hymn for the congregation. Also, no specific prescriptions are made for the execution of the prokeimena or “Let my prayer rise.” The Pogodinskii Lenten no. 40 from the same period, however, notes that on Wednesday of the fifth week of Lent at the Liturgy of the Pre- Sanctified Gifts, it is the lector who, “in a great voice,” sings “Let my prayer rise.”58 This prescription should probably be understood in terms of leading the singing of the hymn and not in terms of a privileged solo performance. Lisitsyn’s meticulously assembled work demonstrates very clearly that following Byzantine liturgical praxis, congregatio- nal singing continued in the metropolia of Kiev. The people

56 Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 58. 57 Ibid., 70. Interestingly enough, the same source indicates that at the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts on Monday and Tuesday of the first week of Lent, the reader exclaims “the Light of Christ illumines all” (“xmntwm htxtnm7 cdänm üd¿m ghjcdäoftnm dcå7”). This appears to be an adaptation of the earlier usage modelled on the practice in Constantinople, where a deacon used to say these words. Cf. Ibid., 70, nt. 69. 58 “xmntw7 gjtn7 dtkbv [ukfcjv+]7 Lf cå bcghfdbnm vk¿ndf vjæ7 b gjcrjzxfzb k^núubø bltv zf nhfgtpø7” Ibid., 77. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 369

were involved in the singing of various liturgical hymns and responses ranging from simple responses to refrains, troparia and akroteleutia, and, finally, to the singing of more challen- ging hymns. This vibrant participation of the entire assembly in liturgical singing often involved singing off the cue of a trained leading singer, or alternate singing with either the leader or a group of singers. Thus, due to the dependance of the newly-established Church of Rus’ on the liturgical practi- ces and regulations of Saint Sophia in Constantinople, Lisitsyn concludes that the initial typicon of Rus’ could not have been any other than the Typicon of the Great Church,59 even though the prescriptions of that Typicon were both modified to suit the particular needs of the East-Slavic Church and influenced by South-Slavic liturgical practices permeated with Sabaitic usage. We now turn to a consideration of two Rus’ historical sources, which, while not exclusively liturgical in nature, do contain liturgical data. b) Litopys Rus’kyi and the Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery

The Litopsy Rus’kyi [the chronicle of Rus’] is essentially an overview of early Rus’ history. The scope of this ancient source extends from the events that led to the rise of Rus’60 to the end of the thirteenth century. What makes the chronicle interesting for this study are the numerous references to liturgical singing in the infancy of Rus’. Unfortunately, most are merely passing remarks testifying to certain liturgical prac- tices observed in Rus’ during this period. As such, they do not yield much concrete information concerning congregational participation or the practical execution of liturgies. After all,

59 “Разсмотреніе всего этого матеріала, … освѣтило передъ нами картину первоначальнаго богослуженія въ нашей Церкви, а вмѣстѣ съ тѣмъ и показало, что самымъ первымъ Типикономъ, которымъ могли руководиться при богослуженіи пастыри и архипастыри нашей Церкви, тот-часъ послѣ принятія христіянства, могъ быть только Типиконъ Великой Церкви.” Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 160. 60 The scribe of this historical monument actually begins by reiterating the biblical story of . 370 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

while liturgics was very much a part of Rus’ history, they were not the principal focus of this historical source. It is important to note, however, that the references to liturgical singing worthy of consideration are almost exclusive to the accounts of royal funeral processions and burials, and will, therefore, be considered further below. Other references to liturgical sing- ing stem either from private prayer,61 or miscellaneous state- ments scattered throughout the source. In our perusal of funeral processions and burials described in the chronicle, the central question is who sings the burial chants and hymns. Descriptions of royal funerals that contain pertinent information for our query cover a period of three cen- turies, beginning with the death of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise (February 20, 1054) and ending with the burial of Grand Prince Volodymyr, the son of Vasyl’ko and grandson of Roman (December 10, 1288). The observation that emerges from this study of the great number of such accounts is that in most cases the clergy and the monastics are identified as those singing the appropriate chants.62 Only one concrete reference to the people, who are noted to exclaim “Lord, have mercy,”63 was found. Furthermore, the chronicle describes a few additional funerals in which referen- ces to the singing of burial hymns and chants are made. How- ever, no conclusive deductions regarding who sings them could be made due to the text’s ambiguous syntax.64 Lastly, it

61 Since private prayer is not the crux of this study, suffice it to say that the Chronicle contains a number of references to royalty, clergy and monas- tics singing either the Liturgy of the Hours or Psalms privately. This indicates that those who were more educated were familiar with liturgical singing to the point of being able to do it on their own. 62 In recounting the death of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise (February 20, 1054), the scribe notes that “the priests sang the hymns and chants according to custom, and all the people mourned him.” Махновець, Літо- пис, 99. 63 In May of 1072 as the of St. Hlib were being transferred, the stone tomb would not pass through the gate. Thus, the people were instruct- ted to exclaim “Lord, have mercy,” and once they did so, the tomb passed through the gate. Ibid., 112. 64 It is not entirely certain if the text implies that the entire funeral pro- cession sang Psalms and burial chants at the funeral of Grand Prince Yaropolk in November of 1087. Ibid., 126. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 371

is intriguing that no reference is made to the singers in this context, especially given that all of the funeral processions list various groups in attendance (such as relatives, priests, , soldiers, people, etc.).65 A few miscellaneous passages make passing reference to a choirmaster (доместик)66 and a (дяк)67 – presumably, the lead singer. Nevertheless, the text merely identifies these individuals with their professions without offering any further details regarding their work. Also, two additional remarks were found. First, on March 21, 1111, during the conquest of Sharukan’, Grand Prince Volodymyr ordered his priests to sing the troparia and kontakia of the Holy Cross and the Canon of the Theotokos.68 Second, during Tatar invasion of the city of Sudomyr, the text notes that on November 30, 1259, the clergy and monastics, “having prepared the krylos,”69 sang the Divine Liturgy and then received the Eucharist.70 The main value of these miscellaneous remarks regarding liturgical singers and singing in general is that they testify to the continuity of litur- gical structure and practices of the Greek Church. Apart from this, regrettably, they do not offer any insights into congrega- tional participation at the liturgies. While the chronicle offers at least a limited glimpse into liturgical praxis, it does contain certain difficulties with respect

65 Not only are the singers not named as a specific group singing burial chants, they are not even identified as being present at funerals. This is not to be understood as saying that choral ensembles were not part of early Rus’ liturgical setting. 66 “І стала братія просити дати їм Стефана-доместика, що був тоді учеником Феодосія….” Махновець, Літопис, 114. “У шостий день, у п’ятницю, сказали володимирці ігумену Феодулові і Луці, доместику святої Богородиці: Спорядіть обидва носилиці, нехай поїдем візьмемо князя великого і господина свойого Андрія.” Ibid., 317. 67 In recounting the events that took place in the fall of 1219, the Chronicle simply states that “тоді ж Василь, дяк, за прозвищем Молза, застрілений був під городом….” Ibid., 375. 68 Ibid., 166. 69 Being a derivative of the Greek term kleros, krylos and kryloshany refers to the non-celebrating clergy that congregated at the front of either side of the -screen and sang the responses at the liturgies. Cf. Morosan, Choral Performance, 9. 70 Махновець, Літопис, 422. 372 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

to the main question of this inquiry. The foremost difficulty is that because this is not a liturgical source, it is difficult to es- tablish how credible the remarks are regarding liturgical sing- ing. In other words, the text provides mostly loose commen- tary indicative of the general liturgical reality of early Rus’ and deductions cannot be made based on the omitted information. Nonetheless, the chronicle communicates quite clearly that the clergy and the monastics do sing the appropriate burial chants and that the people are not only present at royal funerals but are involved in singing at least the “simpler” responsorial chants such as “Lord, have mercy.” Turning now to the Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monaste- ry, we note that immediately after it was founded in the ele- venth century, it became one of the most significant and influential East-Slavic monastic establishments for centuries. The Paterik is a thirteenth century compilation of anecdotes which illustrate in great detail the early history of this incre- dible monastery. The monastery proved to be a remarkable centre of literary production during a period when liturgical texts were in dire need. Moreover, the paramount importance of the Caves Monastery was that it cradled uniquely Rus’ litur- gical chants, which, while rooted in the Byzantine-Greek mo- dels of the Stoudios Monastery of Constantinople, were adap- ted to local needs and conditions.71 Thus, the Caves Monastery assumed a predominant role in developing and

71 Muriel Heppell, trans., The Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 44–45, 222. Also, cf. Лисицынъ, Первоначальный, 18, 25, 27–28 and Мирослав Антонович, “Питоменності українського церковного співу” [“Characteristics of Ukrainian Church singing”], Збірник праць ювілейного конґресу [A collec- tion of works of the Jubilee Congress], Володимир Янів (ред.), (München: E. Mühlthaler’s Buch- und Kunstdruckerei GmbH, 1988/89), 468–69. During the late eleventh century, liturgical singing used at the Kievan Caves Monastery was marked by the pristine beauty and complexity of improvised polyphonic singing (usually in three parts) of the znamenny chant. One of the crowning pinnacles of this Kievan plainchant, as it evolved throughout the centuries, was that it achieved the unity of three different approaches to liturgical singing, namely that of the Ukrainian Irmologia (the alternate singing between two choral groups), choral (singing from written musical notations) and folk singing (rooted in oral tradition). Cf. Антонович, “Питоменності,” 470. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 373

spreading indigenous liturgical chant.72 Finally, the monaste- ry’s influence on both Church and society was brought about through its monks, who served throughout Rus’ as bishops and monastic superiors. In the context of liturgical singing, the Paterik makes refe- rences to ministerial titles given to monks, to private prayer,73 and numerous services sung at the monastery. Due to their more direct importance for this study, only ministerial titles and services will be considered below. The Stefan, who succeeded Feodosii as the superior of the Monastery in 1074, is identified in the Paterik as the demestvennyk (деместьвьнникъ),74 or leader of the singers, as well as the ustavnyk (уставникъ),75 that is, the monk whose responsibilities included oversight of the church services. The first title is especially interesting because it clearly indicates that as the monastery had a demestvennyk, it then must have had a group of singers analogous to a choir. More specifically, Stefan’s title shows that the Byzantine practice of having orga- nized and specifically trained singers continued at the Kievan Caves Monastery. In terms of liturgical services, the Paterik does not delve into the technical aspect of how sung worship was undertaken at the monastery. The main objective of this source was to re- cord the askesis of the brotherhood. Therefore, the text simply alludes to numerous liturgical services, noting that they were sung.76 Nevertheless, two accounts recorded in the Paterik are

72 Even the chants found in the Ukrainian Irmologia of the XVII and XVIII centuries greatly resemble those developed at the Kievan Caves Monastery. Cf. Антонович, “Питоменності,” 468–69. 73 Private prayer was part of the monastic rule and thus was mandatory for all brethren. Besides having set times for individual prayer, the monks also prayed when they worked manually or when they were tempted by the demons. The most common form of private prayer in all of these instances was the singing of the Psalter or the singing of the Liturgy of the Hours. For an example of private prayer as presented here, cf. Heppell, The Paterik, 20, 42–43, 46, 56. 74 Heppell, The Paterik, 13, 82. 75 Heppell, The Paterik, 52. 76 The following citations illustrate this point: “On August 13 the monks went into the church as usual to sing vespers….” Ibid., 16. 374 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

particularly interesting. The first one concerns a vision of the elder Matfei:

There was another elder named Matfei, who had the gift of discernment. Once when he was standing in his place in the church he raised his eyes, looked around among the brethren who were standing and singing on both sides, and he saw a demon walking around, in the form of a Pole and carrying in his robe some flowers called lepki. He would take a flower from the fold [of his garment] and throw it at somebody. If the flower stuck to one of the brethren who was standing there, the brother would remain standing for a while, but then his will would weaken and he would make up some excuse, leave the church, go to sleep, and not return to the service. But if he threw it at another monk standing there and the flower did not stick to him, that brother would stand firm during the singing until matins were over; then each would go to his own cell.77

This anecdote illustrates the practice of alternate singing between two choirs, a practice that originated in non-monastic

“Then [the brotherhood] began to sing the morning office, and after that they did manual work. Some dug in the kitchen garden to grow herbs until it was time for the morning service. Then they all went into church together, sang the office, and celebrated the holy liturgy. Then they ate a little bread, and each one took up his work again.” Ibid., 42. “Then [the brethren] wept over [Feodosii] a great deal, took him up and carried him to the church, and sang the customary office over him.” Ibid., 84. “This elder [Matfei] had the following habit: after matins had been sung and the brethren were dispersing to their cells, this blessed elder would leave the church last of all.” Ibid., 110. “… Reckoning that [monk Nikon] wished to escape, the Cumans cut his shinbones, so that he could not run away, and placed him under a strong guard. Two days later, while they were all sitting near him with weapons ready, he suddenly vanished at the sixth hour, and they heard a voice saying, “Praise the Lord from the heavens.” Thus was he brought invisibly to the church of the holy Theotokos in the Caves Monastery at the time when they were beginning to sing the kinanik.” Ibid., 126. 77 Heppell, The Paterik, 109. Emphasis added. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 375

settings and would have endured in cathedrals. This is espe- cially significant as the Kievan Caves Monastery had such a tremendous impact on medieval Rus’. The second citation is taken from the correspondence penned by Bishop Simon of Vladimir and Suzdal’ to Polikarp, a monk at the monastery. The bishop writes the following:

Do not tell lies and absent yourself from the congrega- tion in church for bodily reasons. For just as the rain matures seeds, so does the church draw the soul to good works. For whatever you do in your cell, it is of no value – whether you read the Psalter, or sing twelve psalms, this cannot be compared to a single “Lord, have mercy” said in the congregation. And under- stand this, brother: when Peter, the head of the apostles, who was himself the church of the living God, was seized by Herod and thrown into prison, did not the prayers of the church deliver him out of Herod’s hands?78

Clearly, Bishop Simon is convinced of the power and sig- nificance of communal prayer. While not denigrating private prayer, he does point out how much more potent and dynamic prayer becomes when it is offered by the entire gathered for worship. The evidence presented in the Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery indicates that the role of the choirmaster, the sing- ers, and the congregation was essentially the same as that found in the Byzantine sources discussed in the previous sec- tion. However, one crucial point made in the Paterik was that the participation of the entire congregation was greatly valued. Neither the chronicle nor the Paterik are strictly liturgical sources. As such, they do not offer any extensive references to the liturgical praxis of Rus’ in its infancy. However, a number of relevant points were noted. Both sources indicate that litur- gical singing in Rus’ during the first four centuries following its inception was largely modelled on the principles established

78 Ibid., 113. Emphasis added. 376 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

by the Byzantine Church. In the case of the Paterik, as was noted above, a step towards more original East-Slavic chants was taken. However, the distribution of liturgical tasks in the area of church-singing remained that of its mother Church. Thus, while the people are acknowledged in both sources, they do not seem to have nearly as active a role as the clergy and the monastics. With these sources having been analysed, we now proceed to a consideration of the East-Slavic manuscripts fundamental for this study.

IV. Leitourgica from the Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscript Collection

In order to glimpse into the dynamics of public worship throughout the centuries, we have consulted microforms of over sixty leitourgica ranging from the late thirteenth to the late nineteenth century, stored at the Hilandar Research Libra- ry at Ohio State University. More specifically, our focus was the eucharistic liturgies (Chrysostom, Basil, and Pre-Sanctified Gifts) contained in the manuscripts. Naturally, not all manu- scripts provided full texts of these services, either because they were simply not copied, or because the manuscripts endured extensive damage. It is important to note that even though our emphasis is on the manuscripts of East-Slavic provenance, those of Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian origin have provi- ded a wealth of subsidiary information regarding congrega- tional participation in the liturgies, and therefore will also be taken into account where appropriate. One of the principal observations gained from studying these ancient leitourgica is that they testify to specific roles pertaining to singing at the Divine Liturgies. Naturally, these roles were never inert, and as such, were modified throughout the centuries. Furthermore, the paradox between liturgical conservatism as expressed in the copyist’s desire to transcribe “sacred prescriptions” on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fact that the liturgical manuscript is a living text bound to include some of the newer contemporaneous practices of the period when the manuscript was copied, should not be over- Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 377

looked. Put differently, prescriptions contained in the texts were not necessarily reflective of the liturgical reality, and without the witness of a third party, who can testify to the actual practice, nothing is certain. This, however, is not a problem that can be resolved here. Based on the overall data that emerges from the manu- scripts considered below, the people were entrusted not merely with the creed and Lord’s Prayer – these being the two pivotal texts “belonging” to the people – but with singing responses such as “Come, let us worship,” parts of the anaphoral dialogue,79 “May our mouths be filled,” “In the name of the Lord,” “Blessed be the name,” and Psalm 33 at the liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil, as well as “Now the powers,” the Lord’s Prayer, Ps. 33 and “In the name of the Lord” at the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts. It becomes quite clear then, that the people were presumed to participate actively by singing specifically defined parts. The following is a more in-depth investigation of ten East- Slavic leitourgica ranging from the early fifteenth to the late nineteenth century. Out of the entire catalogued collection of leitourgica found at the Hilandar Research Library, these were the only ones directly related to Rus’ liturgical practices. As such, they contain key elements needed to support our general assertions regarding the evolution of congregational singing.

79 One of the earliest considered for this query (a late fourteenth century leitourgicon of Serbian provenance designated as HM. SMS. 316) indicates that the people participate in the entire anaphoral dialogue. Moreover, the people’s active involvement in singing anaphoral responses is clearly evident in the manuscripts of South-Slavic provenance as late as the seventeenth century. Thus, even though they do not have direct bearing on our study, it is important to note that since both East and South Slavs used the same Typicon, the evidence found in South-Slavic manuscripts is not irrelevant. 378 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

a) VATICAN. SLAV. 14 (1390–1410)80

The manuscript currently designated as Vatican. Slav. 14 is the earliest East-Slavic leitourgicon that we were able to study. It is part of the Vatican Slavic manuscript collection, and is an original81 manuscript from the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. This leitourgicon was completed at the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century using “Russian”82 orthography. It contains the three eucharistic litur- gies, the ordo for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy by a priest and a deacon, as well as the text of various and presidential prayers without any responses. Interestingly, there is some tentative evidence suggesting that this leitourgicon belonged to Metropolitan Isidor of Kiev, who brought the manuscript to the Vatican in 1439 or 1443.83 The main text of the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom con- tains no marked responses, the sole exception being the Lord’s Prayer. However, the text does contain brief marginal annota- tions (some of which are very faint and thus difficult to read) indicating the appropriate responses, even though they are not assigned to anyone specifically. More complete prescriptions are given in the section entitled “Ordo” (e^cnfd) on how a priest ought to serve the Divine Liturgy with a deacon. Thus, starting with the Chrysostom liturgy, the leitourgicon provides the following details: the singers sing the antiphons; the lector chants the title and the reading; a singer intones “Alle-

80 For the responses provided in each of the manuscripts listed below, see Appendix II. 81 This terminology, which needs some clarification, is used in the catalogues containing the descriptions of the manuscripts. 82 We realize that defining the orthographic features of this manuscript as “Russian” is not precise enough. This, however, was the only information indicated in the available sources. Cf. Predrag Matejić and Hannah Thomas, Catalog: Manuscripts on Microform of the Hilandar Research Library (The Ohio State University), vol. 2, (Columbus, Ohio: Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies, 1992), 964. 83 Cf. Ibid. Also, an excellent introduction to this manuscript can be found in Олекса Горбач, Три церковнослов’янські літургічні рукописні тексти Ватиканської бібліотеки [Three Church Slavonic liturgical manu- scripts from the Vatican library], (Рим: Український Католицький Уні- верситет Ім. Св. Климентія Папи 1966), 9–45. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 379

luia” as well as the appropriate verses, and the singers then join in singing “Alleluia;” the litany after the gospel reading contains a petition for “… the singers and the people here present … (gj.obü+ j ghtlcnjæobü+ k.lïb);84 the cherubicon then follows (no indication who sings it); the people chant the creed and sing the Lord’s Prayer also; the singers sing “May our mouths be filled;” and the people say Ps. 33 at the end of the liturgy.85 The main text for the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great contains absolutely no references to lay respon- ses and very few marginal notes. The “formatting” of the text for the Liturgy of the Pre- Sanctified Gifts is very similar to that of Chrysostom. It contains very few marginal annotations, and, with the excep- tion of “Let my prayer rise” (Ps. 140 [141]) and the Lord’s Prayer, none of the responses are indicated. The following prescriptions are from the section entitled “The Instruction” (erfp) for the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts: the kathis- ma is to be read (no indication by whom), following which the stichera at Ps. 140 (141) are sung (once again, with no note by whom); the singers sing “Tranquil Light”;86 the lector chants the prokeimena and the readings; a singer intones “Let my prayer rise,” and then all singers repeat the hymn; a singer sings the verses at “Let my prayer rise,” and the singers res- pond with the refrain. (Later on, however, there is a note saying that it is, in fact, the lector who chants the verses, and

84 See Appendix II. The significance of this petition is in the differen- tiation between the singers and the people present at the service. This may be an indication that already in the late fourteenth century there is a need to single out the singers, since “the people here present” are not necessarily singing. If one could demonstrate that from the very beginning this petition was used in this form, then it would simply affirm that the prayer is intended for both the singers and the people. If, however, the petition did not include the singers, this would indicate that a step towards “professionalizing” the role of the singers has taken place. 85 See Appendix II, 123. 86 Most South-Slavic manuscripts that have a reference to “Tranquil Light” also have a prescription indicating that the lector chants this hymn. As an example, cf. HM. SMS. 618 (1380’s), HM. SMS. 316 (1390’s), BNL. 232 (1400’s), BNL. 233 (1400’s), BNL. 239 (1400’s), FEKULA. 2 (1430’s), HM. SMS. 317 (1469), IVERON. 8 (150?), HM. SMS. 337 (1530), and HM. SMS. 322 (1550). 380 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

the singers answer with the refrain). Finally, the singers sing the Lord’s Prayer. Interestingly, the manuscript for this eu- charistic liturgy does not contain even a single prescription for the people – not even the Lord’s Prayer. What becomes evident from reading Vatican. Slav. 14 is that during this period there are three distinct groups who respond at liturgical services, namely the lectors, singers, and the people. While this manuscript contains references to con- gregational singing, it, nonetheless, attests to a gradual aug- mentation in vocal dominance by the trained singers. As a result, already in the early fifteenth century the assembly is quite limited in its audible prayer. (Incidentally, it is note- worthy that South-Slavic leitourgica extending from the se- cond half of the thirteenth to the seventeenth century identify the people as singing most of the liturgical hymns and respon- ses.) b) HM. SMS. 334 (1600’s)

The seventeenth-century leitourgicon designated as HM. SMS. 334 is a part of the Hilandar Monastery Slavic manu- script collection and an original manuscript from the Hilandar Monastery. This leitourgicon consists of the liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil, morning and evening prayers, and numerous rites such as the blessing of grapes and water. Among the manuscripts considered in this study, HM. SMS. 334 is the first leitourgicon with apparently East-Slavic characteristics that contains references to a choir (kbr+).87 This is not accidental, since choirs begin to be identified as a distinct corpus of singers in the late sixteenth, and particularly during the seventeenth, century.88 This is also evident from manuscript Vatican. Slav. 14 cited above, as well as numerous South-Slavic leitourgica ranging from the thirteenth to the nineteenth century.

87 Cf. J. Damascenus D. Popowich and Cornelius J. Pasichny, Church Slavonic Ukrainian-English Dictionary (Rome: Basilian Fathers, 1962), 45. 88 Cf. Борис Кудрик, Огляд історії української церковної музики [Historical overview of Ukrainian Church music], (Львів: Греко-Катол. Богословська Академія, 1937), 16–19. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 381

It is important to note that in the text of the Chrysostom liturgy, this leitourgicon simply indicates that the creed and the Lord’s Prayer are prayed, but it does not provide any clues as to who would sing them. In the text of the liturgy of Basil, however, the manuscript indicates that it is the choir that sings both the creed and the Lord’s Prayer. Thus, the outline of the responses inscribed in the text of Chrysostom is as follows: the lector intones the prokeimenon; “Alleluia” as well as the cherubicon are sung (there is no in- dication who sings them). The text of the Basil contains only two pertinent remarks: the singing of the cherubicon (there is no indication by whom); and the chanting of the creed and the Lord’s Prayer by the choir. Lastly, even though it is not part of any eucharistic liturgy, it is noteworthy nonetheless that the singers sing the stichera at the blessing of water. The evidence provided in this leitourgicon suggests that during the seventeenth century there were four different groups responsible for liturgical singing or chanting. Unfortunately, one of these groups, the people, is notably absent from the manuscript. Furthermore, because the most common “conger- gational parts” of the Divine Liturgy (the creed and the Lord’s Prayer) are in this instance sung by the choir, it appears that vocal congregational participation during the seventeenth cen- tury has become virtually nonexistent. c) HM. SMS. 328 (1691)

Just like all manuscripts catalogued under the abbreviation HM. SMS., leitourgicon no. 328 is also a manuscript originally deposited at the Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos, and is a part of the Hilandar Monastery Slavic manuscript collection. Russian orthographic features are evident in the latter portion of this leitourgicon copied in 1691 – which, in its structure, actually greatly resembles an archieraticon. It includes the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom, rites of ordination and ton- suring, as well as guidelines for someone tempted in a dream. 382 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

Based on the colophon, a section of this manuscript was translated from Greek by Samuil “the Russian.”89 The text of the Divine Liturgy found in HM. SMS. 328 provides the following clues: the people sing “Come, let us worship,” and possibly the troparia, and kontakia;90 the lector intones the prokeimenon. Additional references to singing are found in the case of “Alleluia,” the cherubicon and an “Amen” at the end of a litany. However, no record is made of who sings these. Lastly, the people also sing “It is right and just” and the Lord’s Prayer. Curiously, this leitourgicon does not even mention the choir or singers. Instead, it almost exclusively awards the people the privilege of singing liturgical responses. One won- ders if the more ancient form is preserved in this manuscript because, in essence, this manuscript is an archieraticon and therefore might not have been as vulnerable to innovations due to its less frequent use. d) GLZ. 5 (1784)

GLZ. 5 is an original manuscript from the Great Lavra Monastery on Mount Athos. It is part of the Great Lavra Monastery “Z” (that is, non-Byzantine) manuscript collection. This leitourgicon was written in Russian Church Slavonic in 1784, and it contains texts of the Divine Liturgy of Chrysos- tom, vespers, matins, the office of “” (xbz+ gfzfuîb), various dismissals, and a prayer for .91 Compared with the other East-Slavic leitourgica examined here, GLZ. 5 presents one of the most exhaustive lists of res- ponses for the Divine Liturgy, which reads as follows: the choir responds with the initial “Amen,” “Lord, have mercy,” and “To You, O Lord”; the singers sing the antiphons, but the choir sings the litany responses between the antiphons; the singers sing “Come, let us worship,” after which the “usual”

89 Matejić, Catalog, 1: 469. 90 Even though the context and wording of the manuscript suggest that the people sing troparia and kontakia, it is not absolutely clear. See Appen- dix II. 91 Matejić, Catalog, 1: 110. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 383

troparia are sung (no clear indication by whom); the singing of the trisagion then follows (there is no indication by whom); the lector responds with “And with your spirit,” and chants the epistle title and the reading. After the reading the lector responds once again with “And with your spirit,” and intones “Alleluia”; prior to the gospel reading the people respond with “And with your spirit,” but the choir then sings “Glory be to You, O Lord”; the choir also sings the litany responses; following the singing of the cherubicon (there is no indication by whom), the choir responds at the litanies and sings “The Father, the Son”; the people sing the creed; the choir then continues with the sanctus, “Amen,” and “We sing of You”; also, the choir sings “It is truly right to bless you”; the singers sing “And remember all men and all women”; the choir continues with “Amen,” and “And with your spirit”; the people sing the Lord’s Prayer; the choir then sings other litany responses and “One is holy,” but the choirs (b gj.n+ kbw¥)92 sing the koinonikon of the day or of the saint. After the blessing with the , the choir sings “For many years, Master,” and the people continue with “We have seen the true light.” Finally, the choir concludes the service by singing “May our mouths be filled,” “In the name of the Lord,” “Blessed be the name of the Lord,” Ps. 33, res- ponses, and the . This manuscript records a plethora of responses performed by all three groups of vocal ministers and the congregation. Each group responds at the appointed time and is involved throughout the service. Thus, even though liturgical singing is dominated by the choir, it appears that an attempt has been made to balance the participation of the other groups in order to keep all of the attendants as fully engaged in the liturgy as possible. Also, it would be interesting to know the criteria used in assigning the responses to each group, as the degree of difficulty or intricacy of a piece does not seem to be a factor. After all, the manuscript shows that the choir sings “Lord,

92 This sudden change in number (from the singular “choir” to plural) may be an indication of the use of alternating singing employed at the ser- vice. 384 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

have mercy,” and the people sing “We have seen the true light.” e) HM. SMS. 338 (1790’s)

This late eighteenth-century leitourgicon, currently design- nated as HM. SMS. 338, was written in Russian Church Slavonic. It includes the liturgies of Chrysostom and Pre- Sanctified Gifts (both of which end very abruptly, with a mere reference to the ambo prayer and the dismissal), vespers, matins, and the rite of vesting a bishop.93 Similarly to the previous manuscript, the Divine Liturgy begins with the choir singing the initial litany responses; the singers then sing the antiphons, and the choir sings the litany responses between the antiphons. Once the troparia have been completed (there is no indication by whom), the choir sings “Amen,” and the singing of the trisagion follows; the lector responds with “And with your spirit,” and then intones the prokeimenon, the epistle title and the reading; after the reading the lector, once again, responds with “And with your spirit,” and intones “Alleluia,” following which “Alleluia” is sung (there is no indication by whom). Prior to the gospel reading, the people respond with “And with your spirit,” but then the choir continues with “Glory be to You, O Lord”; the choir responds at the litanies and sings the entire anaphoral dialogue (it is important to note that there is no mention of the creed at this point in the manuscript); the people then sing the Lord’s Prayer; lastly, the choir sings other litany responses and “One is holy.” Even though this leitourgicon provides fewer responses, it does identify all four groups of respondents. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that by the end of the eighteenth century the choir has assumed a very prominent role in liturgical singing. It does so, however, without entirely supplanting congregational participation.

93 Matejić , Catalog, 1: 474. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 385

f) HM. SMS. 594 (1794)

The Hilandar Monastery leitourgicon no. 594 was copied in 1794 using Russian Church Slavonic. It is a compilation of the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom, vespers, matins, and va- rious litanies prayed at the all-night vigil. Unfortunately, because this is primarily a deacon’s service book, it notes only occasional lay responses.94 While the text of the Divine Liturgy has absolutely no responses recorded, the text of vespers indicates that the lita- nies are sung by the choir. Further references to singing of liturgical hymns and responses are scarce95 and provide no insight into who performs them. Hence, even though this manuscript does not yield a comprehensive image of response- singing at the end of the eighteenth century, it might be signifi- cant that it does identify only one corpus of singers – the choir. g) HM. SMS. 763 v (1800’s)

This manuscript represents only a fragment of a leitourgi- con. It was copied in the nineteenth century using Russian Church Slavonic. Curiously, a number of headings and rubrics were inscribed in Greek. The fragment consists of portions of the liturgy of Chrysostom, so-called great compline, and texts of gospel readings for various feast days.96 The extant fragment of the liturgy found in HM. SMS. 763 v does not contain any lay responses. The text of great compline, however, does provide pellucid evidence that alter- nate singing between two choirs was presumed during this period.97 Furthermore, as the service unfolds, one learns that these two choirs continue with the chanting of the creed and

94 Matejić, Catalog, 2: 636. 95 Specifically, such references apply only to the troparia at pannychis and various litany responses. 96 Matejić , Catalog, 2: 757. 97 The remark is as follows: “drúgä j,f kbrf: ,tpgkjnzjt tcntcndj üthÁdîvcrjt7777” See Appendix II. 386 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

subsequent prayers. Interestingly, the creed is to be prayed “in a low voice.”98 Not too many conclusions can be deduced from this frag- ment because a great deal of information that could have proven vital for this study is no longer available. The only cer- tain point is that, much like HM. SMS. 594, this leitourgicon contains a number of references to the choir alone.

h) HM. SMS. 450 (1810’s)

This early nineteenth-century leitourgicon was also written in Russian Church Slavonic. Interestingly enough, it contains a number of passages in Greek, which were written using Cyrillic cursive transliteration. It consists of the Chrysostom liturgy, vespers, matins (the text of which is given in Greek only) and litanies for the all-night vigil. Much like HM. SMS. 594, this manuscript is a deacon’s service book, and, therefore, most of it is a compilation of various litanies.99 This document was intended as a resource for a deacon, and it is not surprising therefore that few lay responses are cited. Nevertheless, the manuscript does offer the following clues: all the responses found in the body of the Chrysostom liturgy are sung by the choir, and most of those, as pointed out, are litany responses. Regrettably, even though the manuscript contains the anaphoral sequence, it does not provide any instructions regarding any of the anaphoral responses. Additionally, the responses provided in the text of vespers are also conducted exclusively by the choir. The choir is listed as singing the litany responses and “Tranquil light.” A few other parts of vespers, such as the kataxioson and “Glory … Now and forever,” are simply mentioned, and no indication is given as to who sings them.100 The overwhelming majority of the responses provided in the text of matins are, once again, designated for the choir. This service, however, contains the only reference to the

98 Ibid. The purpose for this prescription might have been to distinguish the creed at this service from the way it was chanted at the Divine Liturgy. 99 Matejić, Catalog, 1: 544. 100 See Appendix II. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 387

people found in this manuscript. Hence, just prior to the dismissal, the people sing “And with your spirit,” and the choir then proceeds with “Give the blessing.”101 Even though leitourgicon no. 450 makes references pri- marily to the choir and also to the people, it does not neces- sarily suggest that the ministry of singers and lectors was eliminated at this stage. After all, this manuscript was inten- ded for use by deacons, and is therefore not an exhaustive source of information regarding who might have sung the res- ponses. However, it does clearly show that the choir continues to dominate liturgical singing, thus affirming this predictable historical trend. i) HM. SMS. 590 (1856)

The Hilandar Monastery manuscript currently designated as HM. SMS. 590 dates from 1856. It consists of the liturgies of Chrysostom and the Pre-Sanctified Gifts, vespers, matins, as well as various prayers and rites copied in Russian Church Slavonic. Even though this leitourgicon has been intended as a service book for a hierodeacon, it does contain a rather thorough list of liturgical hymns and responses.102 At the Divine Liturgy, the choir begins by singing “Amen” and the initial litany responses; the antiphons are then sung (there is no indication by whom); the choir sings “Amen,” fol- lowing which, the trisagion is sung (it would appear that the choir sings the trisagion, even though this is not clearly specified); the lector responds with “And with your spirit,” and then intones the prokeimenon, the epistle title, and the reading. Once the reading has been completed, the lector responds with “And with your spirit”; prior to the gospel reading, the people sing “And with your spirit,” and the choir then continues with “Glory be to You, O Lord.” Following the gospel reading, the choir sings the litany responses, as well as all of the anaphoral responses;103 the people then sing the Lord’s Prayer, and the

101 Ibid. 102 Matejić, Catalog, 2: 634. 103 The manuscript does not contain a prescription regarding the Creed. It simply states that “at the end of ‘I believe,’ the deacon says ‘Stand 388 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

choir sings “One is holy.” The only noteworthy remark found in the text of the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts is a re- ference to the singing of “Now the powers,” even though the manuscript fails to specify by whom. The text for vespers indicates the following: the appointed lector says the initial “Amen” and then continues with the ; the choir sings the litany responses; the then follows. After “O Lord, I have cried to You,” a single person104 sings “Glory … Now and forever”; the singing of the prokeimenon follows; the choir then sings subsequent litany responses; the singing of the kataxioson follows (there is no clear indication by whom); the text then points out that “we proceed to the narthex while singing stichera”;105 lastly, the choir sings the litany responses. In the outline of great ves- pers, however, the following additional notes are found: “we” sing “O Lord, I have cried to You”; and after the kataxioson, the people sing “Amen,” as well as “And with your spirit.” The matins text provides the following clues: “we begin the service with the Hexapsalm,”106 following which, the choir sings the litany responses. A number of key parts of matins are then listed, but no specific designation of who might sing them is given. The choir continues with “Amen” and “Let everything that lives”; furthermore, the choir conducts the pre- gospel dialogue and sings the responses leading to the dismiss- sal. While this manuscript includes references to the people and the lectors, the choir is, once again, the most prevailing corpus of liturgical singers. Note, however, how leitourgicon no. 590 contains references to the first person plural when aright…’.” No deduction can be made in this case, since the lack of reference could either indicate that the choir sings the Creed because it conducts the entire anaphoral dialogue, or that the people sing the Creed as that seems to be a recurring pattern found in a number of other manuscripts. See Appendix II. 104 The text simply notes that “once he [presumably the lead singer] starts singing “Glory, Now and forever,” they [the deacon and the priest] proceed to do the Entrance together….” (tulf öt gjtn Ckfdf6 b Z¥zä6 ndjhån+ dül+ ô,f drúgä777). HM. SMS. 590, 3v. 105 See Appendix II. 106 See Appendix II. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 389

prescribing certain responses. Such references are, of course, directed at those using the liturgical books and the monastic singers in general. j) HM. SMS. 593 (1882)

This Hilandar Monastery leitourgicon was copied in 1882 using Russian Church Slavonic. It contains the text of the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom, numerous troparia and kon- takia, resurrectional dogmatica, and various podoben (proso- mia) texts arranged according to the .107 In order to gain a glimpse of the flow of the Divine Litur- gy found in HM. SMS. 593, one needs to consider the outline of the responses provided in the manuscript. Thus, after the litany of peace, the first choir initiates Ps. 103 by chanting the first verse of the psalm, and then the second choir continues chanting the rest of it; after the second litany, it is the second choir that begins with the first verse of the psalm, and then the first choir continues; the second choir takes over from “Now and forever,” and sings “Only-begotten.” The manuscript notes that antiphons are sung on “other days” – most likely by the choirs.108 Furthermore, the trisagion is initiated by the first choir, then both choirs sing it three times, following which the first choir sings it one final time “in a higher pitch.”109 The lector then intones the prokeimenon and its appropriate verses, as well as the epistle title and the reading; “Alleluia three times” with its verses is sung next;110 the litanies after the gospel reading are chanted by the lector; also, the lector con- ducts the anaphoral responses. The creed is chanted by the people, who also sing “It is truly right to bless you.” The lector then continues with “And remember all men and all women,” as well as the subsequent litany responses; the people

107 Matejić, Catalog, 2: 635. 108 Note that the manuscript makes a distinction between the verses and the refrains of the antiphons. See Appendix II. 109 Ibid. 110 Based on the pattern set in this manuscript, “Alleluia” and its verses are most likely done by the lector. This, however, is not made explicit in the text. 390 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

sing the Lord’s Prayer; the lector responds with “One is holy,” and then the choirs sing the koinonikon; the lector chants “Blessed is He who comes”; the people sing “We have seen the true light”; the lector then continues with “May our mouths be filled,” the litany responses and “In the name of the Lord”; the choirs sing “Blessed be the name”; finally, the lector chants the dismissal responses as well as Ps. 33 during the distribution of the . The first noteworthy disclosure of this manuscript is the lucid evidence of antiphonal singing employed by choral en- sembles at the end of the nineteenth century. Thus, the text of the Divine Liturgy records references to the “first” and the “second choir” who sing specifically assigned parts of the Psalms of the Typica and the Beatitudes. Moreover, it is quite significant that the manuscript makes a distinction between the verses and the refrains of the antiphons. Such a distinction is very likely indicative of antiphonal singing not only between the two choirs, but also between the “two sides” of the con- gregation, which may even have joined the singing with the choir standing on their side. Secondly, it is both exceptional and strange to see the centrality of the lector’s role in this manuscript. Put dif- ferently, it is quite surprising to see the lector in charge of the responses that, commonly during this period, were directed by the choir. After all, not too many manuscripts appoint the lec- tor to conduct the anaphoral dialogue with the clergy or to be the privileged soloist for the litany responses. Also, one might wonder if the liturgy performed in this manner was chanted using mostly simple melodies or even merely recto tono. The third peculiarity of this leitourgicon, which can also be observed in the manuscripts HM. SMS. 450 and HM. SMS. 590, is the conspicuous absence of any references to singers. This silence seems to suggest that at some point during the nineteenth century the singers merged with the choir to form one entity. Subsequently, the singers would have no longer been identified as a distinct corpus of vocalists at the liturgies. Their ministry was presumably likened to that of the choir.

Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 391

k) Summary

Before we proceed with the outline of the conclusions drawn from this section, it is important to stress, once again, that because we do have third-party confirmation regarding congregational singing from the first millennium, subsequent references to congregational singing in the second millennium deserve attention even though, obviously, we cannot (at least in this paper) categorically prove that the rubrics reflect actual usage. This, however, is also a basic problem of all histo- riography: what validity can we give to any written docu- ment? This having been said, the manuscripts presented above have facilitated great insight into the historical evolution and changes in the area of liturgical singing. Of course, fundamen- tal information regarding people’s vocal participation in public worship was probably omitted from a number of manuscripts. Even so, based on data retrieved from the leitourgica analysed above, the following perception of how liturgical singing functioned between the early fifteenth and the late nineteenth century emerges. Already at the inception of the fifteenth century, congrega- tional singing was confined to only a few responses per litur- gy. However, while the services were headed primarily by the singers and lectors, the people’s presence was at least concretely acknowledged through their vocal participation, limited as it was. Unfortunately, by the seventeenth century, congregational participation in public worship dwindled111 as a result of a more novel approach to liturgical singing then being fostered. The intrinsic beauty of choral singing appealed to Rus’ to such an extent that it was allowed to create a dramatic shift in active participation by the entire Body of Christ with the introduction of polyphonic choirs. Thus, the aforemen- tioned manuscripts testify that while congregational singing was never entirely obliterated, it was, nonetheless, seriously jeopardized. Similarly, as the popularity of choral singing

111 Findings of the manuscript HM. SMS. 328 are an exception. Also, GLZ. 5 attests to a fairly balanced distribution of response-singing which is not commonly encountered in the other East-Slavic manuscripts. 392 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

continued to grow in the Slavic Churches, the role of other “vocal ministries” became less prominent.112 Finally, at the end of the nineteenth century, it appears that choirs assimilated the ministry of singers, obviating their role as a distinct entity of liturgical vocalists. The fact that over the last few centuries people’s audible participation in the divine services was drastically diminished – if not entirely suppressed – is not surprising. While the reasoning for having choirs take over most of liturgical singing might have been to beautify public worship, the Church as a whole was actually impoverished. Put differently, by employ- ing primarily trained singers who had the knowledge not only of the structure of the services but also of all the elaborate liturgical pieces used at that stage for executing liturgies, the Church excluded a sizable part of her body from active par- ticipation, namely, the congregation. The difficulty did not seem to arise so much with the delegation of the responses among all four bodies of response-singers. After all, singers and lectors existed in the Greek Church during the first millennium, and yet Slavic leitourgica dating from the first half of the second millennium witness to a vibrant vocal participation of the congregation. The difficulty arises at the point when choral ensembles suppress the people’s audible prayer, and thus inhibit the congregation from participating vocally in public prayer. This inhibition may have had spiritual repercussions for the congregation: by not being able to actively participate in the “public work” that is liturgy, the people were not able to participate in the same way in the mystical ascent expressed by singing. Based on the evidence gleaned from the early Rus’ sources and liturgical manuscripts, one gets a sense of the pivotal characteristics of liturgical singing in the East-Slavic Church during the second millennium. First of all, historical evidence suggests that public worship was organized through the parti- cular ministries of demestvennyki, lead singers, and groups of canonical singers. These ordained singers sang from the ambo, or from either side of the icon screen and were often

112 An exception is to be found in HM. SMS. 593 where the lector chants most of the Divine Liturgy. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 393

joined by the non-celebrating members of clergy. More im- portantly, however, the evidence suggests that the congrega- tion played an important role in vocal prayer. The assembly participated mainly by singing refrains, as well as specific liturgical hymns and responses. During the latter half of the second millennium, however, choral singing began dominating liturgical singing, which, correspondingly, led to a decline in congregational participation.

V. The Polyphonic Era and the Survival of Congregational Singing

The following is an overview of polyphonic intricacies of Rus’ liturgical singing, as well as a perusal of the condition of congregational singing during the last three centuries. How- ever, before proceeding into the proposed study of this chapter, it would be beneficial to consider early Rus’ musical notations as they shed some light on how the character of liturgical singing changed when different musical notation was used. a) The Preceding Era: Early Rus’ Musical Notations

As noted above, the purpose in exploring early Rus’ musical notations is not to analyse the technicalities thereof. Rather, we hope to grasp the essence of these notations with regard to liturgical singing. It appears that the earliest East- Slavic manuscripts containing musical notations date from the late eleventh-early twelfth century.113 Based on the signs used in these notations, they can be divided into two main catego- ries, namely the stolp, or znamenny, notation114 used primarily for the znamenny chant, and the kondakarion notation.

113 Cf. Morosan, Choral Performance, 4. 114 The stolp notation (столповое знамя) is more commonly referred to as the hook notation based on its appearance (крюковая нотация or merely крюки) and also, even though less frequently, as the znamenny notation. The interpretation of the word stolp as “sign” or “neume” (neÚein) would be incorrect when applied to the musical notation. Upon consideration of the etymology of the word stolp (from the Greek st»lh or stàloj meaning a pillar or a column) the point that von Gardner makes becomes clear. He cautions that the adjective stolp refers not to the signs used in this notation, 394 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

What is significant for our study regarding the stolp nota- tion is that it appears to have recorded relatively simple litur- gical singing. The melodies found in this notation were syl- labic with occasional melismas which did not extend for more than three notes.115 Furthermore, given the extensive number of signs indicating repetition of the same pitch, it seems that recitation on a single note prevailed in this notation.116 In other words, chants written in the stolp notation were com- posed of relatively simple and predictable melodic patterns, which means that they would have easily lent themselves to congregational singing. Furthermore, it is probably due to its simplistic character that the znamenny chant recorded in the stolp notation was so widely used from the eleventh to the end of the seventeenth century.117 Unlike the stolp notation, kondakarion notation was rather short-lived. The manuscripts containing this notation range only from the eleventh to the thirteenth century.118 One of the reasons why kondakarion notation was not as abiding as the stolp notation might have been its complexity. Hymnody recorded in this notation was immensely melismatic. This is evident from numerous interjections of nonsensical syllables called anenaiky, the sole purpose of which, as noted above, was mere artistic display of singers’ vocal abilities.119 Such but rather to the kind of singing employed in the eight-week “pillar” of liturgical tones. Cf. Johann von Gardner, Russian Church Singing, vol. 1: Orthodox Worship and Hymnography, trans. Vladimir Morosan, (Crest- wood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), 113 and 105. 115 Cf. Morosan, Choral Performance, 5. 116 Morosan, Choral Performance, 5. 117 Cf. Ibid., 6. 118 Cf. Ibid., 13. Morosan notes that kondakarion notation and this style of singing ceased due to their direct Byzantine origin, and yet, during this period, Kievan liturgico-political ties with the Byzantine Church were greatly weakened. Also, the foreign invasions and civil wars that plagued Kievan Rus’ at that point for over a century contributed to inadequate condi- tions that were necessary in order to foster such a complex approach to litur- gical singing. One may add that from a practical and spiritual point of view, kondakarion singing simply could not have endured as a successful plain- chant. 119 Cf. Morosan, Choral Performance, 7. Also, cf. Nicholas P. Brill, History of Russian Church Music 988–1917 (Bloomington, Ill.: Brill, 1980), 20. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 395

unpredictable and chaotic singing must have brought a great deal of confusion to worship in general, and congregational participation in particular. It is hard to imagine how this approach to public worship, in which vocal performance dominated over the understanding of liturgical texts and where only the singer knew the length of cadences, was actually tolerated. The main distinction, then, between the stolp and the kondakarion style of singing was rooted in the manner of execution of vocal subtleties. Complex vocal technique thrived in the kondakarion notation, while the stolp notation was marked by simplicity and predictability. Consequently, based on the duration of its use, the stolp notation appears to have been far more conducive to fostering not only congrega- tional singing, but the proper disposition towards liturgical singing in general. We now turn to an overview of the polyphony which not only characterizes the Rus’ choral tradition, but also provided the framework within which the tradition of congregational singing survived if, at times, somewhat tenuously. b) Choral Tradition

While choral singing plays a significant part in the history of Rus’ liturgical traditions, only a cursory consideration of it will be offered in this section so as to set in relief certain aspects of congregational singing. The following will provide an overview of the pivotal moments in the evolution of litur- gical choral music in Rus’ without delving into all of the historical and ecclesial intricacies that shaped this tradition. Special emphasis will be placed on the events that either con- tributed to or undermined the tradition of congregational litur- gical singing. Liturgical singing used in Rus’ during the second millen- nium can be divided into two general groups, namely, litur- gical chants transmitted through oral tradition, and “codified” chants, that is, chants transmitted through written sources. It is this latter class that brought about the liturgical choral tradi- tion. It is important to note that up to the second half of the 396 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

sixteenth century, the churches of Rus’ relied on neumatic notation, also known as kriukovyi notopys, which utilized neumes called kriuky in order to indicate the pitch, or the melodic movement of chants. Myroslaw Antonowycz calls this period of Rus’ liturgical music “church monody.”120 The kriuky used for liturgical notation in the early sixteenth century clearly showed that singing at this stage was done in more than one voice. One could argue that this was the “official” launching of the era of Rus’ liturgical polyphony. Choral singing continued developing in two stages: the first stage saw the flourishing of improvised polyphony, or initial part-singing (первісний партесний спів), and the second stage was marked by elaborate polyphonic compositions (багато- or многоголосний партесний спів) based on the rules of music theory, harmony and counterpoint. (It is absolutely critical at this point to understand that, while for the purpose of clarity we needed to provide neat categories of various styles and approaches to liturgical singing used throughout the history of Rus’, we do not claim that overlapping in the practice of litur- gical singing did not exist. For example, even though impro- vised polyphony became a common practice only in the six- teenth century, it was employed in one form as early as the eleventh-twelfth century at the Kievan Caves Monastery.)

c) The Period of Initial Part-Singing (XVI to XVIII Centuries)

During the sixteenth century, initial part-singing – also known as strochnoe pinie121 –involved simple harmonization

120 Антонович, “Питоменності,” 459. Antonowycz indicates that church monody generated the oldest liturgical chants imprinted with certain specifically East-Slavic features. 121 A rough translation of this term would be “line singing” (from строка) written using kriuk notation. The three parts identified in strochnoe pinie are put’ (the middle voice analogous to tenor), verkh (“top” harmony) and niz (“bottom” harmony). Cf. Кудрик, Огляд історії, 14. It is important to note that strochnyi chant is predated by monodic plainchants. Thus, redactions of the znamenny chant eventually precipitated new monodic plainchants such as putevyi (from путь meaning “the custom” or “the rule”) and demestvennyi (from деместьвьнникъ meaning “the leader of the Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 397

of the existing liturgical chants. This practice was modelled on Western three-voiced singing spawned as early as the thirteenth century. Eventually, this improvised three-part har- mony was embellished by yet another higher part, called demestvennyi. Once again, the precursor of this four-part singing, in which the fourth voice was simply attached to the existing three-part harmony, was Western quadruplum vocal music.122 As noted above, the musical notation used for liturgical chants at this point was the kriuk notation. Unfortunately, it was afflicted by many deficiencies, the most notable of which was its inability to preserve precise melodic and rhythmic values of liturgical chant. Therefore, in the second half of the sixteenth century, through the adaptation of European mensural notation to East-Slavic plainchant, the renowned Kievan notation123 arose. It was able to accommodate four- part harmony. With the rise of far more precise and sophis- ticated Kievan notation emerged the “new” part-singing, which lasted from the late sixteenth to the end of the seventeenth century.124 The main propagators of part-singing using Kievan nota- tion in Southwestern Rus’ during the late sixteenth century were Orthodox stauropegial brotherhoods, monastic communi- ties and, in the early seventeenth century, the academy estab- lished by Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. Thanks to their schools and institutes, this choral liturgical music spread throughout

singers”). Because an additional voice could have been added to these chants, that is a verkh or niz, Pozhidaeva hypothesizes that these chants paved the road for early liturgical polyphony. Cf. Пожидаева, “Древле- православные певческие традиции,” 258. 122 Cf. Кудрик, Огляд історії, 13–14. 123 This five-staffed notation is also known as the or square notation. See, for example, Morosan, Choral Performance, 263–64. 124 Cf. Кудрик, Огляд історії, 16–17. Noteworthy is that during the early seventeenth century there was a proliferation of free compositions called motets, which, during this period, were brief liturgical pieces marked by “polyphono-imitational technique,” or rather, improvised polyphony. “Під назвою мотету розуміється на Заході (бодай від XV–XVI ст.) всяку церковну композицію невеличких розмірів з будьякою участю поліфонічно-імітаційної техніки.” Ibid., 18, nt. 3. 398 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

the Southwestern territory of Rus’.125 Part-singing using Kievan notation continued to grow very rapidly, and European influence started seeping into the liturgical chants of North- eastern Rus’ Part-singing penetrated Northeastern Rus’ where it found a loyal supporter in Nikon, the patriarch of Mos- cow.126 Note, however, that this new movement in liturgical singing was opposed by numerous establishments, such as the Kievan Brotherhood, as well as the people themselves, a fact of considerable importance in the context of our study.127

125 Кудрик, Огляд історії, 18. 126 Prior to these historical events, liturgical singing in Northeastern Rus’ was dominated by the kriuk notation, khomoniya (distortion of the pronunciation of half-vowels) and anenaiky (the practice of inserting additional syllables with no meaning in the middle or at the end of a word strictly for the purpose of vocal display). Obviously, such abuse of liturgical singing did not only considerably and unnecessarily prolong divine services, it also distorted the purpose of public worship by completely obliterating the meaning of liturgical texts. Therefore, Church legislation implemented serious measures to moderate the cumbersome liturgical melodies marked by extensive length of phrases due to melismatic accretions, undue embel- lishments, and the repetition of vowels. Under the guidance of Patriarch Nikon, the embarked on the path of purifying their liturgical chants in the seventeenth century. However, this reform resulted in a truncated plainchant which hardly resembled its grandiose predecessor. The “quality” of this newly-reformed plainchant was so unsatisfactory that “finding their own chant ‘monotonous and ridiculous,’ the Russian Orthodox Church did not merely permit a musical style based on a foreign structure into their Church. It allowed composed choir music and diluted chant to supersede her authentic chant heritage – the Znamenny chant.” Roccasalvo, The Plainchant Tradition, 39. 127 “По 1600 р. партесний спів почав на добре розвиватися. І хоча, як сказано, сам патріярх його одобрив, то всеж найшлися противники, таки між самими нашими людьми. Вже й не говоримо про Івана Ви- шенського, що фанатично поборюючи всі новини з Заходу, не пощадив і партесного співу, ба навіть самої київської нотації. Але дуже дивним видається нам, що до партесного співу ще в самих перших його почат- ках ворожно поставилося київське братство.” Кудрик, Огляд історії, 19. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 399

d) The Period of Elaborate Polyphonic Compositions (18th to 20th Centuries)

The eighteenth century witnessed the rise of a very elabo- rate polyphonic choral music grounded in the principles of occidental music theory, harmony and counterpoint, the pin- nacle of which extended for nearly one hundred years from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century. The champions of this grandiose style of choral singing were Italy and Western Europe in general, but its influence quickly spread through Southwestern Rus’, where it was mastered by musical giants such as Berezovs’kyi, Bortnianskyi, and Vedel’. It should be noted that this elaborate choral polyphony often included as many as eight vocal parts. Therefore, due to its technical complexity, only professional, or at least highly pro- ficient, musicians were able to perform it. Additionally, this style of vocal music employed majestic chords and impressive vocal arrangements, which created a jubilatory aura at liturgical services infused with emotion.128 Needless to say, such a novel approach to liturgical singing was rather foreign to the original plainchant, which was not designed to evoke sensual feelings. It is not surprising, then, that while this polyphonic choral music was becoming in- creasingly popular, particularly in larger cultural centres of Rus’, it still encountered much resistance, not least because its complexity excluded the rest of the worshipping community from active participation This prepared the people, in the words of Roccasalvo, “for passivity, weariness, and even boredom … shifting the center of attention from an interior attitude of liturgical prayer, that was sung by everyone, to an external posture – that of focussing on aesthetic require- ments.”129

128 Cf. Антонович, “Питоменності,” 471. 129 Roccasalvo, The Plainchant Tradition, 39–40. Emphasis added. A similar observation is made by von Gardner, who, while acknowledging the beauty of polyphonic singing, also recognizes the difficulties that it presents in terms of the spiritual well-being of the people gathered for public worship. He expresses his thoughts as follows: “Хоровое пѣніе весьма украшаетъ Богослуженіе…. Но введеніе хора въ Богослуженіе представляетъ тотъ существенный недостатокъ, что хоръ отстраняетъ народъ отъ непосред- 400 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

e) The Role of Cantors

Turning our attention to Southwestern Rus’, where congregational singing has had a particularly glorious history, we note that prior to the Union of Uzhorod in the mid- seventeenth century, priests and cantors received their training “by means of oral tradition transmitted from one generation to another.”130 Following the union, schools were established in Subcarpathia, where prospective cantors obtained a more for- mal education. By the mid-eighteenth century, their training developed into a formal four-year program geared towards professional preparation of the leading singers of all the litur- gical services. Furthermore, following their formal training, the candidates used to undergo apprenticeships for as long as the supervising cantor judged it necessary.131 It is intriguing that such an intense and lengthy program rendered cantors some of the most educated individuals, rivaling even the legal and medical professions. Unfortunately, by the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the practice of congregational singing was in severe decline. A Galician priest, who published a memoir on the topic near the end of his life, provides a fascinating insight into the deteriorating dynamics of liturgical singing in Galicia during this period:

During the period of Polish rule, Galician Rus’ was respected so little and its ecclesiastical Rite had de- teriorated to such an extent that in the krylos it was the diak alone who sang, since anyone who had advanced socially enough to wear a suit went to the Roman Catholic church if he lived in the city and was

ственнаго живого участія въ Богослуженіи. Дѣйствительно, разъ поетъ хоръ, народу остается только слушать, – молитвенное вниманіе ослабѣ- ваетъ.” Филиппъ Гарднеръ, “Нѣсколько словъ о церковномъ пѣніи въ Карпатской Руси,” [“A few words regarding Church singing in the Carpathian Rus”], 14. A translated version of this article can be found in Orthodox Life 30 (1980): 46–50. 130 Roccasalvo, The Plainchant Tradition, 17. 131 Cf. Joan L. Roccasalvo, “Musical Notes: On Ruthenian Chant,” Diakonia 30 (1997): 129. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 401

ashamed to sing in a Greco-Catholic church whenever he was in a village. As for the villagers, there were few who could be found to help the diak, and when one of them did in fact join the diak, they sang unison. Even in the Peremyshl’ cathedral church, Helytovych, a diak who was famous in his day, sang by himself in the krylos during the first decades of the current century.132

In order to alleviate this desperate condition of communal plainchant singing, numerous Rus’ hierarchs invested in schools that focussed on teaching theoretical and practical aspects to Eastern Catholics.133 For example, then-bishop of

132 “Подъ владычествомъ Польщи, Галицкая Русь столь мало имѣла уваженія, столь низко упалъ церковный обрядъ, що въ крыло- сѣспѣвалъ одинъ дьякъ, такъ якъ всякій, кто носилъ суконную капоту, – въ мѣсточкахъ ходилъ въ костелъ, а на селѣ стыдался въ церквѣ спѣвати, – а изъ крестьянъ мало кто нашелся, щобы дьяку помагалъ, если же такъ случилось, то оба спѣвали однимъ голосомъ. Даже въ Перемышльскомъ катедральномъ соборѣславный своего времени дьякъ Гелитовичъ въ первыхъ десяткахъ текущого вѣка спѣвалъ въ крылосѣодинъ.” Іван Хризостом Сѣнкевичъ, “Начало нотного пѣнія въ Галицкой Руси (Воспоминанія старого священника)” [“The beginning of notated singing in Galician Rus’ (Memoirs of an old priest)”], Бесѣда 2 (1888), 9. Similar frustration with the state of liturgical singing is also expressed by Gennady, the archbishop of Novgorod from 1485 to 1505. Referring to the canonical singers as the “stupid fellows,” Gennady con- tinues his lament by saying that “in the entire Russian land great lawlessness and iniquity have arisen: impudent muzhiks [peasants] are singing on the klirosy, reading Scripture and the Apostle on the ambo, and even going into the .” Cited in Morosan, Choral Performance, 15. Gennady’s distress not only emphasizes the far-reaching impact of the Council of Laodicea – it affirms lay leadership and participation in liturgical singing during the late sixteenth century, as well as the dire need for formal education of cantors. Consequently, this concern was addressed at the Stoglav Council in 1551, where it was decreed that schools should be established in the homes of clergy in order to teach reading, writing, and liturgical chants. Cf. Morosan, Choral Performance, 16. 133 “In addition to the imperial decree on education, the Ratio educationis of 1777, Bachinsky also introduced [in the theological school in Uzhorod] studies directly related to the liturgical celebration, i.e., the chant, the use of Church Slavonic, and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Moreover, he founded a Preparatory School for Cantors and Teachers at Uzhorod which survived until 1945. In the Prešov Eparchy, established in 402 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

Peremyshl’, Mikhail Levitskii, instructed his clergy in 1816 to train school children in reading, writing, and liturgical singing. Two years later a formal school was established for “singers and teachers” from which numerous cantors, with proficient knowledge of the Kievan plainchant and the Typicon, gra- duated. Nonetheless, the “quality” of congregational singing was still quite poor, which made choral singing very attractive. Thus, during the 1830’s, while kriloshany and cantors were still functioning, choirs were added to the equation. In 1829, Bishop Levitskii hired Western professional singers to teach youth the principles of choral singing.134 Initially, the choirs “performed” Divine Liturgies using the simple samoilka and Kievan plainchant on major feast-days.135 Apparently, con- gregational participation was not encouraged when choirs performed, since, as Sinkevych (the Galician priest cited above) writes, the cantor was not even present at those liturgies.136 Nonetheless, even though this Westernized choral music appealed to many, it did not seep into the local liturgical traditions without resistance.137

1818, Bishop John Valyi supervised the construction of a Teachers’ College to train prospective teachers and to educate cantors for the parishes. Basil Popovich succeeded Bishop Pocsy in 1837 as bishop of the Mukasevo Eparchy. Having graduated from the gymnasium and seminary there, he excelled in matters pertaining to liturgy [and therefore expanded the program at the Preparatory School for Cantors and Teachers].” Joan L. Roccasalvo, “The Rusin Cantor,” Diakonia 20 (1986): 45. 134 Сѣнкевичъ, “Начало нотного пѣнія,” 19. 135 “Обязанностью пѣвческого хора было спѣвати въ большіи прадники на хорѣ, самоловкою по “Кіевскому напѣву,” на галевыхъ обѣдахъ у епископа и при премиціяхъ пресвитеровъ.” Ibid., 10. 136 “Такъ якъ въ то время [1830’s] когда спѣвалъ хоръ дьяка въ церкви не было.” Ibid., 32. 137 “Вступивши въ 1835 году въ духовную семинарію, я [Іван Хризостом Сѣнкевицъ] вознамѣрилъ обучити питомцевъ нотному пѣнію, но встрѣтилъ сильное сопротивленіе со стороны ректората и самыхъ-же питомцевъ. … Большинство питомцевъ, приклонниковъ “самоловки” называли ею русскимъ, а нотное нѣмецкимъ пѣніемъ.” Ibid., 31. “Частѣйше мы начали въ церкви семинарской спѣвати по нотамъ только въ 1837 г. … Однако тогдашній ректоръ, Телиховскій, услышавши однажды конецъ въ “Единородный Сыне,” именно фугу: “Спаси насъ” и Бортнянского псальмъ: “Велія слава его,” – пригрозилъ намъ исключеніемъ изъ семинаріи за такое пѣніе.” Ibid., 32. None- theless the more influential individuals who were enamoured of choral Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 403

In summation, one notes that during several periods in the history of Rus’ the main responsibility of a cantor, or the leading singer, was to initiate liturgical chants. As soon as he began singing the appropriate hymn or tone, the people, iden- tifying the melody, used to immediately join the singing.138 However, in order to master various intricacies of the plain- chant, cantors were required to undergo extensive training, initially learning through orally transmitted instructions, and later through formal education. Only then were the cantors able to draw on their extensive knowledge of liturgical ser- vices and the Typicon, in order to initiate singing of the appropriate responses and hymnography using correct melo- dies, and thus provide a cue and pitch for the congregation. More important, being leaders of worship within the congregation, the cantors’ task was to collaborate with the priest in leading the people into the depths of the . Having thus explored the role of the leaders of congregational singing, we now turn to an exposition of this significant tradition.

VI. The Tradition of Congregational Singing

The main objective of this section is to explore historical and spiritual traits of congregational singing from the period between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, and to point out some of the deficiencies of choral singing that hindered the mystical transformation of the entire worshipping community into one body. A special emphasis will be placed on the practice of congregational singing in Subcarpathian Rus’ because it is renowned for having nurtured and preserved this tradition during the period when choral singing dominated liturgies throughout most of the other territories of Rus’. Put differently, the uniqueness of Subcarpathian Rus’ lies in the

singing continued promoting it: “отвѣтилъ епископъ Снѣгурскій: ‘… я желалъ бы, щобы нотное пѣніе розпространялось и по провинціи.’” Ibid. 138 Ivan von Gardner, “Several Observations on Congregational Chanting during the Divine Services,” in trans. E. Lambertsen, Living Orthodoxy 14 (1969): 10. 404 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

fact that it preserved the heritage of congregational singing when most of Rus’ was enamoured of choral singing:

In Carpatho-Russia, in all village churches (both Uniate and Orthodox), congregational chanting of all the services in their entirety has been practiced exclusively, including the hymns of the “proper,” utilizing the full range of tones and melodies. The people chant from the Great Anthology [Velikyi Zbornyk], which contains all the necessary texts. The chants, which are quite diverse (including the melodies for all the prosomoia [podobny], some of which one cannot even find in the notated liturgical books published by the Most Holy Synod), were well-known to all, even to school children. The cantors [d’yaki] – the more experienced chanters among the parishioners – who stood on the kleros, began the chanting. As soon as those present recognized the melody, the whole church sang: they sang all the stichera, all the troparia, all the irmoi – in a word, everything that the typicon indicated was to be sung. They sang in unison, and whoever was able added a parallel melody line or improvised a bass line. The impression pro- duced was one of extraordinary power. But the main thing was that those present were not passive listeners, they were not “the public,” but were aware that they themselves assisted in the performance of the divine services.139

139 Von Gardner, “Several Observations,” 2. Emphasis added. Gardner attests to congregational singing in Carpathian Rus’ as well. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 405

a) A Few Historical Remarks

If we turn to Galicia, on the other side of the Carpathian Mountains, from the seventeenth century congregational singing became known as samoilka chant.140 According to Kudryk, samoilka resulted from the fact that early part-singing was able to circulate among the masses (owing to its relatively simple structure) and be transformed among the people into unison or rudimentary two- and three-part singing, grounded in the principle of harmonizing in thirds.141 Kudryk’s opinion resonates with that of Alfred Swan, who hypothesized that the harmony used in both liturgical and folk singing was virtually indistinguishable due to the intimate relation between these two types of singing. Thus, Swan defines this simple poly- phony – or, in his terms, heterophony – as “a principle melody improvised simultaneously by several singers, [which] retains its main outline in each voice, yet shows enough independence to result in places in 2-, 3- and even 4-part harmony.”142 It is important to note that execution of congregational singing was not uniform. While simple polyphony dominated some re- gions of Rus’ (e.g., Galicia), unison singing was common in others (e.g., Subcarpathia).

140 The etymology is still unsure. Some trace it to “samovolia,” that is, “one’s own will (preference).” 141 “Тепер переходимо до іншої ділянки церковно-народнього співу … цебто первісно партесної музики, що наслідком своєї відносно простої структури ввійшла в народні низи й перетворилася там в одноголос або примітивний дво- чи триголос, побудований на принципі звичайного терціювання. Згодом забувалося книжне походження цих напівів, кодекси запропащувалися, а упрощені мельодії стали вважати- ся “самоілкою,” “єрусалимкою,” приписувано їм наївно старовинне східнє походження, а друковані ірмольоґіони першої, іноді ще й другої, половини XIX ст. Заміщують, особливо між напівами Служби Божої, неодну мельодію, якої колишнього книжного, партесного, много- голосного походження можна аналітично дошукатися подібно, як ми це знайшли на богогласникових мельодіях. Добре збережених зразків такого хнародніло-партесного літурґічного співу доставляють західні українські землі, головно Галичина. В Галичині, … ще в глибину 1830- их рр. … сягають кодекси знароднілого партесного співу з рисами ще XVIII ст….” Кудрик, Огляд історії, 102. It is not entirely clear if Kudryk is arguing that samoilka stems from strochnoe part-singing of the early sixteenth century, or from later, more developed part-singing based on the 406 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

Whatever the extent of congregational singing in Galicia during the seventeenth century, samoilka begins to encounter difficulties, reflecting the Greco-Catholic decline as a whole. In order to revive liturgical singing, instead of mastering the existing znamenny plainchant, a strong tendency favouring choral singing became evident.143 Moreover, congregational singing was nearly forgotten and replaced with choral singing in Eastern Ukraine and Russia as well. Roccasalvo provides an intriguing excerpt from the episcopal archives of the Mukahevo Eparchy from 1774–75 regarding the condition of liturgical singing: “Considering the pathetic state of liturgical singing, several Basilian singing masters/musicians should be sent to Kiev to study the official liturgical singing in the various churches and monasteries of the Kiev metropolitan province.”144 She then notes that when the Basilians returned from Kiev, they reported that “the people in Kievan Russia were silent for the most part during the liturgical services.”145 Curiously, this ancient practice of liturgical singing by the entire worshipping community continued to flourish in isolated and peripheral regions, most notably in Subcarpathian Rus’, and also in Galicia. Rocca- salvo points out that while it seemed that choral singing was well on its way to devouring the ancient plainchant tradition of Rus’:

Kievan notation which originated in the late sixteenth century. Because he makes note of the “initial” part-singing, is it possible that he is actually referring to the “older” style of part-singing, that is, the strochno-demestven- noe liturgical part-singing? This would require further analysis. The un- equivocal point that Kudryk makes regarding samoilka is that it stems from written liturgical tradition. Antonowycz, however, argues that samoilka belongs to the orally transmitted liturgical chants which were codified as late as the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Moreover, he lists terms such as samoilka together with “the usual chant,” “plainchant,” and “cantor’s melodies,” as if these were interchangeable. 142 Alfred Swan, “The Nature of the Russian Folk Song,” The Musical Quarterly 29 (1943): 509. On how folk music penetrated liturgical chants of Ukraine see Кудрик, Огляд історії, 94–105. 143 Кудрик, Огляд історії, 108. 144 Roccasalvo, The Plainchant Tradition, 52. 145 Ibid. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 407

these simple people secluded among the mountainous Carpathians kept alive a rich chant tradition that is the authentic heritage of the entire Rus’ people. In pre- serving this music, they have preserved an unbroken lifeline to a glorious past not just for themselves, but for southwestern [sic] and northern Russia as well.146

During the late nineteenth century, however, Sub- carpathians were joined by other communities when elements of a revival of congregational singing became evident in the territory coterminous with ancient Rus’.147 b) A Vehicle into the Mystical Life of the Church

Before turning to several other dimensions of the history of congregational singing in East-Slavdom, we need to analyse aspects of its theology. In his exposition on congregational chanting, von Gardner points out several principal deficiencies of choral singing in the context of communal spiritual well- being. First, he raises a relatively obvious concern, also noted above by Roccasalvo, of turning the congregation into “pas- sive listeners.” Such liturgies, he remarks, are celebrated “by the priest, the deacon and the reader, with the participation of a choir of singers,”148 thus rendering people’s participation completely unnecessary. Second, because they might perceive themselves as spectators, whose prayer is independent of that prayed publically, they might feel compelled to pray for their own private needs without paying any attention to the communal prayer.149 Such a distorted approach to public worship would not reflect the intended purpose of any leitourgia properly so called. Third, the hymnography of the

146 Ibid., 41. 147 Cf. Von Gardner, “Several Observations,” 1–2. Von Gardner cites the following example: “In Russia, even as late as the end of the last [the nineteenth] century, in several churches (among them the Cathedral of the Kazan’ Icon in Saint Petersburg, during early liturgies), the chanting of the entire liturgy by all the people, and certain of the ordinary hymns during , was introduced.” 148Ibid., 1. 149 Ibid., 6. 408 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

Byzantine Church was composed with the aim of edifying those who sing it. More specifically, it is through singing that one is able to assimilate the Church’s doctrines and be en- lightened by spiritual testimony of numerous saints and feast- days. Saint Basil writes that liturgical music helps the worshipper to swallow Christian teaching much as honey helps a patient to swallow medicine.150 Von Gardner illustrates the indispensable need for the participation of the entire assembly in singing hymnody when he notes how he was “struck by the simple peasants’ knowledge of theology [in Subcarpathian Rus’], which enabled them to cite from memory any passage from the hymns of the Church.”151 Moreover,

the principal and almost inevitable shortcoming of the exclusive use of the choral singing … is that the exclusive chanting of a choir of singers does not lead those who pray into common prayer and common glorification, but more readily leads them away from it. This, in turn, detracts from the hymns’ didactic power.152

Von Gardner stresses a very important point here. In order to be able to delve into the mystical life of the Church, one needs not only to understand liturgical hymns and prayers, but to remain focussed on the mystery unfolding before one’s eyes. However, in order to achieve this, it is absolutely crucial that the congregation be proficient in both singing plainchant melodies and accurately enunciating liturgical texts.153

150 “Di¦ toàto kaˆ tÕ ™k tÁj melJd…aj terpnÕn to…j dÒgmasin ™gkatšmixen, †na tù proshne‹ kaˆ le…J tÁj ¢koÁj tÕ ™k tîn lÒhwn çfšlimon lanqanÒntwj Øpodecèmeqa, kat¦ toÝj sofoÝj tîn „atrîn, o† tîn farm£kwn t¦ aÙsthrÒtera p…nein didÒntej to‹j kakos…toij, mšliti poll£kij t¾n kÚlika pericr…ousi.” PG. 32:1136. 151 Von Gardner, “Several Observations,” 4. 152 Ibid., 5–6. 153 “Карпаторусскій народъ обладаетъ неоцѣненнымъ богатством: твердымъ знаніемъ гласовъ и умѣніемъ правильно распѣвать текстъ. Это дѣлаетъ возможнымъ общее пѣніе. Этого больше нигдѣнѣтъ. Въ Россіи давно народъ отвыкъ отъ общаго пѣнія, привыкнувъ къ хорамъ. … Общенародное пѣніе, какъ правило, а не какъ исключеніе, при том Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 409

Looking at this issue from a slightly different angle, von Gardner suggests that when active participation of the people in the life of the Church is made impossible, the religiosity of the entire nation suffers. Moreover, since congregational singing so readily facilitates this actively-prayerful participa- tion of the worshipping community in the divine services, it is much better suited for spiritual development of the faithful than choral singing.154 It appears, then, that it is only by joining the congregation in singing that one can truly experience not only the beauty of praying as a community, but also the transformation from praying as individuals with one mouth, to praying as one Body with one heart. Pondering this innate potency of congregational singing, von Gardner concludes quite eloquently:

Only one who has heard it and heard it not once or twice, but many times, for whom it has lost its stun- ning novelty, and who is therefore able to penetrate to its power, beauty and profundity, can understand the elemental beauty of congregational chanting where the divine services are wholly executed by all the people.155

пѣніе уставное, всѣхъ гласовъ съ подобными мнѣ пришлось слышать только въ Карпатской Руси.” Гарднеръ, “Нѣсколько словъ,” 14–15. Also, cf. Roccasalvo, “Musical Notes,” 128. 154 “Это общее пѣніе обезпечиваетъ глубину и разумѣніе церков- ной жизни; отчужденіе же отъ послѣдней можетъ пагубно отразиться на всей религіозности народа. Съ замѣною общаго пѣніемъ хора, нач- нуть забываться подобны, гласовое пѣніе, начнетъ ослабѣвать любовь къ Богослуженію. Хоръ не можетъ быть такимъ гибкимъ для распѣва- нія текста, какъ весь народъ, поющій только одну мелодію, не думающій о сопровожденіи ея тѣми или иными аккордами. И, конечно, не будетъ уже того исключительнаго молитвеннаго подъема, сливаю- щаго во едино сердце и во единыя уста всѣхъ предстоящихъ и моля- щихся людей.” Гарднеръ, “Нѣсколько словъ,” 15. 155 Von Gardner, “Several Observations,” 3. 410 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

c) Archeparchial Synod of L’viv (1941): The Decree Regarding Church Singing

The Archeparchial Synod of L’viv, with its Decree Regarding Church Singing, is an historical milestone worth noting. We have decided to include this particular Synod in the final section of our study because Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky’s teaching is a succinct summary of our entire exposition. Sheptytsky writes:

Church singing can and should strengthen, and in appropriate relief, present, the meaning of the words used in prayer. Frequently these are the words by which the Most High deigned to transmit pre-eternal truth to humanity through the teaching of Divine Revelation. In addition, singing is a most wondrous symbol of prayer, for just as in singing one’s voice rises to high tones, and then again falls to lower ones, so also in prayer, the soul, standing before the Most High, raises itself to heaven by acts of hope and love, then again lowers itself to a humble acknowledgement of sins and repentance for them. Just as in singing the melody spreads in all directions and aspires, as it were, to engulf the universe, so also in prayer the human soul extends itself over the whole world, in order to embrace all its brothers in the love of neighbour.156

156 “Церковний спів може і повинен скріпляти і у відповідному релієфі представляти значення слів молитви, а тими словами так часто бувають слова, якими Всевишньому подобалося передати людству предвічну правду наукою Божого Обявлення. Спів є крім того пречуд- ним символом молитви, бо так, як у співі голос раз підноситься до високих тонів, то знову знижається до низьких, – так і в молитві: Душа, стоячи перед Всевишнім, раз підноситься до неба актами надії чи любови, то знову понижає себе до покірного визнання гріхів і каяння за них. Як у співі мельодія розходиться на всі сторони і наче хотіла б обняти вселенну, так і в молитві душа людини розширяється на весь світ, щоби любовю ближнього оюняти всіх братів.” Андрей Шептиць- кий (під проводом), Діяння і Постанови Львівських Архиєпархіяльних Соборів 1940–41–42–43 [The proceedings and decisions of the Arch- eparchial Synod of L’viv of 1940–41–42–43], (Winnipeg: Central Jubilee Committee of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, 1984), 58. Translation taken Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 411

In other parts of the decree, Sheptytsky emphasizes the spiritual growth of the faithful through musical worship. His reflection on the ethical character of congregational singing underlines the ability of liturgical singing to inspire the soul’s emotions, generating lasting spiritual effects. Furthermore, Metropolitan Andrey stresses that liturgical singing is, first and foremost, liturgical prayer because through it one is able to give his or her whole being to God. Besides and catechism, congregational singing is the most important tool for instructing the faithful in the principles of Christian life.157 Moreover, according to Sheptytsky, prayer, accomplished in a liturgical context through singing, is the highest function of the human mind.158 Lastly, in order to fulfill its function, liturgical singing needs to reflect the honesty, integrity, and purity of heart and soul of those who sing – it should move the worship- ping community towards piety. Thus, liturgical singing should spring forth from one’s living faith.159 The decree makes it very clear that Metropolitan Andrey took the ministry of liturgical singers very seriously. Thus, he writes:

This Council considers one of the most important ob- ligations of the priest to be the introduction of con- gregational singing, and it also considers the first and most important obligation of cantors to be the instruct- tion of the people in liturgical participation through common singing. Cantors, who after several years of work at a church have not managed to bring about total popular participation in the services should not be certified.160 from Peter Galadza, The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptytsky (1865–1944) (Ottawa, ON: Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, 2004), 384. 157 Ibid., 61. 158 Ibid., 59. 159 Ibid., 59–60. 160 “Собор уважає за один з найважніших обовязків священика працювати над веденням всенароднього співу, уважає також за перший і найважніший обовязок дяків научити нарід брати участь в Бого- служенні спільним співом. Дяки, які після кількох літ праці при церкві 412 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

VII. General Summary and Conclusion

During the latter half of the second millennium, the East- Slavic Churches experienced the dynamics of both choral and congregational singing. Choral singing of the sixteenth cen- tury was characterized by a relatively simple form of impro- vised polyphony, or initial part-singing, which, by the eighteenth century, developed into highly intricate polyphonic compositions focused on the aesthetics of execution. The main difficulty with choral singing was that it could not impart spiritual benefits on the entire assembly the way congrega- tional singing did. In other words, since they did not par- ticipate in liturgical singing, the people were reduced to pas- sive spectators not necessarily focused on the mystery being celebrated. Even though congregational singing proved to be a more ancient liturgical practice imbued with immense spiritual benefits, it was not always upheld in the East-Slavic Churches. Various political and ecclesiastical circumstances during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries contributed to serious decline in congregational singing. Numerous Rus’ hierarchs helped re-establish cantor schools in the early nineteenth century in order to restore this tradition. Finally, it is important to note, once again, that while congregational singing was virtually obliterated in most of Rus’, Subcarpathia and Galicia held on to this ancient tradition throughout their turbulent history. Liturgical singing assumes a very unique and significant place in the general structure of public worship in the Rus’ liturgical traditions. In essence, it is an outpouring of the mind and heart towards God. Liturgical singing moves the worship- ping community towards celestial heights; it requires active participation of the whole assembled body; it enhances and reveals theological truths contained in liturgical texts; and finally, it spiritually transforms the worshippers as they allow

не довели до того, щоб увесь нарід брав участь в Богослуженні, не повинні бути системізовані.” Шептицький, Діяння і Постанови, 61. Translation taken from Galadza, The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptytsky, 390. Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions 413

for the liturgical dimension to spill over into their life. Con- sequently, one of the responsibilities of the entire worshipping community is to make liturgical singing beautiful, since beauty, unlike aestheticism, is a reflection of the divine glory. This task demands love, care, and time. Following the Christianization of Rus’ in the tenth century, Byzantine liturgical notation and structure became the models on which East-Slavs developed their own liturgical practices. The participation of the laity in singing responses at the divine services has manifested itself in varying forms during different periods of Rus’ history. Among such forms has been i) con- gregational singing, where the entire worshipping community is included; ii) solo performance by singers or cantors; and iii) polyphonic arrangements performed by choirs. However, from the earliest times, liturgical singing in the Kievan Church was initiated by the canonical singers and supported by the congregation. Early Rus’ sources and liturgical manuscripts testify to congregational input in public worship. Liturgical manuscripts from the second half of the second millennium witness to a progressive diminishing of congrega- tional singing and the gradual rise of choral performance. Nevertheless, the polyphonic era did not erase entirely the tradition of congregational singing. More isolated pockets of Rus’ continued this ancient tradition, and it eventually began to revive in other areas of Rus’. Thus, in light of the fact that congregational singing has been preserved among the Gali- cians and Subcarpathians, while virtually absent from the current practice of other East-Slavic Churches, it becomes evi- dent that these communities of the Byzantine hinterland have in fact sustained an older tradition, reflective of a more authen- tically liturgical piety.

®®®®®®®®

414 Melita Mudri-Zubacz

Резюме

Автор безпосередньо досліджує різні літургійні та музичні рукописи, зокрема ті, що стосуються східних сло- в’янських церков, які знаходяться в Гайлендерській науко- вій бібліотеці та дослідницькому центрі середньовічних студій. За допомогою цих документів автор показує, що занепад співу церковної громади, який переживали східні слов’янські церкви впродовж останньої частини другого тисячоліття був невластивим розвитком ранішої традиції, в якій миряни під керівництвом дяків та духовенства, брали активну участь своїм співом у Літургії та інших від- правах таких як Утреня, Вечірня та Повечір’я. Цей зане- пад відбувався поступово, в міру того, наскільки популяр- нішим ставав хоровий спів та ускладнювався, подекуди абсолютно непотрібно, літургійний спів. Такі нововведен- ня потребували вишколених музикантів, які в більшості церквах перебирали на себе ролю мирян, а ті в свою чергу, перетворювалися на пасивних німих спостерігачів, позбав- лених духовного блага брати повну участь в Божественній Літургії.

® ® ® ®

415

APPENDIX I

Codex Barberini gr. 336 (VIII c.) – Eucharistic Liturgies

oƒ t¦ kaˆ tù tÕ kaˆ œcomen ¥xion ¤gioj s ¢m»n; P£ter eŒj ceroub…m pneÚma PisteÚ met¦ prÕj kaˆ Ømnoàm kaˆ ¹mîn ¤gioj t… sou w toà tÕn d…kaion en met¦ pneÚma KÚrion toà tÒj sou pneÚma tÒj sou Divine Liturgy eÙc¾ tÁj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj kaˆ proskomidÁj met¦ of St. Basil the toà ¡g…ou tÕ Great Basile…ou e„pe‹n met¦ tÕ tÕn plhrîsai laÕn tÕ tÕn laÕn tÕn eŒj mustikÕn ¤gioj Ûmnon 416

Divine Liturgy eÙc¾ tÁj Ð laÒj: Ð laÒj Ð laÒj: Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj: Ð laÒj: Ð laÒj proskomidÁj ¢m»n œleoj, ¢m»n P£ter of St. John toà ¡g…ou e„r»nh ¹mîn Ð laÒj: Chrysostom Iw£nnou toà Ð laÒj: ™n CrusostÒmou Ð laÒj Ð laÒj s Ð laÒj: ÑnÒmat ... met¦ tÕ Ømnoàm ¢m»n i plhrîsai en Kur…ou tÕn laÕn tÕn mustikÕn Ûmnon

t£ proke…mena kateuqunq»tw nàn aƒ P£ter ¹mîn kaˆ tù eŒj ¤gioj ™n ÑnÒmati kaˆ t£ (Ps. 140) dun£meij pneÚmat… sou; Kur…ou ¢nagnèsmata ¢m»n Divine Liturgy Ð y£lthj Ð y£lthj kaˆ met¦ tÕ Ð laÒj: P£ter Ð laÒj Ð laÒj Ð laÒj of the plhrwqÁnai ¹mîn tÕ “Nàn aƒ Pre-Sanctified dun£meij tîn Ð laÒj: ¢m»n Gifts oÙranîn,” Ð ƒereÝj ™peÚcetai...

in Diakonik¦ tîn prohgisasmšn wn it says: Ð laÒj 417

Codex Barberini gr. 336 (VIII c.) – Other Divine Offices

Christian Initiation kaˆ £nei Ð ƒereÝj tÕ trubl…on toà ag…ou ™la…ou, kaˆ poie‹ ™x aÙtoà e„j tÕ Ûdwr stauroÝj g/ y£llwn tÕ “’Allhloڎa” sÝn tù ÔclJ g/

kaˆ met¦ tÕ baptisqÁnai, lšgei Ð y£lthj: Mak£rioi ïn ¢fšqhsan aƒ ¢nom…ai

...™peÚcetai Ð ƒereÝj t»n eÙc¾n taÚthn... kaˆ met¦ t¾n eÙc¾n taÚthn lšgei: “Osoi e„j CristÕn ™bapt…sqhte, CristÕn ™nedÚsasqe Theophany e‡pwmen p£ntej: kÚrie ™lšhson

kaˆ eÙqšwj ·ant…zei Ð ƒereÝj tÕn laÕn lšgwn sÝn tù pl»qei tÕ trop£rion, Ãcoj d/ “Deàte, mimhsèmeqa t¦j fron…mouj parqšnouj,” kaˆ dox£zei kaˆ lšgei kaˆ ¥lla Consecration of a Church kaˆ ¥rcontai oƒ y£ltai toà tropar…ou, tÕ “”Arate pÚlaj oƒ ¥rcontej Ømîn, kaˆ ™p£rqhte, pÚlai a„ènioi” kaˆ t¦ ˜xÁj

eta dox£zousin oƒ y£ltai kaˆ ™pisun£ptousin tÕ tris£gion Consecration of a Bishop met¦ tÕ tris£gion, Óte katšlqwsin oƒ y£ltai ™k toà ¥mbwnoj, †statai Ð ¢rciep…skopoj e„j t¾n krhp‹da œmprosqen tÁj ¡g…aj trapšzhj...

kaˆ met¦ tÕ ¢nagnwsqÁnai tÕ “`H qe…a c£rij,” lšgei Ð laÕj tÕ “KÚrie ™lšhson” tr…ton Ordination of a Priest kaˆ e‡pV Ð laÕj tÕ “”Axion kaˆ d…kaion” Ordination of a Lector and a Singer d…dotai ... tù d y£ltV yalt»rion kaˆ lšgei proke…menon

419

APPENDIX II

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

,kujckjdtzj fznïajz+ f ¿ fznïajz+ d ¿ fznïajz+ u ¿ ghïblbnt nhjgfhb nhïc{njt wh^ndj gjrkjzbvcå Vatican. (text noted in (text noted in (text noted in Slav. 14 the margin – the margin – the margin – (1390–1410) no indication no indication no indication of who sings of who sings of who sings it) it) it)

ecnfdΩ gädftv¥v+ ,kö¿zzfv¡tulf öt ghbblen gädwb gänb ckfde777 420

HM. SMS. 334 (1600’s) HM. SMS. k.lït b gjnjvm (gj 328 ghïblbnt (1691) gjrkjzbvcå) nhjg^ b rjl^ GLZ. 5 kbr+Ω fvbzmÎ b gjtncå b gjtncå gädftvÁ öt gädw¥ öt nföt gädftvÁ öt (1784) ul^b gjvbkÁbÎ gthd¥ gjlj,zä † nhtnïtvÁ gj.n+ j,¥xz¥å nh^njvÁ nt,ä ul^bÎ fznïa∑z+ † gädwtd+ fznïa∑zÁ † nhjgfhb fvbzm gädwtd+ dnjh¥b gädwtd+6 bkb fznïa∑z+ ,k¿ötzzfv fvbzm (no kbr+Ω nt,ä indication of ul^b kbr+Ω fvbzm who sings it)

421

,kujckjdtzj fznïajz+ f¿ fznïajz+ d ¿ fznïajz+ u ¿ ghïblbnt nhjgfhb nhïc{njt wh^ndj gjrkjzbvcå HM. SMS. kbr+Ω fvbzmÎ b gjtncå b gjtncå gädftvÁ öt simply notes kbr+Ω 338 ul^b gjvbkÁbÎ gthd¥b gjlj,zä † nhtnïtvÁ crjzxfdiÁcå fvbzm¡b (1790’s) nt,ä ul^bÎ fznïajz+ † gädwtd+ fznïa∑zÁ † öt gädftvÁ öt fvbzm gädwtd+ dnjh¥b gädwtd+6 bkb nhjgfh.777 nhïcn¿jvÁ fznïa∑z+ ,k¿ötzzfv+ kbr+Ω ul^b gjvbkÁbÎ kbr+Ω ul^b fvbzm gjvbkÁb HM. SMS. the text of the 594 Divine (1794) Liturgy contains no responses HM. SMS. the text of the 763 v Divine (1800’s) Liturgy contains no responses 422

HM. SMS. kbr+Ω ul^b then it simply 450 gjvbkÁbÎ notes (1810’s) nt,ä ul^b gj cjdthitzïb fznbajzf777 HM. SMS. kbr+Ω fvbzm b gjtncå f¿b gjlj,zä b d¿ gädftvÁ öt crjzxfdiÁ öt kbr+Ω fvbzm7 590 kΩ ul^b gv^kÁb fznba∑z+777 fznba∑z+ nhïnïtvÁ nhjgfh. gädftvÁ öt (1856) (most likely †gädit777 fznba∑zÁ ghbüjlbn+ nhïcn¿jvÁ777 referring to bkb lïfrjz+777 kbr+)Î fvbzm ,k¿ötzzfv+777

,kujckjdtzj fznïajz+ f ¿ fznïajz+ d¿ fznïajz+ u¿ ghïblbnt nhjgfhb nhïc{njt wh^ndj gjrkjzbvcå HM. SMS. gj gthdjv+ gj trntzïbΩ nföt simply gives gjctv+ gjctv+ 593 ghjitzïb d¿ kbr+7 ckfdf ,k¿ötzz¥ zf the text nhjgfhb gj nhbcn¿jtΩ (1882) uk¿tn+ gthd¥b ôw¿Á777 üdfkb d¿î777 without xbzÁ gthd¥b kbr+7 kbr+Ω ukfc+ lÁit vjï indicating cn¿¥b ,ö¿t6 b¿7 ,k¿ujckjdb ul^f777 dj bz¥å öt who sings it cn¿¥b rhägrïb6 lÁit vjå gthd¥b kbr+7 lzbΩ gj.ncå cn¿¥b ul^f6 ,k^udtz+ zt zfläbntcå fznïa∑z¥ ,tpcvthnz¥b tcb ul^b777 zf rzåpb777 cîb777 gjvbkÁb dnjh¥b kbr+Ω d¿ kbr+7 b zfc+7 ô,f 423

,k¿ujckjdb z¥zä6 b NOTE: kbrf6 lÁit vjå gh^z∑777 distinction nhböl¥7 ul^f6 b ukfc+ q¿7 between ckfdf b z¥zä7 ztpf,¥dfb777 tlbzjhjlz¥b verses and cn¿¥b gthd¥b kbr+7 cz¿t777 refrains: ,tpcvthnz¥b ckfdf ôw¿Á777 cnîüΩ ,kfuj gjvbkÁb dnjh¥b kbr+7 tcnm zfc+7 gthd¥b b z¥zä6 b bcgjdälfnbcå kbr+ gh^z∑777 ul^db777 d¥iibv+ vk¿ndfvb ukfcjv+ cn¿¥b ,^w¥777 ,ö¿t6 cn¿¥b rhägrïb6 cn¿¥b same applies ,tpcvthnz¥b to 2nd and 3rd gjvbkÁb zfc+ antiphons

424

djzvtv+¡vbh πfkjv+ zflgbcfzït vbh+ nb fkkbkÁïf eck¥ibv+ trntzïb + dcäv+ ld{ljd+Î fg^kfÎ xntzït πfkjv+ cn¿fu∑ t√^kïf6 ghjrbvtz+ ld{ljd+ vbh+ dcäv+ Vatican. text noted in text noted in NOTE the Slav. 14 the margin – the margin – following (1390–1410) no indication no indication petition: of who sings of who sings 4tot vk¿bvcå it it ô nheölf.obü ecnfdΩ xntwm ecnfdΩ cå gj.obü+ gädtwm¡fkkbk j ebæ¡πk^jv ghtlcnjæobü ldl^d+¡lïfrjz + k.lïb b ¡djzvbv¡b xf.obü+ töt gj.n gädwb † nt,t fkkbkebæ ,jufne. vbkjcnm4 HM. SMS. x+n+w+ b gjtvÁ 334 fkkbkÁæ (1600’s) 425

HM. SMS. x+n+w+ gj fgc^kä 328 gjtvÁ (1691) fkkbkÁïf

text of the Rite of Ordination of Lector and Singer notes: xmntwm gjtnm fkkbkÁbæ zf ukfc l¿

djzvtv+¡vbh πfkjv+ zflgbcfzït vbh+ nb fkkbkÁïf eck¥ibv+ trntzïb + dcäv+ ld{ljd+Î fg^kfÎ xntzït πfkjv+ cn¿fu∑ t√^kïf6 ghjrbvtz+ ld{ljd+ vbh+ dcäv+ GLZ. 5 b xntw+ xntw+ b xntw+Ω xntw+ k.lïtΩ kbr+Ω ul^b (1784) uk¿tn+6 b b lü¿jdb b lü¿jdb gjvk¿ÁbÎ lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ ndjtvÁ the note ndjtvÁ fvbzmÎ nt,ä refers to the ul^b Psalm of kbr+Ω ckfdf 426

David only; nt,ä ul^b6 NOTE the there is no ckfdf nt,ä following note petition: regarding tot vjkbvcå alleluia or ∑ who might gkjljzjcåob sing it ü+6 b lj,hjlä.obü + dj c{näv+ b dctx^nbäv+ ühfvä ctv+6 nhÁölf.obüc å gj.obü+ b ghtlcnjåobü + k.ltü+6 ∑öblf.obü+ † nt,t dtkbrïå b ,jufnïå vbkjcnb7 HM. SMS. b xntw+ xntw+ xntw+ b xntw+6b b xntw+Ω k.lïtΩ b kbr+Ω ul^b 338 ukfujktn+Ω lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ fkkbkÁïf lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ gjvbkÁbÎ (1790’s) b lü¿jdb fvbzmÎ gjlfb 427

ndjtvÁ fkkbkÁïf öt kbr+Ω ckfdf ul^bÎ nt,ä gädftvÁ6 nt,ä ul^b6 ul^b ghïtv+ ckfdf nt,ä NOTE the lïfrjz+ following rflbkzbwÁ777 petition: tot vjkbvcå ∑ gkjljzjcåob ü+ b lj,hjlä.obü + dj c{näv+ b dctxtcnbäv+ ühfvä ctv+6 nhÁölf.obüc å6 gj.obü+6 b ghtlcnjåobü + k.ltü+6 ∑öblf.obü+ † nt,t dtkbrïå b ,jufnîå vk^nb7 428

djzvtv+¡vbh πfkjv+ zflgbcfzït vbh+ nb fkkbkÁïf eck¥ibv+ trntzïb + dcäv+ ld{ljd+Î fg^kfÎ xntzït πfkjv+ cn¿fu∑ t√^kïf6 ghjrbvtz+ ld{ljd+ vbh+ dcäv+ HM. SMS. kbr+Ω ul^b 450 gjvbkÁb (1810’s) NOTE the following petition: tot vjkbvcå ∑ gkjljzjcåob ü+ b lj,hjlä.obü + dj c{näv+ b dctx^nbäv+ ühfvä ctv+6 nhÁölf.obüc å6 gj.obü+6 b ghtlcnjåobü + k.ltü+6 429

∑öblf.obü+ † nt,t dtkbrïå b ,jufn¥å vk^cnb7

djzvtv+¡vbh πfkjv+ zflgbcfzït vbh+ nb fkkbkÁïf eck¥ibv+ trntzïb + dcäv+ ld{ljd+Î fg^kfÎ xntzït πfkjv+ cn¿fu∑ t√^kïf6 ghjrbvtz+ ld{ljd+ vbh+ dcäv+ HM. SMS. xntw+Ω b xntw+ xntw+ xntw+ b b gj fkkbkÁæ k.lïtΩ b l^üdb kΩ ul^b 590 lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ ghïtv+ ndjtvÁ gjv¿kÁb (1856) lïfrjz+ (most likely rflbkzbwÁ777 kbr+Ω ckfdf referring to nt,ä ulb777 kbr+)

NOTE the following petition: tot vjkbvcå ∑ gkjljzjcåob 430

ü+6 b lj,hjlä.obü + dj c{näv+6 b dctx^nbäv+ ühfvä ctv+6 nhÁölf.obüc å6 gj.obü+6 b ghtlcnjåobü + k.ltü+6 ∑öblf.obü+ † nt,t dtkbrïå b ,jufn¥ vbk^nb7 HM. SMS. nföt xntw+ xntw+ fkkbkÁïf u¿ö gj t√^kïbΩ xntw+Ω 593 uk¿tn+ 777 777 cnîü+ ckfdf nt,ä ul^b gjvbkÁb (1882) ghjrïvtz+ 777 ul^b6 ckfdf cnîü+ even though nt,ä it is not specified in there is no the text, the note verses are regarding 431

most likely who sings it done by the lector

üthÁdîvcrf trntzïb ôwf b cz¿f dähÁ. vk^cnm vbhf b cj lü¿jv+ b vfv¥ rj gäczf ndjbv+ ul^Á Vatican. ecnfdΩ k.lït Slav. 14 üthedbvmcrj (1390–1410) b öt gäczb ecnfdΩ gädftvjb k.lït HM. SMS. vk¿ndf6 .öt noted in the 334 ndjhbn main text – (1600’s) co¿tzzbr j no indication ct,ä of who sings üthedîvcrjb it gäczb gädftväb 432

HM. SMS. vk^ndf6 .öt fvbzm 328 ndjhbnm noted in the (1691) co¿tzzbrm j main text – ct,ä6 no indication üthÁdïrÁ of who sings gädftvÁ it GLZ. 5 vk¿ndf .öt kbr+Ω nt,ä kbr+ k.lït impossible to impossible to impossible to (1784) ndjhbn+ ul^bÎ fvbzmÎ b tell if the tell if the tell if the co¿tzzbr+ d lü¿j ndjtvÁ response response response ct,ä faded out faded out faded out üthÁdîvcrjb altogether, or altogether, or altogether, or gäczb if some ink if some ink if some ink gädftväb got got got transferred transferred transferred HM. SMS. bcgjkzbditbc kbr+Ω ul^b kbr+ kbr+ kbr+ kbr+ 338 å öt vk¿ndä6 gjvbkÁbÎ (1790’s) uk¿.n+ b nîb gjlfb ul^bÎ (the clergy) nt,ä ul^bÎ üthúdîvcrÁ. fvbzmÎ b gäczm777 lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ

433

üthÁdîvcrf trntzïb ôwf b cz¿f dähÁ. vk^cnm vbhf b cj lü¿jv+ b vfv¥ rj gäczf ndjbv+ ul^Á HM. SMS. kbr+Ω 450 ul^b gjvbkÁbÎ (1810’s) gjlfb ul^bÎ fvbzmÎ 777 nt,ä ul^b HM. SMS. kbr+Ω b kbr+ it simply kbr+ kbr+ kbr+ 590 lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ notes: (1856) zf rjztw+ dähÁ. uk¿ujkn+ lïfrjz+¡ cnfztv+ lj,hä777 HM. SMS. then it simply xntw+Ω ul^b xntw+ k.lït xntw+ xntw+ xntw+ 593 states: gjvbkÁb7 b (1882) gj trntzïb gjlfb ul^b6 gj üthÁdîvcrfå ô,¥xf. 777 b gäczm lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ (and proceeds with 434

the actual text – no note on who sings it)

ljcnjbzj b cn¿+6 cn¿+6 nt,ä gjtv+ ljcnjbzj b dcäü+6 b fvbzmÎ b cj ôx¿t zfi+ gh^dlzj tcnm cn¿+ tcnm dcå lü¿jv+ ndjbv+ Vatican. text noted in text noted in noted in the Slav. 14 the margin – the margin – main text – (1390–1410) no indication no indication no indication of who sings of who sings of who sings it it it

ecnfdΩ k.t

435

ljcnjbzj b cn¿+6 cn¿+6 nt,ä gjtv+ ljcnjbzj b dcäü+6 b fvbzmÎ b cj ôx¿t zfi+ gh^dlzj tcnm cn¿+ tcnm dcå lü¿jv+ ndjbv+ HM. SMS. noted in the 334 main text – (1600’s) no indication of who sings it HM. SMS. k.lït k.lït 328 (1691) GLZ. 5 impossible to kbr+ kbr+Ω fvbzm kbr+ gjtn+ gädw¥ gj.n+ kbr+ k.lït (1784) tell if the response kbr+Ω nt,ä faded out gjtv+ altogether, or if some ink got transferred 436

HM. SMS. kbr+ kbr+ kbr+Ω fvbzm k.lït 338 (1790’s) kbr+Ω nt,t gjtv+ HM. SMS. gj ljcnjbzj gj ôx¿t zfi+ 450 tcnm lïfrjz+ ukfd¥ dfiå (1810’s) ghbtv dhtvå ul^db † ghbrkjzbnt777 co¿tzzbrf777 HM. SMS. kbr+ kbr+ kbr+Ω fvbzm k.lït 590 (1856) kbr+Ω nt,ä gjtv+ HM. SMS. xntw+ xntw+ xntw+Ω fvbz+ k.lït xntw+ xntw+ k.lït 593 (1882) xntw+Ω nt,t xntw+Ω ul^b gjtv+777 gjvbkÁb6 b gjlfb ul^b

437

nt,ä ul^bÎ tlbz cn¿+ cgfcb ,¿öt dbläüjv cn+ lf ∑ bvtzb ul^zb ,Álb bvå fvbzm k.lb ndjå bcgjkzbncå ul^ztÎ πfkjv k¿u Vatican. text noted in text noted in ecnfdΩ after the Slav. 14 the margin – the margin – b gädmwtv+ Ambo (1390–1410) no indication no indication gj.obv+¡lf Prayer, the of who sings of who sings bcgjkzåncå priest comes it it out ecnfdΩ b hfplfdftnm ljhe uk^åobv+ k.l+¡,kud^k. uf^ zf dcårj dhtvå HM. SMS. 334 (1600’s) HM. SMS. 328 (1691) 438

GLZ. 5 kbr+ kbr+Î kbr+Ω zf k.lït kbr+ kbr+ kbr+ (1784) b gj.n+ vzjuf känf kbw¥ dkflbrj ghbxfcntz+ lzt6 bkb cn¿fu∑ HM. SMS. kbr+Ω b 338 lü¿jdb ndjtvÁ (1790’s) kbr+Ω tlbz+ cn¿+ HM. SMS. 450 (1810’s)

439

nt,ä ul^bÎ tlbz cn¿+ cgfcb ,¿öt dbläüjv cn+ lf ∑ bvtzb ul^zb ,Álb bvå fvbzm k.lb ndjå bcgjkzbncå ul^ztÎ πfkjv k¿u HM. SMS. kbr+ 590 (1856) HM. SMS. xntw+Ω xntw+Ω tlbz+ k.lït xntw+ xntw+Ω ul^b xntw+Ω fvbz+ 593 fvbz+Î b cdån+777 gjvbkÁb6 b (1882) lÁüjdb nt,ä ul^bÎ kbw¥ gj.n+7 ndjtvÁÎ nt,ä b gj.n+ fvbz+ ,Álb bvå ul^bÎ fvbz+ kbw¥ ul^zt777 rïzjzbr+ xntw+Ω ∑ bvtzb ul^zbÎ xntw+Ω ul^b gjvbkÁb ,k¿ujckjdtz+ uhål¥b dj bvå ul^zt777

440

Vatican. HM. SMS. HM. SMS. GLZ. 5 HM. SMS. HM. SMS. HM. SMS. HM. SMS. Slav. 14 334 328 (1784) 338 450 590 593 (1390– (1600’s) (1691) (1790’s) (1810’s) (1856) (1882) 1410) fvbzmÎ ckfdfΩ kbr+ xntw+ b z¥zäΩ ul^b gjvbkÁb u¿öΩ co¿tzzbr+Ω ,kfu^kjdb †gÁcn+6 b hfplftn+ fznbljh+7 xntw+Ω πfkjv+ k¿g ,k^udk. ul^f777 vzjujkäncnd kbr+ Át

441

Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great

üthÁdîvcrf gäczf dähÁ. ôx¿t zfi+ Vatican. Slav. 14 (1390–1410) HM. SMS. 334 vk¿ndf .öt ndjhbn -htb r+ kbr+ kbr+ (1600’s) ct,b üthÁdîrÁ gädftvÁ HM. SMS. 328 (1691) GLZ. 5 (1784) HM. SMS. 338 (1790’s) HM. SMS. 450 (1810’s) HM. SMS. 590 (1856) HM. SMS. 593 (1882)

442

Divine Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts

rfƒbpmvf trntzïf zf ul^b cdînt nbü ghjr lf îcghfd cnbü¥ djpdfü+ gh^hjxmcndfÎ xntzïf Vatican. gjnjvm öt r+ ue^ dztulf gjnjv gädwb xntwm gädtw+ nfö gädtw+ Slav. 14 xmnjún crjh,äü+ cnbü f^Ω ul^b (1390–1410) rfƒbpmve d+pdfü bkb njöt gfr¥ djpdfü 777 ukfcjv+ gädwï dztulf e,j gj.nm gädtw+ cnbüjd+ cbü gjtn b cbwt e,∑v¥ gj.ot lf cå bcghfdbnÎ xmntwm öt cnbü¥Î gjckä öt xntwm gfr¥6 lf cå bcghfdbnÎ gädwb öt pfgädf.n cbwtÎ 443

d+pläfzmt hÁrÁ vjt.777 HM. SMS. text of the 334 Rite of (1600’s) Blessing of Water states: gädwb öt gj.nm cnü^h¥ HM. SMS. 328 (1691) GLZ. 5 (1784)

444

rfƒbpmvf trntzïf zf ul^b cdînt nbü ghjr lf îcghfd cnbü¥ djpdfü+ gh^hjxmcndfÎ xntzïf HM. SMS. kbr+Ω ul^b zf ul^b NOTE the 338 gjvbkÁb djpdfü+Ω following (1790’s) lïfrjzm petition after rflbn777 the readings: tot vjkbvcå ∑ gkjljzjcåob ü+ b lj,hjlä.obü + dj c{näv+ b dctx^nbäv+ ühfvä ctv+6 nhÁölf.obüc å6 gj.obü+ b ghtlcnjåobü + k.ltü+6 ∑öblf.obü+ † nt,t dtkbrïå b 445

,jufn¥å vbkjcnb7 HM. SMS. 450 (1810’s) HM. SMS. zf ul^b NOTE the 590 djpdfüΩ following (1856) lïfrjz+ petition after rflb^777 the readings: text of Great tot vjkbvcå Vespers ∑ reads: gkjljzjcåob nföt gjtv+ ü+ b ul^b djppdfü+ lj,hjlä.obü + dj c{näv+ b dctx^nbä ühfvä ctv+6 nhÁölf.obüc å6 gj.obü+ b ghtlcnjåobü + k.ltü+6 ∑öblf.obü+ 446

† nt,t dtkbrïå b ,u¿fn¥å vk^nb7 HM. SMS. 593 (1882)

Vatican. HM. SMS. HM. SMS. GLZ. 5 HM. SMS. HM. SMS. HM. SMS. HM. SMS. Slav. 14 334 328 (1784) 338 450 590 593 (1390– (1600’s) (1691) (1790’s) (1810’s) (1856) (1882) 1410) z¥zä cbk¥ b gjtncå b gjtncå ôx¿t zfi+ gädwb

447

Other Divine Offices

Vespers Great Vespers Great Complines Matins Pannychis HM. SMS. 594 only few responses there is a simple (1794) are noted in inscription prior to Vespers service, the troparia which most of which are reads: from the festal gj.nm nhjgfhb cïåΩ litany ukfc+ l¿

kbr+Ω ul^b gjvbkÁb at the litany for the deceased: ul^b gjvbkÁbΩ nhböl¥ no indication who sings

same applies to the litany at the Rite of Holy Unction

448

Vespers Great Vespers Great Complines Matins Pannychis HM. SMS. 763 v after ckfdf777 b (1800’s) z¥zä777 drúgä j,f kbrfΩ ,tpgkjnzjt tcntcndj üthÁdîvcrjt 777

the two choirs continue: b f,ït zbprbv+ ukfcjv+¡dähÁ. dj tlbzfuj ,u¿f jw¿fΩ nföt6 ghtcn¿få6 dcå uk¿.ncå gj ldföl¥6 rhjvä ghtcn¿få dkx¿wt6 töt uk¿tncå nhböl¥

then, the following prayers are listed: nhbcn¿jtΩ ghtcn¿få nm^wtΩ j^xt zfiΩ b 449

gjtv+ nhjgfhb cïå777

Vespers Great Vespers Great Complines Matins Pannychis HM. SMS. 450 kbr+Ω ul^b kbr+Ω ul^b (1810’s) gjvbkÁbÎ nt,ä ul^b gjvbkÁbÎ nt,ä ul^bÎ 777 b l¿üjdb kbr+Ω cn¿ä nbüïb777 ndjtvÁÎ ckfdf nt,ä ul^b ckfdf then, is simply nt,ä states: nföm cgjlj,b ul^b then, it simply states: kbr+Ω ul^b gj crjzxfzïb öt gjvbkÁbÎ gjlfb [t√k^ïå] gjvbkÁb ul^bÎ nt,ä ul^bÎ b vå ,ö¿tΩ b ghjxtt l¿üjdb ndjtvÁ gj nhtnjb b some other parts of itcnjb gäczäü+ the services are 777 gj ∑^cvfå 777 gj simply listed, such ƒ¿ 777 gj crjzxfzïb öt ckfdjckjdïå b 450

as: nhjgfhåΩ ckfdf b z¥zä ukfujkän+ trntzï. lïfrjz+

kbr+Ω ul^b gjvbkÁbÎ fvbzmÎ 777 gjlfb ul^bÎ nt,ä ul^b

k.lïtΩ b l¿üjdb ndjtvÁ this is the first and only reference to people in this manuscripts

kbr+Ω ,k¿ujckjdb

451

Vespers Great Vespers Great Complines Matins Pannychis HM. SMS. 590 exztzz¥b xntw+ nföt gjtv+ ul^b zfxbzftv+ (1856) uk¿tn+ fvbzm7 nföt djppdfü+777 itcnjπfkvït777 w¿h. z^,z¥b nhîc¿njt ghtc¿nfå nh^wtΩ ôx¿t nföt cgjlj,b kΩ u^b gv^kÁb (most zfi+777 ul^b777 likely referring to kbr+)Î nt,ä ul^b kbr+Ω ul^b gjvbkÁb k.lït fvbzm7 co¿tzzbr+ vbh+ b gj ghjxntzïb dcäv+7 k.lït b rfƒîcvb [lïfrjz+] immediately lÁüjdb ndjtvÁ7 gfrb bcüjlbn+777 following the litany lïfrjz+ ukfd¥ zfif of peace: ul^db ghbrkjzbv+7 gj ztgjhjxzfü+Ω b nföt rfƒbcvÁ777 co¿tΩ ,Álb lthöfdfΩ gj ,ku^kdtz+ tcb as if kbr+ were nföt cnïüjdzä b ul^b lïfrjz+ singing it †gÁcn+ uk¿tn+777

gj ul^b djppdfü+6 √gfrjb cntgtz¥ lïfrjz+ ghïtv+ ukfcf ghjlbvtz+ rflbkzbwÁ777 djcr^hz+777 tulf öt gjtn ckfdf6 b z¥zä6 then the following: ndjhån+ dü^l+ ô,f kbr+Ω fvbzm7 nföt 452

drÁgä777 dcårjt l¥üfzïtΩ b gj bcgjkztzïb öt gj cjdthitzïb cdtnt nbüïbΩ cnbüjd+7 lïfrjz+ lïfrjz+ phå r+ djpukfiftn+777 zfhjlÁ777 gädftvÁ öt kbr+Ω ul^b ghjrbvtz+ gjvbkÁbÎ b lü¿jdb ndjtvÁÎ ckfdf then the following: nt,ä ul^b ckfdf kΩ u^b gv^kÁb (most nt,ä likely referring to gj nhtnjb6 b kbr+) ijcnjb gäczäü+

lïfrjz+ uk¿tn+777 nföt cgjlj,b gj rfnfdfcïb öt ul^b777 jcv¥å gäczb777 gj kΩ u^b gv^kÁbÎ gl^fb ƒ¿ öt gäczb777 gj u^bÎ nt,ä ul^bÎ crjzxfzïb öt fvbz+ ckfdjckjdïå777

nföt bcüjlbv d+ kbr+Ω fvbzmÎ b ghbndjh+ gj.ot lü¿jdb ndjtvÁÎ cnïübhÁ777 ,ku^db

453

kbr+Ω ul^b gjvbkÁb nhböl¥Î b l¿üjdb ndjtvÁÎ nt,ä ul^b

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 455–460

Pastoral Letter of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy in Canada to the Clergy, Religious, Monastics and Faithful

On the Creed and the

Introduction

In the year 325, some 318 bishops gathered in Nicaea (present-day Turkey) for an to discuss mat- ters of great importance to the Church. One of their greatest achievements was the definition of the faith, revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, and composed in the form of a creed. Several years later, in 381, this creed was endorsed by the 150 bishops gathered in a new ecumenical council at Constan- tinople, notably with a few additions on the Holy Spirit. We know this creed today as the Nicene-Constantinopoli- tan Creed. This Creed has survived throughout the centuries as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and to the people of God. It is an expression of the basic tenants of our faith in the Holy :

“I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty… “I believe in one Lord, Christ, the only Son of God… “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life….”

456 On The Creed and the Filioque

The Filioque (“… and the Son”)

A comparison of the Creed from the year 325 and the Creed that we pray today will reveal a discrepancy. You will note in our Divine Liturgy books that the words in the Creed “and the Son” (“filioque” in Latin) are put in brackets. We might ask ourselves why? This is not a trivial question since our belief in the Holy Trinity lies at the very heart of our faith. The words “and the Son” were added by some Fathers of the Latin Church in the fourth century. Later, at the end of the sixth century, the Church in Spain added them to the Creed for local usage only, while the majority of the Roman Catholic Church resisted the change. At that time, the Church in Spain was combating Arianism, a heresy that denied that the Son of God was truly God. In the eighth century, Emperor Charlemagne decreed that “and the Son” be added to the Creed throughout the Frankish Kingdom in the West. Finally, in the eleventh century, Pope Benedict VIII added these words to the Creed throughout the Latin Church. Eventually, the Ukrainian Catholic Church added “and the Son” to the Creed, but not until the end of the seventeenth century, in order to be more like the Roman Catholic theology and teachings.

The “Filioque” Dispute

It is important to say from the outset that the Eastern and Western Churches proclaim the same faith in the Holy Trinity, that is, that the Holy Trinity is a mystery of unity in diversity, and of diversity in unity. God is one and, at the same time, God is three: one essence in three persons – , , and God the Holy Spirit. However, in the past, the Eastern and Western Churches have emphasized different aspects of what is called “the pro- cession” of the Holy Spirit. Pastoral Letter of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy 457

The difference is very technical and obscure, and difficult to understand. Yet, the words “and the Son” resulted in what has come to be known “the filioque dispute” and caused much division in the Church throughout the centuries, the con- sequences of which are felt even today.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

To help us understand somewhat better this difficult notion in the Churches of the East and the West, it is worthwhile to quote here extensively from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph numbers 243–248. “Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of ‘another Paraclete’ (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously ‘spoken through the prophets,’ the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them ‘into all the truth.’ The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father” (no. 243). “The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father. The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus’ glorification reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity” (no. 244). “The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.’ By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as ‘the source and origin of the whole divinity.’ But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: ‘The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature…. Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone… but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.’ The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: ‘With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified’” (no. 245). “The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).’ The Council 458 On The Creed and the Filioque

of Florence in 1438 explains: ‘The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration…. And, since the Father has through generation given to the only- begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son’” (no. 246). “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the , came to recognize and re- ceive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches” (no. 247). “At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (filioque). It says this, ‘legitimately and with good reason,’ for the eternal order of the divine persons in their con- substantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the prin- ciple without principle,’ is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” (no. 248).

Pastoral Letter of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy 459

Spiritual Renewal in the East

At the prompting of certain Roman Pontiffs, most recently time and time again by Pope John Paul II, the Eastern Catholic Churches are currently undergoing a spiritual renewal, aimed at helping them fully realize their identity, so that the Church as a whole may “breathe with two lungs,” that of the East and that of the West.

Recitation of the Creed in its Original Form

Prompted by the Second Vatican Council, and as part of a comprehensive liturgical renewal in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada have determined that the Creed once again be recited in its original form, that is, without the words “and the Son.” We do so in full support of the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. We do so in support of the Roman Pontiff, who himself has publicly recited the Creed without the filioque on several occasions. In doing so, he gives witness to the Church in general, and to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in particular, that the recitation of the Creed in its original form is without prejudice to the Catholic faith. We do so also in a greater desire to renew bonds with our Orthodox sisters and brothers, drawing nearer to that day when we may once again be one as commanded by Jesus Himself: “That they may be one, Father, as You are in me and I am in You” (John 17: 21).

Study and Implementation

Change is oftentimes difficult, yet necessary. We are fully aware that the decision to return to the recitation of the Creed in its original form will be received en- thusiastically by some of our faithful who already recite it without the filioque; less so by others. Yet, by taking the time to study and educate ourselves about this particular issue and the many other matters of faith 460 On The Creed and the Filioque

that affect our daily lives, we are convinced that your relation- ship with God and one with another will be strengthened and blessed. Faith does matter. An excellent booklet and accompanying study guide entitled “The Creed and the Holy Trinity,” can help answer questions you may have and help you better understand the changes taking place in this regard. Ask your parish priest or contact the Chancery Office for a copy.

Given in Winnipeg on September 1, 2005

† Bzdel, Archbishop of Winnipeg, Metropolitan for Ukrainian Catholics in Canada † , Eparchial Bishop of Saskatoon † , Eparchial Bishop of New Westminster † Lawrence Huculak, Eparchial Bishop of Edmonton † , Eparchial Bishop of Toronto † , Auxiliary Bishop of Winnipeg † , Eparch Emeritus of Saskatoon † Cornelius Pasichny, Eparch Emeritus of Toronto

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 461–466

Пасторальний Лист Української Католицької Єрархії в Канаді Духовенству, Монахам, Ченцям і Всім

Символ Віри та Filioque

Вступ

В 325 році, 318 єпископів зібралися в Нікеї (сьогодні Туреччина) на вселенський собор, щоб вирішити важливі питання для Церкви. Одним з їхніх найважливіших досягнень було визна- чення віри, об’явленої їм Святим Духом, і викладеної в Символі віри. Згодом, в 381 році, Символ віри був визнаний 150 єпископами, які зібралися на новий екуменічний собор в Константинополі, відомий своїми додатками про вчення Святого Духа. Цей Символ віри відомий сьогодні як Нікейсько-Кон- стантинопольський. Він зберігся на протязі багатьох століть, аж до сьогод- нішніх днів, як дар Святого Духа для Церкви і для всіх людей. Він виявляє основні правди віри про Святу Трійцю:

«Вірую в єдиного Бога Отця вседержителя…» «І в єдиного Господа Ісуса Христа Сина Божого…» «І в Духа Святого, Господа животворного…»

462 Символ Віри та Filioque

Filioque («і Сина»)

Порівнюючи Символ віри з 325 року і Символ віри, який ми молимося сьогодні, можемо зауважити такі роз- біжності. Звернім увагу, що в Божественній Літургії, у Символі віри, слова «і Сина» («filioque» по латині) є в дужках. Чому? Це важливе питання, тому що наша віра в Пресвяту Трійцю є серцем нашої віри. Слова «і Сина» було додано в четвертому сторіччі Отцями Латинської Церкви. Пізніше, в шостому столітті, Еспанська Церква додала їх до Символу віри тільки для місцевого вжитку. Але більшість Римо-католицької Цер- кви утримувалася від зміни. Тоді Церква в Еспанії, яка заперечувала Божество Божого Сина, боролася проти Арія- низму, єресі. У восьмому столітті, Імператор Карло Великий нака- зав, щоб «і Сина» було додано до Символу віри на цілому Заході Франкського Королівства. Накінець, в одинадцято- му столітті, Папа Бенедикт VIIІ додав до Символу віри ці слова для цілої Латинської Церкви. Зрештою, Українська Католицька Церква додала слова «і Сина» на кінці сімнадцятого століття, щоб більше наблизитися до Римо-католицького вчення та теології.

Полеміка про Filioque

Важливо сказати, що від самого початку Східні й Західні Церкви визнавали ту саму віру в Пресвяту Трійцю, а саме, що Пресвята Трійця є таїнство єдності в різності, і різності в єдності. Бог є один, і в той самий час Бог є в трьох особах: одна природа в трьох Особах – Бог Отець, Бог Син і Бог Дух Святий. Однак, в минулому Східна та Західна Церкви звертали увагу на різні аспекти про походження Святого Духа. Різниця є дуже технічна та невиразна, і важка для розу- міння. Крім того, слова «і Сина» відомі полемікою про Пасторальний Лист Української Католицької Єрархії 463

filioque і спричинили великий поділ в Церкві на протязі століть, наслідки якого ми переживаємо навіть сьогодні.

Катехизм Католицької Церкви

Щоб допомогти зрозуміти дещо краще про це нелегке поняття в Східній та Західній Церквах, корисно проциту- вати Катехизм Католицької Церкви, параграфи 243–248. Перед своєю Пасхою Ісус сповіщає, що буде послано «іншого Утішителя» (захисника), Духа Святого, який діє від створення і який колись «говорив через пророків», тепер буде з учнями і в них, щоб їх навчати і «вивести до всієї правди» (Ів. 16, 13). Таким чином, Святий Дух об’явлений, як ще одна Божа Особа у відношенні до Ісуса й Отця. (243) Предвічне походження Духа об’являється в його зем- ній місії. Святий Дух посланий до Апостолів і до Церкви як Отцем в ім’я Сина, так і особисто Сином після того, як Він повернувся до Отця. Зіслання Особи Духа після про- славлення Ісуса виявляє в усій повноті таїнство Святої Трійці. (244) Апостольська віра у Святого Духа була визнана II Кон- стантинопольським Вселенським Собором 381 р.: «Ми віруємо в Духа Святого, Господа Животворящого, Який ісходить від Отця». Тим-то Церква визнає Отця як «джерело і причину всього Божества». Вічне походження Святого Духа не є, однак, без зв’язку з походженням Сина. Ми віримо, що: «Дух Святий, Третя Особа Трійці, є Бог, єдиний і рівний з Отцем і Сином, однієї з ними сутності і однієї природи. Проте не говоримо, що Він є тільки Духом Отця, ані Духом Сина, а є водночас Духом Отця і Сина». Нікейсько-Константинопольський Символ віри визнає: «З Отцем і Сином Він рівнопоклоняємий і рівнославимий». (245) Латинська традиція Символу віри визнає, що Святий Дух «ісходить від Отця і Сина (filioque)». Флорентійський Собор (1438 р.) пояснює: «Святий Дух має свою сутність і своє існуюче буття одночасно від Отця і Сина, і Він вічно ісходить від Обох як від єдиного Начала і через єдине 464 Символ Віри та Filioque

Дихання…. Оскільки все, що належить Отцеві, – все, за винятком Свого Батьківства, – Отець Сам дав Єдинород- ному Синові, народжуючи Його, Син, Який вічно родже- ний від Отця, має, також, вічно від Отця те, що Святий Дух ісходить від Сина». (246) Твердження про filioque було відсутнє у Символі віри, проголошеному в Константинополі 381 року. Проте, до- тримуючись старої латинської та олександрійської тради- ції, Папа св. Лев догматично визнав його вже у 447 р., ще до того, як Рим у 451 р. на Халкедонському Соборі прий- няв до відома і визнав Символ віри 381 року. Використан- ня такого формулювання у Символі віри поступово упроваджувалося в латинській літургії (між VIII і IX ст.). Однак уведення filioque до Нікейсько-Константинополь- ського Символу віри через латинську літургію ще до сьогодні лишається суперечливою темою у стосунках з православними Церквами. (247) Східна традиція виражає передусім, що Отець щодо Святого Духа є першоначалом. Визнаючи Духа, що «від Отця ісходить» (Iв. 15,26), вона стверджує, що Святий Дух ісходить від Отця через Сина. Західна традиція, кажучи, що Святий Дух ісходить від Отця і Сина (filioque), ствер- джує передусім єдиносущну спільність між Отцем і Сином. Такий вислів має свою «законну і раціональну» основу, позаяк вічний порядок Божих Осіб у їхній єдино- сущній спільності дає підставу пізнавати, що Отець є причиною Святого Духа як «начало безначальне», а також, як Отець Єдинородного Сина, Він разом з Ним є «єдиним началом, від якого ісходить Святий Дух». Це правосильне взаємодоповнення, якщо його не загострювати, не пору- шує тотожності віри в реальність одного й того ж таїнства, яке проголошується. (248)

Духовне Відродження на Сході

За надхненням деяких Вселенських Архиєреїв остан- ніх часів і головно за Івана Павла ІІ, Східні Католицькі Церкви переходять через духовне відновлення, що допома- Пасторальний Лист Української Католицької Єрархії 465

гає нам усвідомити нашу ідентичність, щоб Церква могла дихати «двома легенями», Сходу та Заходу.

Вживання Символа віри в оригінальній формі

За надхненням ІІ Ватиканського Собору, як вияв літургійного відновлення в Українській Католицькій Цер- кві, єпископи Української Католицької Церкви в Канаді вирішили, що Символ віри раз і назавжди буде вживатися в оригінальній формі, це означає без слів «і Сина». Ми робимо це в повній підтримці з Синодом Єписко- пів Української Католицької Церкви. Ми робимо це в підтримці з Святішим Отцем, який сам публічно молився “Вірую” без filioque на декількох публічних нагодах. Роблячи це, він дав свідоцтво Вселен- ській Церкві і особливо Українській Католицькій Церкві, щоб вживати Символ віри в її оригінальній формі в Като- лицькій вірі без усяких упереджень. Ми робимо це також з великим бажанням, щоб відно- вити злуку з нашими Православними братами й сестрами, зближуючись ближче до того дня коли ми зможемо ще раз стати одним цілим, як заповідав сам Ісус: «Щоб усі були одно, як ти, Отче, в мені, а я в тобі….» (Ів. 17:21)

Вивчення і впровадження

Зміна є завжди важка, але необхідна. Ми є в повній свідомості, що рішення повернутися до вживання Символу віри в його оригінальній формі буде сприйнято з ентузіазмом деякою частиною наших вірних, хто вже молиться нею без filioque, але менш зрозуміло приймуть інші. Уділіть час, щоб вивчити і виховати самих себе в цьому особливому питанні і в багатьох інших питаннях віри, які впливають на наше щоденне життя. Ми, єписко- пи, є впевнені, що ваше життя з Богом там між Вами буде скріплене і благословенне. Віра є завжди важлива. Чудове видання та пояснююча література під назвою «Символ віри й Пресвята Трійця», допоможе відповісти на 466 Символ Віри та Filioque

ваші запитання, які можливо виникнуть та допоможе вам зрозуміти зміну відносно цього питання. Запитайте свого парафіяльного священника або зверніться за копією до канцелярії.

Дано в Вінніпезі, дня 1-го вересня, 2005 р.

† Михаїл Бздель, Архиєпископ Вінніпезький, Митрополит Українців Католиків в Канаді † Михаїл Вівчар, єпархіяльний єпископ Саскатуну † Северіян Якимишин, єпархіяльний єпископ Нью- Вестмінстеру † Лаврентій Гуцуляк, єпархіяльний єпископ Едмонтону † Степан Хміляр, єпархіяльний єпископ Торонта † Давид Мотюк, єпископ-помічник Вінніпегу † Василь Філевич, єпископ-емерит Саскатуну † Корнелій Пасічний, єпископ-емерит Торонта

® ® ® ®

Editor’s Note

The following article by Myron Momryk on the Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) provides a helpful introduction to the resources of the LAC. It also serves to introduce several samples of the documents actually available in the LAC, documents pertaining to very early Ukrainian Catholic life in Western Canada. These documents were discovered in the LAC by Jars Balan, who has also capably translated them for us here and for the historical record.

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 469–476

Archival Sources for the Study of Eastern Christianity at the Library and Archives of Canada

Myron Momryk

The Library and Archives Canada (LAC) is one of the oldest departments of the federal government. It preserves ar- chival records of individuals and organizations of national significance as well as those of the government itself. Since its establishment in 1872, the LAC has acquired material docu- menting the political history of Canada and the activities of the federal government. This policy is still a fundamental part of the acquisition strategy of the LAC and the archival holdings reflect this tradition. A researcher interested in other topics, such as the history of Eastern Christian religious institutions and communities in Canada, has to approach this topic from the perspective of the historical relations between the religious institution/communi- ty and the federal government. An additional factor is the rela- tionship between the Canadian government and the countries- of-origin of the members of the various Eastern Christian com- munities. As a result, the researcher will inevitably encounter archival material that focuses on the political dimension of this relationship. The search for archival sources will lead to a variety of records and collections – some more unusual than others – and such research requires much time and patience. However, depending on the research topic, the rewards may justify this effort. In my experience, it is among the records of the Immigra- tion Branch (RG76) that one finds the earliest documentation relating to the presence of Eastern Christianity in Canada. As 470 Myron Momryk

immigration of Slavic groups from central and eastern Europe increased dramatically in the 1890’s, references to the reli- gious dimension of their experience in Canada were also docu- mented in federal government records. The records document the presence of these groups as communities and legal entities and their relationship with federal government. There is, how- ever, little if anything about the spiritual dimension of their experiences save for requests from the pioneering communities for land to build churches and to establish cemeteries, requests to be found in some of the first entries in the immigration re- cords. The arrival of the Doukhobors in 1898–99 and their settle- ment in Saskatchewan is also well documented in the records of the Immigration Branch (RG76). However, differences soon arose between the Doukhobors and the local authorities regarding, e.g., the system of communal land-holding and re- gistration respecting births, marriages and deaths. These issues gave rise to a long history of confrontations with law- enforcement agencies of the federal government. Files were soon created by the Royal North West Mounted Police on the Doukhobors, eventually producing a rich source of records on their leadership and their activities. The RNWMP and later the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Records (RG18) are among the most detailed sources of information on the Doukhobors. The records are now part of the Canadian Secu- rity and Intelligence Service Records (RG146) at the LAC. Access to these records is possible through the Access to Information and Privacy legislation. Slavic immigrants from eastern Europe were perceived to be a rich source of converts for the Canadian Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches and there are archival references to their efforts among the immigrants. The arrival of the new im- migrants in north-western Canada prompted the various Catho- lic and Protestant Churches to send missionaries in an attempt to convert the new settlers and make them into “.” The Protestants were successful in recruiting a number of recent immigrants as interpreters and as ministers and their records are located in the Canadian Archives and Special Collections Branch of the LAC. Archival Sources for the Study of Eastern Christianity 471

An example of how the political role of the clergy can influence historical events in an ethnocultural community is the role of Bishop Nykyta Budka (1877–1949) at the outbreak of the First World War. His pastoral letter of 27 July 1914 to members of the Greek Catholic Church in Canada to support the Emperor of Austria-Hungary in the war against Serbia became a controversial issue and certainly had an influence on Canadian government policy towards the “enemy aliens.” His recantation a few days later could not repair the political damage. The internment of the “enemy aliens,” mostly citi- zens of Austria-Hungary, produced a large collection of re- cords in various government departments. Among these re- cords are individual files on the religious needs of the internees. The Russian Consular Records (Li-Ra-Ma Collection) (MG30 E406) are a unique source of historical information on the early years of the Russian Orthodox Church in Canada. These are files produced by Russian consular officials in Canada during the years 1900 to 1922 with the main focus on the war years, 1914–18. The files contain historical informa- tion on Russian Orthodox clergy and parishes in Canada and their relationship with the Russian consulates. A defining event regarding the future development of the Eastern Christian groups in Canada was the Russian Revolu- tion, the subsequent Civil War, and foreign intervention. The Canadian government was directly involved in the foreign in- tervention in North Russia and Siberia and among the Cana- dian Expeditionary Force to Siberia were members of the Royal North West Mounted Police. In Canada, the labour conflicts, which built up during the First World War, led to the Winnipeg General Strike and the founding of radical political parties such as the Communist Party of Canada in 1921. These strikes and labour actions were attributed to east European immigrants and the Bolshevik influence in Canada. As a result, immigrants and their organi- zations were viewed with suspicion by federal and provincial authorities. The “loyalty” of the recent immigrants to Canada and Canadian institutions and values was suspect. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (as the Royal North West Mounted 472 Myron Momryk

Police became in 1920) began a system of surveillance and reporting on suspected individuals and groups and their pub- lications. The surveillance relied on a system of agents and informers and continued into the 1970’s. Among the organiza- tions on which files were maintained were, for example, the Ukrainian Self-Reliance League of Canada, a men’s lay orga- nization of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Russian- Ukrainian Baptist League of Eastern Canada. The RCMP re- ports now form a rich source of information on social and poli- tical activities among the Slavic ethnocultural communities. The Depression of the 1930’s and the rise of pro-Soviet and also pro-fascist groups in Canada obliged the RCMP to conduct more detailed surveillance of potentially disloyal groups. The outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 required specialized knowledge of the eastern European groups in Canada. The RCMP hired Michael Petrowsky (1897–1982) as a special constable in 1939. Mr. Petrowsky was born in Ukraine and immigrated with his family to Canada in 1912. He was a graduate of the Bloomington Theological College in the United States where they had a “Ukrainian Department.” His special interest in church affairs enabled him to prepare detailed and relatively objective reports on Ukrainians and other groups, which helped to shape Canadian government policy towards these groups. One of his more interesting pieces was the “Report on the First National Eucha- ristic Congress of Eastern Rites” held at St. Nicholas’ Church in Chicago in June 1941. At this congress were represen- tatives of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Canada and the United States. Particular attention was paid in the report to any discussions at this congress to the question of “Ukrainian independence.” It should be noted that this congress took place a few days after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. It should also be noted that Petrowsky attended this congress as a reporter and his role in the RCMP was not known. This was also one of the first recorded instances where an RCMP special constable conducted surveillance outside the bounda- ries of Canada. As the manpower-replacement problem in the Canadian Armed Forces grew in 1944–45, the Canadian government Archival Sources for the Study of Eastern Christianity 473

made a determined effort to encourage volunteers for overseas service from among the Canadian ethnocultural groups. The negotiations between the federal government and pacifist com- munities such as the Doukhobors, Mennonites, and Hutterites are well documented in federal government records, most no- tably in the records of the Department of Labour (RG27), which administered the conscription program. The files in- clude information on conscientious objectors and arrangements for alternative service. The Canadian government launched an information cam- paign to “include” the ethnocultural groups in Canadian life and publicize their contributions to Canadian history and society. This laid the foundations for the Canadian multicultu- ralism policy of the 1970’s. Part of this effort was the appoint- ment of from the various ethnocultural groups in the Canadian Armed Forces. Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic chaplains were appointed and among them was Michael Ho- roshko, a Ukrainian Catholic priest. He served in England in 1944–45 and was an active member of the Ukrainian Canadian Servicemen’s Association in London. The Rev. Michael Ho- roshko Papers (MG31 F15) were acquired to document the experience of Ukrainian Canadian soldiers during the Second World War. The post-war wave of immigration in the years 1947–53 also generated a large volume of records on individuals and families arriving in Canada. There are files on policy towards the arrival of clergy and members of religious orders. The Ukrainian Canadian Committee led a strong lobbying cam- paign to allow former members of the Halychyna Division to immigrate to Canada. It is interesting to note that it was brought to the attention of the French Canadian Roman Catho- lic hierarchy and federal politicians – including Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent – that most members of the Division were of Greek Catholic background and therefore “our people.” Due to the Igor Gouzenko revelations in 1945–46 and the renewal of the Cold War – especially during the Korean War – the RCMP continued its efforts at surveillance of the various left-wing ethnocultural groups in Canada; this surveillance was extended to include churches. One of the aims was to docu- 474 Myron Momryk

ment the possible penetration by members of the Communist Party of Canada of ethnocultural organizations. For example, there is a file on the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ottawa in the years 1947–50. In the late 1940’s, the parish was divided according to loyalty to particular bishops. The situation was complicated by the arrival of Ukrainian displaced persons who followed a strong anti-Russian position, which alienated some of the older parishioners, many of whom were Carpatho-Rusins. Eventually the parish split into two parts: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Bukovinian Orthodox Church. Later, a report was prepared about possible Communist activities in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ottawa in 1964. Individuals and organizations, which maintained contacts with the Soviet Union and other Soviet-bloc countries, also fell under surveillance. Again, their activities were documented for any evidence of possible subversive activities. In the 1930’s and 1940’s, the records of the Department of Foreign Affairs (RG25) contain numerous files of church- related issues. Copies of reports on events and activities in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe received by the British government were frequently sent to the Canadian government for their information. There are files with letters of protest and petitions from Canadians about the treatment of the churches in eastern Europe. In 1973, the Ethnic Archives Program was launched at the LAC. A concentrated effort was made to broaden the range and types of archival collections to better reflect the history of the Canadian population. The main goal was the acquisition of archival collections, which documented the ethnocultural com- munities’ side of their history in Canada. Archival collections which were acquired at this time include the papers of John Bodrug (MG30 D214), Paul Crath (Krat) (MG30 C147), Michael Fesenko (MG30 D226), and John Robert Kovalevitch (MG30 D218), who were among those early Ukrainian pioneers who joined the various Protestant churches and became ministers. The papers of Julian Stechishin (MG30 D307), the Rev. Wasyl Kudryk (part of the Olha Woycenko Collection, MG30 D212), and the Rev. Timofiy Minenko Archival Sources for the Study of Eastern Christianity 475

(MG31 H44) contain some historical information on the his- tory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The papers of the Canadian Ukrainian Youth Association (MG28 V15) provide information on the activities of the lay youth organization of the Orthodox Church. In addition, the papers of Senator Paul Yuzyk (MG32 C67) contain draft copies of his MA thesis, “The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church of Canada 1940–48” and his Ph.D. thesis “The Ukrainian of Canada 1918–51.” Recent acquisitions include the Doris E. Yanda fonds (MG30 D393), with information on the Ukrainian Women’s Association of Canada, a women’s lay organization of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; and also the Rev. Wolody- myr Sluzar fonds (R11553) containing the personal records of Sluzar, who was parish priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox parish in for many years. The papers of Brother Methodius Koziak (MG31 H89), the Rev. Michael Horoshko (MG31 F15), and Anatol Bazylewycz (MG31 D149) provide information on the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Some information on the history of the churches in Ukraine is found in the Andrii Zhuk Collection (MG30 C167), which has been useful to those doing research on Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky. An interesting acquisition was a copy of the film, Lvivskii Sobor made by the Soviet government on the “reunion” of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church with the Russian Orthodox Church in Lviv in 1946. It should also be mentioned that the Visual and Sound Archives of the Canadian Archives and Special Collections Branch contains some inte- resting photographs of Ukrainian churches in western Canada. In 2000, Orest Semchishen, a photographer from Alberta, donated a large number of photographs, including 133 photo- graphs of Byzantine churches in western Canada, thereby forming the Orest Semschishen fonds. The archival collections at the LAC reflect the acquisition policies over the last century. With a strong emphasis on the political history of Canada, files in the federal government departments inevitably reflect the political dimension of the relationship between the Eastern Christian Churches, the fede- ral government and the countries-of-origin. Since records were kept to assist in the formulation of policies, exceptions to 476 Myron Momryk

the general practices and procedures were documented and this meant that churches and communities that challenged the fede- ral government or entered into confrontation with law-enforce- ment agencies generated the most archival records. It is for this reason that there are many files on the Doukhobors in Canada from the federal government departments but few from the Doukhobor community itself. Part of the explanation, of course, is due to the fact that the Doukhobors are not a struc- tured and hierarchical community as are other religious groups and most historical information would be produced by indivi- duals and local communities. Churches with their own ar- chives, which did not have a national membership and which maintained a low profile on the national scene, are not well represented in the LAC. Researchers are welcome to visit the web site of the Library and Archives Canada at www.collectionscanada.ca and also visit the building at 395 Wellington Street in Ottawa and explore new fields in the study of Church-state relations especially in the area of Eastern Christianity.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 477–482

Ruthenian1 Easter – And a French Catholic Priest: A Scene from Emigrant Life

Translated by Jars Balan

“Maryna!” “What?” “Are we going to eat paska this year?”2 “Why, you can eat some cruddy disease, if you’re so keen on Canada,” the woman answered angrily, and turned away from her antagonist – her husband, who had brought her some- where to the ends of the earth, where it wasn’t the way it should be among people – indeed, where things were as diffe- rent as night and day. Somehow things got turned upside down – in the most inhuman way – here in Canada.

1 “Ruthenian” is the Latinized form for “Rusyn,” the name commonly used to identify Ukrainians prior to the beginning of the twentieth century. The term is derived from Rus’, the medieval state that flourished on Ukrai- nian territory until Kyiv was overrun by the Tatars in 1240. The word “Ukrainian” began to be increasingly adopted as the designation for the inha- bitants of what had once been Kyivan Rus’ in the nineteenth century, largely displacing “Ruthenian” by the outbreak of the First World War. 2 Paska (pl., pasky) is traditional Ukrainian Easter bread. Because it is made with white flour, it is different from the dark, coarser-grained bread typically consumed by Ukrainian peasants, “white” bread being regarded as a luxury that only wealthy nobles could regularly enjoy. The word “Paska” is also used synonymously for “Easter,” being the Ukrainian form for the word, pascha, originally derived from the Hebrew name for Passover. The title of Dmytriw’s short story in Ukrainian is “Ruska paska – a frantsuzkii ks’ondz,” which I have rendered as “Ruthenian Easter” so as to distinguish between Dmytriw’s more frequent use of paska for paschal bread. In 1897, Easter was celebrated by Christians on 25 April. 478 Translated by Jars Balan

The woman snored out of spite. If only Stepan hadn’t mentioned the paska – but that pricked her heart, like a Cana- dian mosquito. Two small children played quietly in the rail- way car, and for them it seemed as if paska did not even enter their thoughts – they held bread in their hands that was whiter than the paska at home, and so it was all the same to them – though it wasn’t the same for Stepan. The unfortunate man fell silent when his wife responded so harshly, and he sank totally into recollections, into memories of the past. He re- called the pre-Easter times from his childhood years; he could remember well, how he pinched raisins from the paska, and how he once tore off some kovbasa on the Saturday before Easter and gulped it down behind the barn.3 He couldn’t wait for the blessing. As if it were today, he remembered how, as a young man on his way to the Passion service, he had hit his head on a fence; the poor wretch couldn’t see anything – his vision had been clouded from . And was he the only one who experienced that cloudy vision? Everyone had it, the entire village, with the exception of the priest, who could see a little, along with the teacher, though not very well, while the choirmaster, may he rest in peace, couldn’t even make out the candles in church. People would marvel at how he could sing with his vision clouded, but he had memorized everything from the chants to the to the harmonies, why every- thing – besides, who knew what all that stuff in those big books was called. The deceased fasted – may he enter God’s Heavenly Kingdom – he fasted rigorously. It often happened that he would be walking through the village, and was so weakened from the fasting that he would actually stagger – he couldn’t even stand on his feet. His enemies would say that the poor fellow was coming back from the tavern, but that wasn’t true – why, he became deceased from the fasting. And it happened at Easter.

3 Kovbasa (kielbasa in Polish, kolbasa in Russian), is the Ukrainian word for sausage, often rendered as kubasa in popular Canadian usage. Eating meat prior to the celebration of the Resurrection was a violation of the traditional fast during . Ruthenian Easter – And a French Catholic Priest 479

Lord, what a joy it was! The whole night beginning Satur- day they burned gates, wheels, posts – whatever they could get their hands on. The boys roared with laughter, the owners cursed, sinning, so that it was frightful to listen to. And why did they have to sin so much, when that was the custom, to steal gates before Easter. Stepan pondered, smoked his pipe, glanced furtively at his wife – as if he wanted to say: and do you remember, Maryna, how I was a sexton, eh? A poor man was afraid to speak to me, because I might have said something nasty to him. And because Stepan was a sexton, even people in the next village knew him. It often happened that on Easter he personally helped his reverence to don the white chasuble, lit all of the candles, got the fire going in the stoked incensory – and when they read the at the twelve stations of the cross, then Stepan would tinkle-tinkle the bell at each station, while in the belfry the bells would be rung and rung. Lord, will I live to see that Canada! Poor Stepan scratched his head – he wanted to reply to his wife, but nonetheless left her in peace. And that blessed paska, and that joy! Why, he placed his paska at the very end – as was customary for the sexton. And the reverends already knew which paska was his, and so they splashed it with holy water – as if to say – that’s for you, Stepan, for so faithfully serving the church and the Divine Father. “Oh Lordy, Lordy, what’s it going to be like here?” Stepan blurted out loud. “What are you dreaming about?” his wife yelled. “Maryna!” “What?” “Maybe you could bake a paska.” “And where is one supposed to bake it? Here, in the railway car?” “Hmmm … dummy. Why tomorrow, when we get to Calgary, to the immigration hall, you can bake it there.”4

4 In the original, Dmytriw renders Calgary as “Gal’gary,” but provides a footnote with the correct English spelling. 480 Translated by Jars Balan

Maryna began musing, it was obvious that she wanted to have blessed paska – and after a moment, retorted: “And so what if you baked it, where are you going to get a Catho- lic priest, eh?” They both fell silent, because that was precisely the crux of the whole matter. Stepan even lost all hope of having blessed paska. He scratched his head, pondered, fantasized, but couldn’t think of anything. They arrived in Calgary, went to the immigration hall, looked around, and saw our people baking paska. Stepan went to his wife, grabbed some money, bought flour, meat, butter, cheese and other necessary and unnecessary things, and soon his wife was baking paska while Stepan paced about just wringing his hands in anticipation. “Oh, my poor head,” said one man, “how is one sup- posed to speak to that priest?” “How else is one to speak to him,” said Stepan, “if not in Ruthenian.” “Don’t talk nonsense, because how’s a French priest going to know Ruthenian.” “How can that be,” said Stepan, “isn’t there a Ruthenian Catholic priest here? How’s a French priest supposed to bless a paska – are they the same faith as us?” “Who knows what he’s like, if he’s similar or not, but the cross in the church, and the way that it looks, is holy, so perhaps it’s not a sin if he does the blessing of the pasky. And you can tell from the Catholic church in town, though it’s not quite like in our faith, that our reverends wouldn’t always be going there on church holidays to give confes- sion, because if it were a sin, then our reverends wouldn’t go there, of that you can be sure.” After consultations on the matter, two of our people went as deputies to the French Catholic priest, including Stepan, because he was a sexton. Along the way they debated whether the priest knew Ruthenian or not, but they came to the conclusion that anyone with an educated mind like that of a priest, would have to speak Ruthenian. They rang the doorbell – and the priest emerged in a long robe, girded with a sash, above which he wore a large metal Ruthenian Easter – And a French Catholic Priest 481

cross. They kissed the cross first, and after that the chubby hand of the priest, saying, “We ask you, spiritual father, if you would bless our pasky because it is Easter for us tomorrow, and we are not some kind of pagans, who would eat unblessed paska.” The Frenchmen’s eyes widened, he listened so attentively that he almost burst his eardrums, but in the end he couldn’t make any sense of the babbling. He spoke to the people in French, in English, in German – but they, of course, understood nothing. It was an inauspicious mo- ment, what were they to do? The priest was perplexed – the men scratched the napes of their necks – it was utter despair. Stepan, not having served for nothing with a re- verend – arrived at a solution. He kissed the priest’s hand, so that he wouldn’t get upset, and without saying anything, but merely beckoning with his finger, summoned the priest to follow him. The priest took his hat – and everybody went out and walked to the immigration hall. In the meantime the women had covered the tables, put out the pasky, eggs, butter, meat, and plenty of breakfast dishes, quickly changed their clothes, and were waiting. The priest entered, and the women ran over to him and kissed both hands of his Grace. The Frenchman stood by the table and looked at everything – thinking to himself, what is it that these people want from me? Stepan ex- plained, miming what to do – but the priest stood there as if he were dumbstruck and grasped absolutely nothing. Everyone struggled for half an hour and for all it was already reaching a point of desperation, but the priest eventually understood. The Frenchman thought to himself: aha! these are good people, certainly Christians, and they are holding a picnic and want to entertain me – one shouldn’t be too proud to accept God’s gifts. The priest put several eggs in his pocket and reached over for a small paska – prompting Stepan to snatch his meat and to cry out: “Grab your food, folks, because he’ll take everything from you!” The people lurched forward, everyone after his own paska – a hubbub ensued, the women began arguing, one saying it was mine, another that it was hers. The terrified 482 Translated by Jars Balan

Frenchman yelled, “It’s alright,” but it was useless. Stepan scratched himself once more on the nape of his neck as if to say: “It’s not the same here, the way our reverends blessed pasky!”

Calgary, 8 May 1897

Source: “Ruska paska – a frantsuzkii ks’ondz,” Svoboda (Liberty), Mount Carmel, Pennsylvannia, V (2), 20 May 1897, p. 2.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 483–487

My Dinner Among the Indians From “Scenes from Canada”

Translated by Jars Balan

Let it not be to the disgrace of our dear muzhik, that bare- foot, in a filthy shirt, wearing torn trousers, he is bringing good fortune to Canada. Indians, who are indigenous to Canada, make a better impression than you do, my beloved people! It recently happened that I had to pay a visit to the town of Duck Lake in the province of Saskatchewan, to that place where 10 years earlier the Indians had risen up in revolt against the willfully arrogant English police.1 Blood was spilled, human blood. In the long struggle a large number of Indians and their “colonialist” leader sacrificed their lives.2 Canadian authorities, not out of any compassion, but con- cerned about saving their own skins, eventually came up with the idea of civilizing the young generation of restless, wild Indians and established schools along the lines of

1 Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, 50 km southwest of Prince Albert, was the site of the outbreak of the 1885 Northwest Rebellion. In the first battle between rebels led by Dumont (1837–1906) and Louis Riel (1844– 1885), and a combined party of Northwest Mounted Police and settlers organized by Superintendant L.N.F. Crozier, a total of seventeen men were killed. Although the rebels were victorious at Duck Lake, they were even- tually overcome by troops sent by Ottawa. As the Province of Saskatchewan was only created in 1905, Dmytriw was using the term to refer to the territory that was then administratively known as the District of Saskatche- wan. 2 In the original, Dmytriw uses the ironic term “ku’ltutreger” in an implied and somewhat ambiguous reference to the Métis leader of the North- West Rebellion, Louis Riel, who was hanged by the federal government in 1885. 484 Translated by Jars Balan

European boarding schools, organized a separate department for Indian affairs, and instituted other helpful measures, so that in future white gentlemen could sleep peacefully and extract their pound of flesh, red flesh.3 The very night that I arrived at Duck Lake there ap- peared at the railway station a French pater in a long robe, with a large cross over his sash, and invited me to stay the night at his place – renowned French courteousness. How much sincerity there was behind that ancestral politeness – I could care less. I was welcomed hospitably and in a truly genteel manner. It had been a long time since I had slept in such luxury, as on that night on a soft feather bed. Anyone who has experienced the discomforts of a distant journey will easily be able to understand what it means to sleep a night in a comfortable bed. Around 7 o’clock in the morning I was awakened by the sound of people singing to the accompaniment of violins and a flugelhorn. In my half-awake state I listened and listened, but in no way could remember where I was or what was happening to me. And what was taking place was that the pater was intoning the Di[vine] Liturgy, and the young students of Indian ancestry were singing and playing. After a tasty breakfast I toured the school, the children’s residence and the administration building. Four years earlier, all there had been before the lake was wild, empty prairie. In the course of four years there arose splendid and very functional buildings, bubbling with life, human life. On the spacious grounds Indian children were dashing about,

3 St. Michael’s School was established in Duck Lake by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in 1894 on the initiative of Bishop Albert Pascal. The Sisters of the Faithful Companions of Jesus were also active at the school from 1895–1903, but were eventually replaced by the Sisters of the Presentation of Mary after a negative and insinuating 1900 report by an official inspector with the Department of Indian Affairs. More general concern had also been expressed following an inspection in 1899, which noted that although pupils were receiving a “thorough training in manners and morals,” their class-work was disappointing. For a detailed critical account of St. Michael’s School, see Arlene Roberta Greyeyes, “St. Michael’s Indian Residential School, 1894–1926: a Study within a Broader Historical and Ideological Framework” (unpublished MSW thesis, Carleton University, 1995). The quote cited above is on p. 100. My Dinner Among the Indians 485

dressed in clean, contemporary clothes, washed and with their hair combed. Among themselves they were already talking in English, they were not the children of nature that their parents are – they now foretell the civilized future awaiting themselves and the country. In the company of Father Pacquette I thoroughly examined all of the progress made over four years, when the dinner bell rang.4 We entered a great hall, which reminded me of a seminary refectory, and sat on a raised platform. Following us the girls began entering in pairs, and after that the boys, quietly and calmly taking their places at the tables. At the sound of a little bell the entire school began reciting a short prayer, and then everyone quietly sat down to their meal. It was a pleasure to look at those red-skinned children, at the 97 boys and girls, how they heartily consumed God’s gifts, how they quietly, without any cries or hubbub, without any brutish fighting, wielded spoons, forks and knives. Inevitably a question arose within me: when will our children finally be on the road to civilization? And in my mind I placed at those tables our barefoot, dirty, big-bellied and loud children, and I imagined myself sitting in the place of the French pater, and I saw that several years of work would be required to civilize them the way these children of red-skinned savages had been. Our muzhik, and his descen- dants following him, has so many distressing caprices, so much peasant inertia, that it would be far harder to work with him than with the Indians. Our rustic countryman is no longer a child of nature, like an Indian, but a person des- troyed by age-old bondage, raised in a school of degradation,

4 Fr. Melasippe-Joseph Pacquette was the first principle of St. Michael’s School, serving in this capacity from 1894–1903. Fluent in , he was a missionary at the nearby Muskeg Lake Reserve before moving to Duck Lake in August 1894. For an history of St. Michael’s School see Jules Jean Marie Joseph Le Chevallier, Saint-Michel de Duck-Lake, épreuves et progrès d’une école indienne durant un demi-siècle (1894–1944) (Edmon- ton: La Survivance, 1944). Fr. Le Chevellier took over as the acting prin- ciple of the school in 1925. 486 Translated by Jars Balan

stripped of any feeling of human dignity by the rule of the Galician nobility.5 And so the dinner came to an end, a fine, lordly meal. At the sound of a bell everyone rose, once again recited a short prayer, together sang an English song and exited in pairs into the spacious yard to play. You had to see those children, how wonderfully they played. And at work or at play, be it children, or adults, you can see, like in a mirror, a culture. In what way? I saw on Canadian soil how our Hutsuls and Bukovynians entertain themselves.6 To the accompaniment of fiddles and trembity, they so vigorously dance the hopak, that if the late Fedkovych were to see his young lads, the poet of green Bukovyna would surely think that our pre- Christian ancestors had risen from the grave.7 – I must also add the following note to the above, that the schools for Indians in Canada are maintained by the authorities and that they pay 6–10 dol[lars] monthly for the entire upkeep of each child.8 If it were not so embarrassing for me, I would ask the government to accommodate our children in the Indian

5 Cf. Dmytriw’s optimistic opinion of the success of St. Michael’s School in “civilizing” Natives with the situation that Fr. Ovide Charlebois found when he replaced Fr. Pacquette in 1903: “Nothing could he see but misery and desolation. On all sides paganism held undisputed sway.” See Le Chevellier, p. 24. 6 Hutsuls are inhabitants of the Carpathian Mountains in a region straddling Galicia and Bukovyna in Western Ukraine. With their distinct culture and dialect – a product of their relative isolation from mainstream Ukrainian society over the centuries – they are regarded as somewhat exotic and untamed. The reference to Bukovynians is consistent with Dmytriw’s generally negative opinion of his fellow countrymen living to the south of Galicia. 7 The trembita is a long mountain horn played by the Hutsuls. The hopak is a well-known Ukrainian folk dance featuring spirited acrobatics on the part of the male dancers. Yuri Fedkovych (1834–1888) was the celebra- ted bard of Bukovyna, a late Romantic writer who promoted the national awakening in his part of Western Ukraine. 8 Around this time, boarding schools like St. Michaels received a grant of $72 annually for each pupil, money that was to cover not only the expenses for feeding, clothing and housing the children, but paying for their teachers, principal and support staff. Needless to say, the amount was insuf- ficient, as numerous letters to the government from school administrators like Fr. Pacquette attest. My Dinner Among the Indians 487

schools, because although we like to act as if we are a cul- tured nation, for the time being this is a big lie.

By Nestor Dmytriw

Source: Svoboda, V (27), 7 July 1898, p. 4.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 489–494

Scenes from Canada: II Sunday in Ottawa

Translated by Jars Balan

The capital of Canada, Ottawa, is a very pretty city. Situated on a hill, on a river of the same name, it consists of a small cluster of thrown together parts, symmetrically divided; while on a cliff on the riverbank is the Parliament Building, a sumptuous edifice. It is as if the whole city were looking down from on high over all of Canada, as if from that height rumbling decrees were resounding for people coming from all over, having settled in myriad groups on untrodden expanses from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The character of this great city is similar to the character of the capital of the United States, Washington. Trade and indus- trial activity are concentrated in Montreal, as they are in New York. Ottawa and Washington are beautiful parks with sump- tuous buildings. This is a city of great capitalist lords, who with the power of their capital enslave by means of legislation, tariffs and trusts, their servants – the workers and farmers. English pragmatism in combination with French elegance is producing a unique national type, creating a specific style, customs and manners that you will never encounter in London or in Paris. One of its characteristic features is that it reveals the superiority of English culture over French culture. A Frenchman speaks French and the English language, whereas an Englishman speaks only in English. And that is enough for him to be able to conquer the entire world with his nimble vigour. It just so happened that I was in Ottawa on a Sunday. It is quiet, commemorative here on Sunday, as it is in all American 490 Translated by Jars Balan

cities.1 All of the stores, hotels, are tightly shut. On the streets you cannot hear the work-a-day din, not even the trams run in the streets. Around 10 o’clock in the morning you see groups of people, in holiday dress, with books under their arms, walking in various directions to their churches. And the chur- ches in America are of the most diverse array of denomina- tions, countless in number. Here you will find: Church of England, Greek cath. Church, Roman cath. Church, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregational, First Church of Christ, Salvation Army, and many, many other kinds as well.2 It goes without saying that people brought their own churches and customs here from every part of the world… I went out into the street and headed off down the road that was right in front of my nose. A short distance away there stood before me a splendid building, encircled by a green wall and a hedge. On a black tablet was written: S. Andreas-Pres- byterian church [sic] – Sunday services at 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. Subject of in the morning, “Sure of Salvation” by the pastor Rev. Joseph Hogg.3 – All right, I think to myself, I’ll step inside here and see how these people praise God in their own way. Mounting the lofty stairs, which were covered with carpeting, I entered the portico, took off my overcoat and hat, gave them to a gentleman who took care of such things, and

1 Like many Europeans, especially of his generation, Dmytriw used “America” in a generic sense for both Canada and the United States. 2 In the original article, the names of the churches are given in English. Baptist is misspelled “Babtist,” and the abbreviated “cath.” is written in lower case letters. As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish was only organized in Ottawa in 1914, Dmytriw was obviously referring to the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches that had already been established in the United States by Slavic immigrants from Austro-Hungary, including Ukrainians. 3 In the original, Dmytriw translates the English text on the sign into Ukrainian in a footnote. St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church is situated at 82 Kent Street, where it intersects with Wellington Street. Ottawa’s first Presbyterian Church was constructed at this location in 1828, but by the mid- 1850s the congregation had started to outgrow the original, modest sanctuary. In 1872 a new and larger church was erected on the same site, featuring a pipe organ built by Warren of Montreal. Since the resi- dent minister at St. Andrew’s from 1884–1919 was a Reverend Herridge. Joseph Hogg was probably an assistant or a visiting pastor. Scenes from Canada: II 491

having been led by another man to a pew, began to look about the hall. The hall was built in the form of an amphitheatre, exactly like a theatrical auditorium in Europe with loges, a gallery and a stage. On the stage against a wall there stood a harmonium, in front of this two rows of chairs, 18 in number, before the chairs a platform for the pastor, and on the pulpit, large, gilded Holy Scriptures: above the stage was written, “I am the World.”4 Discretely, quietly, the people who came in took their seats, and in their places awaited the beginning of the service. At the chiming of 11 o’clock a girl came onstage, sat in front of the harmonium, and rang forth with the solemn sounds of a psalm. Moments later a total of 18 male and female choristers occupied their seats. The people listened piously to the sounds of the psalm as if they were waiting for something that was lacking from the totality of the group on stage. From beyond the door on the opposite side of the stage there appeared the tall figure of the pastor. An old man who was as white as a dove, dressed in a black toga, with a white tie around his neck, stepped majestically onto the platform. The people listened with bowed heads to the prayer that was whispered half-audibly by the pastor. Following the prayer the choir sang in unison with all of the people the psalms that had been indicated on the program. Then he explained a section of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, after which a girl sang a solo to the accompaniment of the harmonium. During this production a silver tray went hand to hand among the public, upon which people contributed money placed in special en- velopes. The collection was conducted very quietly; you couldn’t hear any jangling of change, there was nothing to of- fend the ear about the worldly Mammon. Everybody contribu- ted as much they wished – and the platter imperceptibly came to a rest at the spot designated for it. In due course there followed a sermon on the theme: “Sure of Salvation.” In my life I have heard several top-notch dramatic powers in both Europe and America, but without any

4 The English-language inscription is translated into Ukrainian in a footnote. 492 Translated by Jars Balan

reservations I would have to give first place to Pastor J. Hogg. One should know that Protestant ministers are the flower of the American intelligentsia. However profane Americans might be, they do not sin in terms of their multifaceted education, only in the essence of their specialized occupations, and so upon obtaining general educations, their pastors spend their entire lives studying different branches of knowledge; and having a great income, time and opportunities after seven o’clock, as well as on Sundays, you could say that they round out the educations of their parishioners. Protestant churches in America, in large cities, are Sunday universities with a confes- sional-populist character. For more than an hour the people listened carefully to the talk of their excellent pastor. Following the sermon the choir sang some kind of an oratorio. The amateur choir delivered the serious oratorio with such precision and with such artistry that I have seldom ever before had the opportunity to hear such singing. I then remembered my friend from my time in the army, from my time in the seminary, my friend through thick and thin, our composer Ostap, who so soon fell silent, and it was if I could see him, how tears poured in torrents from his eyes during artistic performances on those pianos and in those musical numbers of all kinds.5 But while I listened to that enchanting music I recalled how not long ago I was conducting a Divine Liturgy in one of our colonies, and the cantor, having stood in the middle of the house with his legs wide apart, grabbed his throat with one hand, and his cuff with the other, and he cried out so frightful-

5 Dmytriw is most likely speaking of Ostap Nyzhankivsky (1862– 1919), a Greek Catholic priest, composer, conductor and Galician activist. The founder of the music publishing house, Muzykalna Biblioteka (1885) and the Boian Society Choir in Berezhany (1892), he organized choral concert tours throughout Galicia in 1885, 1889 and 1892. In addition to composing popular choral works and songs for the solo voice with piano accompaniment, in 1907 he compiled a Ukrainian-Ruthenian songbook. The reference to him falling “silent” possibly refers to an interruption in his compositional activity. In 1895–1896 he conducted the Boian choir in Lviv, afterwards becoming the conductor of the society’s choir in Stryi from 1900–1914. Elected to the Galician Diet from 1908–1913, he was shot by Polish authorities in 1919. Scenes from Canada: II 493

ly that with the exception of his friends, who were cantors like himself, there being five in all, completely out-shouted everyone. It was terrible then! Oh, if you, Vasyl, were to come and blare out here just once, I thought to myself! Once again at the conclusion the pastor whispered a short prayer, loudly pronounced “amen,” and the people slowly began to disperse. On the road I encountered a small congregation of people bearing a banner, who to the accompaniment of singing and music were marching down the streets delivering sermons on the bigger squares. This was the “Salvation Army.”6 On the bridge, by the post office, there was a tall man, with a black beard, holding a “speech,” shouting so much that he was sweating, but somehow no one was listening to him.7 A small incident attracted a clutch of interested listeners to him. Two people who were dead drunk, being unsteady on their feet, sat down to rest beside a wall. The speaker, upon seeing them, immediately started talking about the consequen- ces of drunkenness, and by pointing his finger at those poor wretches attracted a couple of dozen curious people, who were amused by that scene. Upon seeing that a large group of people had gathered, our pastor grabbed his hat, and, gesticula- ting accordingly, collected a few pennies for his intellectual labour. And this man, too, praised God in his fashion while living by his own industry. And once more it became quiet; it is quiet and peaceful during the lunch break in America; one cannot disturb an American at lunchtime, especially on Sundays. He has time for work, time for prayer – he has time for play, but he also has time for food. He won’t go to work without breakfast, and he won’t work during the lunch break, even if the world is falling apart; while supper for him includes pies and different kinds of cakes, the way it is on a feast day for our priests in Galicia. After lunch he curls up in a comfortable chair, and around 4

6 In the original “Salvation Army” is rendered in English. 7 The bridge referred to crossed the Rideau Canal east of the present- day War Memorial. A post office still stands nearby at Sparks and Elgin Streets. In the original, “speech” is rendered in quotation marks and in English. 494 Translated by Jars Balan

o’clock he grabs his under his arm and once again everyone flies off to their respective churches. In the evening all of the drawing-rooms are closed, tightly shut, but those who know the side entrances, if they were to look inside, would see that a substantial number of temperancers, having just heard feast day counsel, were sipping “whiskey.” And an American will imbibe, will really drink, will drink until he’s dead drunk, if no one, especially his “priest,” can see.8

Ottawa, 1 November 1897

By Nestor Dmytriw, as published in Svoboda, VI (12), 24 March 1898, pp. 1–2.

® ® ® ®

8 “Whiskey” and “priest” are rendered in English in the original text. Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 495–500

Fr. P. Filas about Canadian Rus’

Translated by Jars Balan

For as many as 5 issues of Ruslan1 Fr. Pl. Filas2 has been writing about the relations of our people in Canada. Those re- velations of Fr. Filas need to be divided into the following parts: 1) The characteristics of the people in regard to faith; 2) in regard to their feeling of national identification; 3) the mate- rial situation of farmers and their future prospects; 4) churches; 5) schools; 6) the Russian schism and those who are chiefly to blame for that schism. I cannot dispute Fr. Filas’s observations, that it is as if our people do not have a clear idea about their faith, the proof of which is the fact that our people are abandoning their “ances- tral” faith for frivolous and materialistic-social reasons – are absolutely correct. But Fr. Filas fails to ask the question: who is to blame for this? Let us say that the blame falls on the in Galicia, upon whom Fr. Filas heaped thunder in Dushpastyr3 for ten years, though it would be worth saying a great many things about this matter, but whatever happened to the work of several dozen Basilian Fathers, where in parti-

1 Ruslan was the organ of the Katoyts’kyi Rusko-Narodnyi Soiuz (Catholic Ruthenian-National Union). Billing itself as a “Christian-social daily,” it was published in Lviv between 1897–1914. 2 Father Platonid Petro Filas, 1864–1930, whose name is more properly transliterated from Ukrainian as Filias, Filas being the form that entered English usage, was a Basilian priest who served as the superior of the Basi- lian mission to Canada from 1902–1905. A co-founder and an editor of the journal, Misionar (Missionary), upon his return to Galicia he became the first protohegumen of the newly reformed Order of St. Basil the Great. 3 Dushpastyr (Spiritual Pastor) was a bimonthly journal put out by the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia. It was published in Lviv from 1887– 1898, first as a supplement to the journal Myr, then independently. 496 Translated by Jars Balan

cular is the fruit of those loudly proclaimed missions at the head of which there stood such luminaries of the Uniate church, as the current Galician Metropolitan Count Andrei Sheptytsky and the current abrichter4 of Canadian Ruthenia, Fr. P. Filas. I know that in Alberta, where Fr. Filas is doing missionary work, there are thousands of people who have left from counties in eastern Galicia, from , Horodenka, Chortkiv and other counties where missionaries were most active. I know that in Stuartburn, Man[itoba], hundreds of families from Borshchiv County – and even a lot of families from Mykhailivka, from good Basilian parts – I ask, what is the reason that in Alberta those people went over to tsaro- doxy5, while in Stuartburn whole congregations jumped over to Seraphim’s jurisdiction and the care of priests consecrated by him? Fr. Filas says the reason for the tsarodoxy in Alberta is Rev. Dmytriw, and about this I will say something at the conclusion. Who is the reason why people are following in entire communities the call of a man who came over all the way from Greece, a man, who is unfamiliar with our national speech, etcetera. What is the reason why, all of … Assiniboia, and even part of Alberta are organizing dioceses under the jurisdiction of bishop Seraphim.6 Why, in Winnipeg

4 Although written in Cyrillic characters, Dmytriw uses the German word abrichter, meaning “trainer” or “coach.” 5 The word Dmytriw uses is “tsaroslavie,” a blending of the word “tsar” with “Orthodoxy” (Pravoslavie) to derogatorily characterize the Russian Orthodox Church as promoting tsar-worship. 6 Bishop Seraphim (whose secular name was Stefan Ustvolsky) was a Russian monk and self-proclaimed bishop from Mount Athos, who in 1903 came to Canada at the invitation of radical activists to lead a Winnipeg-based church that was promoted as being independent of Rome and Moscow. Due to the spiritual vacuum that existed within the Ukrainian community at the time, the church rapidly acquired a large following in many Ukrainian settlements. However, when it was learned that Seraphim was a fraud, a womanizer and binge drinker who was willing to consecrate illiterates and men of dubious character as priests, his credibility quickly evaporated. The Protestant-influenced leaders of the “Independent” or “Seraphimite” church at the same obtained financial backing from the Presbyterian Church of Canada, on the understanding that the church would gradually abandon its Eastern rite rituals and reform itself along Protestant lines. As the true nature of the Independent Church became apparent to more people, its fol- Fr. P. Filas about Canadian Rus’ 497

there sit at the French archbishop’s place emissaries from the Galician Metropolitan himself – paid for by the Austrian government [riadom Avstriiskym]. Why, in Alberta, besides Fr. Filas there are two other Basilian Fathers who are also active! Who will be to blame if in Alberta as well the people decide to choose their own cantors and tell Seraphim to consecrate them as priests? I don’t want to explain the reasons today – they will clarify themselves from the very force of the facts and the history of our church overseas. One thing I do know is that it is not totally the fault of a lack of education in our faith or a lack of national consciousness, but far different reasons. Father Filas says in issue 116 of Ruslan precisely the fol- lowing: “If Fr. Dmytriw, who came to Alberta 5 or 6 years ago now, had remained here until today, then there wouldn’t be any schism, there wouldn’t be a need to now to assemble materials for 6 churches, and instead, who knows, if the far- mers wouldn’t have already had several of their own schools and reading societies, and other such things.” Although I know Fr. Filas and he knows me, I never would have thought that he would regard me as such a great man, that I myself, at the outset of our emigration – without any sort of material support in such boundless expanses, could accomplish such a colossal task. Instead of replying directly, I will briefly relate the facts of my mission in Canada, which are sure to shed some light on even the current situation. On the 4th day of March 1896 I arrived for the first time in Winnipeg, Man[itoba], and that same day I obtained jurisdic- tion from the late Metropolitan Sembratovych7 of blessed memory. I gave confession in the Immigration Hall and then visited the colonies, which at that time were still small: Dauphin, Stuartburn and Edna. I was in Beaver Lake, where Fr. Filas is writing his submissions from, right at Easter and I will tell Fr. Filas that even then the brothers Nemirsky at what lowers deserted en masse, leaving a dwindling number of congregations. Eventually some of these became part of the United Church of Canada. 7 Metropolitan Sylvester Sembratovych was the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Galicia from 1885 until his death in 1898. 498 Translated by Jars Balan

is today Wostok had already established contact with the reigning Orthodox bishop Nicholas8 from San Francisco and were delighted with the promise that they would get money for a church and a priest at the expense of the Synod. When all of my personal resources were used up, and when the people were unable to give me any sort of material support I was compelled to return to the United States. On a second occa- sion a few months later I again traveled to Canada with the firm idea that I would remain there and that I would organize Ruthenian churches after settling in Winnipeg, and I wrote a lot of letters to church authorities in Galicia and to private individuals, asking that they organize a missionary fund there or to at least use the money for a Canadian mission, which year after year they send to the African mission and to other objectives that are completely foreign to us. In response to all of my writings I received from the chaplain Demchuk a short letter, that his Excellency was full of praise for my efforts, but unable to provide help in the way of priests or any funds. It is true, that Card[inal] Sembratovych was then very ill. I also wrote to someone in Kryloshani, a nationally conscious Ukrai- nian, but I never got an answer from him. In the meantime I visited the colonies at Stuartburn, Dauphin, Yorkton and the vicinity of Edna – where I was precisely on the Feast of the .9 In my discussion with the bishop, I revealed that I was standing firm on the position: that the Ruthenian Catholic Church was independent and under the leadership of its own bishop – responsible directly to Rome – equal in stature to the Roman Catholic Church. The bishop from St. Albert told me that this was not possible, because in Canada there could not be two Catholic churches and two Catholic dioceses in each

8 Bishop Nicholas (1851–1915) was born Michael Zacharovich Ziorov in a village near Kherson, in southern Ukraine. A graduate of the Moscow Theological Seminary, he was consecrated Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska in September 1891, and was the head of the Russian Orthodox Mission in North America until his 1898 return to Russia, where he first become archbishop of Tver and Kashin, and then was made archbishop of Warsaw. In 1897 Nicholas became the first Orthodox bishop to visit Cana- da. 9 The Feast Day of the Elevation (or Exaltation in Latin usage) of the Holy Cross is commemorated on 14 September. Fr. P. Filas about Canadian Rus’ 499

province. Upon arriving in Beaver Lake I told the people, that they were to have nothing to do with the French, because that would be the death of our church. We took to the construction of a church and during my time there began transporting the necessary materials. Fr. Filas can enquire among people to determine if this is true. One should likewise know that in departing from Beaver Lake to Edmonton I even had to pay for a wagon myself, while the passage from Edmonton to Winnipeg, just like from Vienna to Paris, as Fr. Filas himself says, is not cheap. Not having unlimited means to survive and seeing that the French, without any protest from our authorities, were beginning to creep among our people, I again departed for the Un[ited] States, but in the following year in June I once more came to Winnipeg thinking that I would nevertheless be able to do something. Our people were coming in force: thousands of fami- lies were scattered about the Canadian steppes. Our church offi- cials not only had the conscience to allow our people to go with- out care, and not just the Galician population as a whole, they didn’t look after the emigrants, but even wrote bad things about those people in the press, who in all sincerity wanted to help their people. I am not surprised about the current Metropolitan10, because he doesn’t know people and can pass judgment on their conduct from on high, but I am really surprised by Fr. Filas, who lives in Canada yet can still say the following: “he came and went, that’s what a second and third one did and nothing was done for the colony – absolutely nothing.”11 Someone can speak like that if they are either flattering themselves or being malicious. Fr. Filas

10 Count Andrei Sheptytsky (1865–1944), who became the Metropo- litan of Halych in September 1899, was a descendant of a wealthy, culturally Polonized, aristocratic Ukrainian family and therefore viewed with some suspicion by nationally-conscious Ukrainian populists like Nestor Dmytriw. Sheptytsky subsequently won the trust and the deep affection of Galician Ukrainians by capably serving as the leader of the Ukrainian Catholic Church during turbulent times and becoming a firm defender of the Ukrai- nian cause. 11 Other secular priests who followed in Dmytriw’s wake were Pavlo Tymkiewicz (April 1898 to September 1898) and Ivan Zaklynsky (July 1900 to spring 1901). 500 Translated by Jars Balan

is today living in Canada, where as he himself says, the farmers already have horses, just [try to?] harness them to a cart [khot’ ikh v povoz’ zapriahai a mi] and we rode thousands of miles, slept on haystacks, didn’t eat for days on end and didn’t accomplish any- thing. Fr. Filas has behind him his Basilian Order, and the wealthy count, the Metropolitan, and Rome and the French, but as yet is nevertheless unable to build even a miserable wooden house but he wants me to sit there for 6 years without any moral or ma- terial assistance and to also protect people all across Canada from tsarodoxy, when Fr. Filas himself says in his correspondence that wherever an Orthodox batiuskha settles, the Catholic faith is lost in that colony. In the meantime, while Bishop Tikhon12 was in Winnipeg, organizing people for tsarodoxy, Fr. Filas arrived (though an emissary is sitting there), and, as he says, he calmed in a single swoop a total of 2000 souls. But then Seraphim arrived and again in one fell swoop took over the whole parish. For God’s sake, tell us, what is the reason for this? The history of the Ruthenian Church overseas, in the Un[ited] States, as in Canada and in Brazil, provides an answer to this question.

Nestor Dmytriw Ruthenian priest

Source: “O.P. Filias pro Rus’ Kanadyisku,” in Svoboda, 16 July 1903, p. 4.

® ® ® ®

12 Bishop Tikhon (Basil Bellavin, 1865–1925), took over the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska in December 1898. A native of Pskov, Russia, in 1897 he had served as bishop of Lublin while acting as the auxiliary to the archbishop of Kholm and Warsaw. Tikhon returned to Russia in 1907, and a decade later was elevated to the renewed patriarchal throne of Moscow and All Russia in the midst of the Revolution. Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 501–512

Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations: Toward a New Beginning

John A. Jillions

With the news that, after more than half a decade, the Joint Orthodox-Catholic International Dialogue (henceforth: JID) will resume its work in the spring of 2006, there has been cause for some rejoicing.1 That rejoicing is tempered by the fact that the “miserable end” of the international dialogue was a surprise to many, both that it happened and that it lasted so long. As the dialogue prepares to begin again, we have an excellent opportunity to explore new ways of dialogue, per- haps with the benefit of insights from studies in conflict and community building, in the hope that this fresh start will not get bogged down in many of the issues from the past that dis- rupted the last gathering in Maryland in 2000. Is there room for a new kind of dialogue? What would this process look like in the context of the international Catho- lic-Orthodox dialogue? What impact might this have on the participants and the Churches they represent? One person who has attempted to think about dialogue “in a new key” is the contemporary Greek Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras. He has argued that there must be more to dialogue and ecumenism than the official conversations of spe- cialists. As a veteran of many such dialogues, he is skeptical about their ability to nurture deeper communion between people on a broader scale. Given the collapse of the JID in

1 See “Catholic-Orthodox Unity Talks to Reopen,” The Tablet, 17 Sep- tember 2005, available at www.thetablet.co.uk. 502 John A. Jillions

2000, Yannaras would seem to be correct: so shallow does the communion between Orthodox and Catholics seem to have been that it could easily vanish in acrimony and the dialogue could be left in abeyance for half a decade with virtually no popular outcry. What we need instead, Yannaras argues, is a new kind of ecumenism that seeks a genuine and inspired en- counter between people “who share a thirst for the life which can conquer death.” This kind of encounter begins with con- fession of sin and weakness and is willing to go outside the walls of ecclesial self-sufficiency.

Today we need a new ecumenism, an ecumenism which will not have as its goal a “dialogue” between traditions and confessions, but rather will manifest a new “coming together” through the encounter of people of any and every tradition and confession. It would be the ecumenism of concrete encounter between those who share a thirst for the life which can conquer death, people who are looking for real answers to the “dead ends” of the civilization in which we live today….

I dream of an ecumenism which will begin with a confession of sins on the part of each Church. If we begin with this confession of our historic sins, perhaps we can manage to give ourselves to each other in the end. We are full of faults, full of weaknesses which distort our human nature. But Saint Paul says that from our weakness can be born a life which will triumph over death. I dream of an ecumenism that begins with the voluntary acceptance of that weak- ness.2

One could call this approach kenotic ecumenism. It requires painful sacrifice and it requires the often-painful admission of

2 Christos Yannaras, “Towards a New Ecumenism,” Sourozh 70 (No- vember 1997). This article is also available on-line in several places, inclu- ding http://orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/yannaras_new_ ecumenism.htm. Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations 503

fault, confession of sins, and petition for forgiveness from those whom we have wounded. It requires the Church to empty herself of her glory just as Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6,7). This, it seems to me, is a fitting prescription for both our Churches. Of what do our Churches need to be emptied? As the dia- logue prepares to begin again, let us pause for a moment to consider where Orthodox-Catholic relations are currently and the many things we need to be emptied of by the Holy Spirit. We review the ongoing problems and issues only so that we do not forget them and thereby run the risk of having them come back to haunt us when we least expect them to do so – which seems to have happened in 2000 when “uniatism” emerged with a ferocity that many people (most Catholics certainly) did not expect after the 1993 Balamand statement was thought to have taken care of the problem. As we begin to emerge from a breach that – with only the slightest hyperbole – could be called “the deepest in the mo- dern ,” we need to bear in mind that the mere announcement of the dialogue beginning again has not necessarily mitigated that breach significantly. The issues that precipitated it remain serious and substantial. The Orthodox Churches together – not just the Russian Orthodox Church – remain solidly united in their opposition to the perceived expansion of “uniatism” and to Catholic “proselytism,” especially in Russia and western Ukraine. With so many other factors driving them apart, it is striking to see the Orthodox so tightly bound together on this issue. In May 2005, at a conference in Athens sponsored by the World Council of Churches and attended by 700 delegates from around the world, the host, Greek Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, chose to reiterate a litany of wounds from the West, among which he specifically highlighted the expansion of Eastern Catholic Churches. Tensions thus remain high when it comes to the question of Eastern Catholics. In May 2005, I was privileged to attend the national gathering of Ukrainian Catholic clergy and laity in 504 John A. Jillions

Canada. Held in Winnipeg, it was the first such meeting since 1965 and was blessed with the inspired and active participation of Lubomyr Cardinal Husar. The event was very pleasant, but every conversation I had with participants confirmed the im- pression that relations between Orthodox and Catholics in the “old country” are still bleak. Here are just three examples. One bishop from Poland lamented that while he and the local Orthodox bishop get along well on a personal level, this changes whenever there is an official function. Indeed, when- ever Greek Catholics show up at an ecumenical event the Orthodox leave. He says that lay people get along, and so do priests for the most part, but that Orthodox bishops often in- struct their clergy to have nothing to do with Greek Catholics. On the other hand, he notices that relations elsewhere (Ame- rica, Western Europe) are better and people can be civil because the post-Soviet dynamics are not there. I spoke with a Ukrainian Catholic priest in Canada who is from Ukraine, returns to visit regularly, and has a brother who is a priest near the Pochaev Monastery. He says that the state of relations depends on where and with whom (a theme echoed by everyone I spoke with), but in general he thought relations had deteriorated. His brother told him that until a few years ago it was possible to visit Pochaev as a Ukrainian Catholic priest, be treated with respect, and be shown the famous mo- nastery caves – even the areas reserved for Orthodox clergy. Now, he says, there is a new regime and the abbot is hostile. When he visited two years ago he was told by his brother to go as a layman and under no circumstances wear a . I also had a conversation with an Orthodox deacon from Ukraine who was manning a bookstall. First, he said how impressed he was with the talks at the conference, especially about evangelization and mission. In Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) is doing a lot of good work in this area by publishing new books and translations. Moreover, they are united, in sharp contrast to the Orthodox, “who spend most of their time fighting.” There is still no canonical autocephalous church in Ukraine to unite the Ukrainian Ortho- dox. He said that most people who joined the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the early 1990s did so because it was not Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations 505

Moscow. He predicted that if there were to be a solid, Ortho- dox autocephalous church, the UGCC “would start shrinking immediately.” Personal relations between people are quite good, but there are no longer any joint liturgical celebrations. Molebens (prayer services) and panikhidas (memorial servi- ces) used to be done together, but now this is very rare. There is also very little respect for the UGCC’s patriarchal aspira- tions. “What kind of patriarch? Even the Orthodox in Ukraine never had one. It was always the metropolitan of Kiev. They want a patriarch for prestige. But it’s in name only. Cardinal Husar can’t move a single bishop without getting the approval of the pope. They can call him whatever they want, but he’s not a real patriarch.” He thought that relations were actually much closer with Roman Catholics than with Ukrainian Catho- lics, whom he characterized as “neither fish nor fowl: they should make up their minds.” The issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches, then, is clearly one of the most difficult – and it is probably no exaggeration to say the most difficult – with which the JID will continue to grapple. This issue requires much prayer, confession of sins, and (as the late Pope John Paul II used to advocate so fre- quently) a healing and purification of memories on all sides.3 It is important at this point to realize that the tensions in the international dialogue are not, in a sense, “international” insofar as many parts of the world today see good Catholic- Orthodox relations. In North America, for example, the Ortho- dox-Catholic Theological Consultation has been going since 1965 without interruption. This dialogue includes official representation from Eastern Catholic Churches (e.g., Peter Galadza of the Sheptytsky Institute). In addition to the theolo- gical dialogue, North America also has a joint committee of Orthodox and Catholic bishops (also formed in 1965) to discuss pastoral concerns. The North American bishops met a few months after the disastrous Baltimore meeting (of the

3 For more on how Orthodox and (especially Eastern) Catholics can undertake this healing of memories, see Adam DeVille, “The Healing of Me- mories: A Suggestion for Liturgical Enactment,” Ecumenical Trends 34 (December 2005): 9–12. 506 John A. Jillions

international dialogue) in 2000 and regretted that the interna- tional dialogue had been unable to continue.

The difficulties that have recently beset the internatio- nal dialogue do not alter our conviction that continued dialogue in love is the only way that our churches can be faithful to our Lord’s command to love one another and to be reconciled. Indeed, when difficulties arise the need for dialogue becomes even greater.4

They also noted that

in North America, where Catholics and Orthodox live side by side in a place that is to a large extent free of the political and religious tension that has often been present in our countries of origin, out theological dia- logue has been able to make much progress and to address various theological and pastoral questions touching upon our relationship.5

In addition to these “official” reflections, we also have, on the local level in North America, numerous examples of Orthodox and Catholic cooperation. For instance, a friend of mine is pastor of an Orthodox church in New Jersey. When his parish had to move from their premises to build a new church, none of the Orthodox churches in the area would give them temporary space to hold services, but a Roman Catholic community gave them the use of a chapel for three years at no charge. In Ottawa, my own parish is benefiting from a gene- rous arrangement from Archbishop Gervais and the Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa that makes possible our purchase of a large church to be the cathedral for the Archdiocese of Canada (of the Orthodox Church of America). The Sheptytsky Institute is itself a remarkable example of daily collaboration between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.

4 Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops, Statement on the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue at the Dawn of a New Millennium (Chania, Greece, October 4, 2000). 5 Ibid. Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations 507

We need an anecdotal dossier of this kind to balance the horror stories and to paint a more textured picture of relations in various parts of the world. Such a portrait helps throw into relief the important point that sanctity often forges closer relations between Orthodox and Catholics.6 As the North American experience shows, the climate of good relations does affect the dialogue and the “the will to pardon.” In reacting to the Balamand Statement, it was this point especially that the North American consultation stressed:

in our estimation, however, most important of the practical rules and guidelines is the Document’s em- phasis on the need for a “will to pardon” (par. 20). We are all aware that the history of relations between our two churches often has been a tragic one, filled with persecutions and sufferings, but we must not remain prisoners of this past.7

This tragic past of ours should surely give pause to consi- der that the same old methods of theological dialogue will not – in this situation – lead very far, since the issues are not only theological. It is customary to say, of course, that there are social, cultural, and historical factors at play, but that these are all secondary to the really divisive issues of theology, which are the proper subject of theological dialogue. But it seems to me that long-nurtured attitudes about past offenses and about

6 This was also a primary conclusion of Michael Petrowycz’s recent PhD dissertation at Saint Paul University, “Bringing Back the Saints: The Contribution of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940–1952) to the Commemoration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.” He gives a very positive interpretation to the inclusion of Slavic saints – especially post-schism saints – in the revised liturgical books. This, he emphasizes, was all the more surprising because it came at the impetus of the Roman Church at a time when the Eastern Catholic Churches were still dominated by Latinizing tendencies. He sees this as a sign that the Roman Catholic Church could see sanctity transcen- ding earthly ecclesiastical boundaries. 7 Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the US, Response to “Balamand Statement,” par. 6, in J. Borelli and J. Erickson, eds., The Quest for Unity: Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1996), 186. 508 John A. Jillions

identity play a much larger role than currently admitted. They color the way theological issues are perceived; they influence “the will to pardon” and the will to find a solution. The fact is that if we liked and trusted each other better we would find a way to resolve these long-standing problems. The dramatic collapse of the JID makes this much more obvious and sug- gests that some new approach is needed if Orthodox and Catholics are to recover true communion. There will never be a solution as long as both parties are relatively comfortable with the existing state of affairs. Once the situation is in- tolerable, then there is room to move forward. It is precisely at this low point that much could be learned from the insights of studies on conflict and community- building. M. Scott Peck, for example, contends that a group of people cannot truly become a community in the full sense of the word without first going through “emptiness.”8 He sees roughly three stages on the way to transforming a group into a community: pseudo-community, chaos, and emptiness. It is not too much to say that these three stages correspond closely to the evolution of the JID in the last two decades.

1. Pseudo-community: In this preliminary stage, Peck tells us, “the first response of a group in seeking to form a community is most often to try to fake it. The members at- tempt to be an instant community by being extremely pleasant with one another and avoiding all disagreement…. It never

8 M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987). Peck died in September 2005 after building a considerable reputation and following, especially for his first book, The Road Less Traveled (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978). A similar approach can be found in the work of Vern Neufeld Redekop. Redekop directs the conflict studies programs at Saint Paul University in Ottawa and is former director of the Canadian Institute of Conflict Resolu- tion, through which he had direct experience of conflict and processes of dialogue in hundreds of contexts, including some of the most intractable international trouble spots (Rwanda, Somalia, Belfast, Afghanistan). He has distilled his experience and how groups move from “structures of violence” to “structures of blessing” in his book From Violence to Blessing: How an Understanding of Deep-Rooted Conflict Can Open Paths to Reconciliation (Ottawa: Novalis, 2002). Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations 509

works.”9 The essential dynamic of this pseudo-community “is the avoidance of conflict.”10 To some extent, it could perhaps be said that the opening years of the JID fell into this stage: the good will built up in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council generated a great deal of pleasant feeling and even questions on the part of some as to whether Catholics and Orthodox could now almost instantly be one Church again. Such pseudo-community lasted until the early 1990s when, in the aftermath of the collapse of Soviet and the emergence of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Ukraine and Romania especially, the international Orthodox-Catholic dia- logue was no longer able to avoid the conflict over “uniatism” that blew up in 2000. At this point, as we know, the pseudo- community collapsed, bringing the dialogue down with it.11

2. Chaos. If the pretense and “nice-nice” of pseudo-com- munity is to be broken, then inevitably the group faces a period of chaos

which always centers around well-intentioned but mis- guided attempts to heal and convert. In the stage of chaos individual differences are, unlike those in pseudo-community, right out in the open. Only now, instead of trying to hide or ignore them, the group is trying to obliterate them. Underlying the attempts to heal and convert is not so much the motive of love as the motive to make everyone normal – and the motive to win, as the members fight over whose norm might prevail.12

Attacking each other and their leader, the group is in a constant, despairing struggle that seems to be leading nowhere.

9 M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum, 86. 10 Ibid., 88. 11 Details of the collapse are told by E. Lanne and M. van Parys, “Le dialogue catholique-orthodoxe à Baltimore-Emmitsburg,” Irenikon 3–4 (2000): 405–18. 12 M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum, 91. 510 John A. Jillions

To some extent, this second stage also engulfed the JID in the first five years of this decade following the Baltimore collapse. Chaos seemed to take over to such an extent that it became impossible to gather the dialogue back again for ano- ther meeting; indeed, the question was raised whether it would ever meet again for a very long time. Attacks and counter- attacks came from both sides and attempts were made to ensure not that love triumphed but that one side or the other would be seen to have won – or, at the very least, not to have lost. The only result of this was further acrimony and a stale- mate.

3. Emptiness. Peck contends that there are only two ways out of chaos: organization or “emptiness.” Organization can indeed resolve the chaos, and bring what looks like peace, but this is superficial and is not true community. (In the con- text of the recommencement of the JID, we must pray hopefully that it is not mere “organization” which is reviving the dialogue and animating it from henceforth but, rather, a desire – born of being kenotically emptied by the Holy Spirit – to start along the path to unity afresh.) Emptiness is the crucial and most difficult stage. For many years Peck conducted com- munity-building workshops with churches, civic organizations, and many others interested in the experience of community; and without exception the groups ignored his suggestions about emptiness until the chaos became unbearable:

when the members of the group finally ask me to explain what I mean by emptiness, I tell them simply that they need to empty themselves of barriers to communication. And I am able to use their behavior during chaos to point out to them specific things – feelings, assumptions, ideas, and motives – that have so filled their minds as to make them impervious as billiard balls. The process of emptying themselves of these barriers is the key to the transition.13

13 Ibid., 95. Prospects for Catholic-Orthodox Relations 511

According to Peck, there can be no emptiness, and thus no true community, unless barriers of expectations, preconcep- tions, prejudices, ideology – even theology – are set aside, together with the need to control, to heal, to convert, to fix, and to solve. Peck says, “I routinely ask the members of the group to reflect in silence, during the break period or overnight, on what they as individuals most need to empty themselves of in their own unique lives.” None of this, of course, should mean that either side aban- dons its own most deeply held convictions. Peck draws a distinction between emptiness and self-obliteration. “I do not mean to imply that we should utterly forsake our sometimes hard-won sentiments and understandings.”14 In true commu- nity, there is no posturing, and there is a degree of humility, respect, and good humor that allows each person to preserve his or her freedom and distinctiveness without being oblitera- ted. (Such principles should, mutatis mutandis, apply also to the JID and more generally to relations between the Ortho- dox15 and Catholic Churches.) He gives as an example of this a community-building workshop in Virginia. After plenty of talk about God and lots of energetic attempts at trying to convert each other, “it didn’t take us long to get into a chaos of magnificent proportions.” Thirty-six hours later, the group had made a miraculous transition from chaos to community. Peck told them, “It’s fascinating. Today you are still talking as much about God as you were yesterday. In that respect you haven’t changed. What has happened, however, is the way in which you talk. Yesterday each of you was talking as if you had God in your back pocket. Today you are talking about God with humility and a sense of humor.”16 Let us hope and pray that as the JID begins again, it does so not as the result of a fit of fresh organizational zeal but only because the last five years have been a period of relative emptying, emptiness, and silence to such an extent that the

14 Ibid., 95. 15 For an analysis of theological conflict from an Eastern Christian perspective, see J. Jillions, “The Language of Enemies” (unpublished D. Min. thesis, St Vladimir’s Seminary, Crestwood, NY: 2005). 16 M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum, 95. 512 John A. Jillions

each side’s need to control, heal, fix, solve, or convert has been purified by the Holy Spirit. Let us pray that the chaos which preceded this period, together with the period of emptiness itself, have been spiritually salutary insofar as they have sufficiently disturbed both our Churches and, as a result, will now bring greater sensitivity and discipline to the new dialogue and a greater awareness that we cannot take it, or each other, for granted. Let us pray, then, that sobered by the collapse and chaos, and the unsatisfactory nature of the pseudo-community which preceded it, we will set out on this road again determined not to get sidetracked or sideswiped by conflictual issues, and determined all the more to humbly seek the will of God for His Church.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 513–524

The School of Paris and Eucharistic Ecclesiology in the Twentieth Century

Antoine Arjakovsky

Introduction

It is a great honor and a very great joy to be able to speak to you here, at Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, about the School of Paris and in particular about the ecclesiology of Father Serge Bulgakov. I have the feeling that the time for discussion is coming back in the Orthodox world. The polemics about so- phiology in the 1930s, then the advent of the Cold War, and finally the collapse of Soviet communism all contributed, on both sides of the Atlantic, to some great thinkers moving away from each other – thinkers such as Georges Florovsky and Serge Bulgakov, Alexander Schmemann and Paul Evdokimov, John Meyendorff and Olivier Clément. Today, the Orthodox world is free politically and a consensus has emerged that Orthodox ecclesiology can be only eucharistic: in such a con- text it is as if the continental drift of Orthodox theology has been stopped! In such a context, from New York to Paris and Moscow, one rediscovers the enormous potential of the School of Paris to give a response to the crisis of Orthodox thought, to the crisis of the ecumenical movement, but also more generally to the crisis of the modern world. Everyone knows indeed that the Orthodox world is going through a difficult crisis, not least because, in the face of so many pressing problems, already more than ten centuries have passed since all Orthodox bishops met in a general council. You here at Saint Vladimir’s know how problematic is the situation of the Orthodox Church of America and how much 514 Antoine Arjakovsky

the ecclesiology of the neo-patristic synthesis, at the same time universalist and territorial, can bring satisfactory answers neither to the other Christian churches nor to the Orthodox Christians of America. Today Orthodoxy cannot call upon the Turks or Stalin to explain the impotence of its “pentarchic” or “koinonic” vision of the Church. Insofar as I do not wish to speak for more than forty mi- nutes – not least because I realize that you already know the principal personalities who formed the School of Paris and taught there more or less a long time ago: Bulgakov, Florov- sky, Schmemann, Evdokimov, Meyendorff, Clément – allow me to proceed in the following way. First, I will start by briefly recalling some general truths about the School of Paris. Then I will present a short overview of sophiological ecclesio- logy according to the wish of Peter Bouteneff. Finally, I will finish by exposing a certain number of consequences of the revival of the Orthodox ecclesiology which occurred within this School. As this talk cannot be exhaustive, allow me at the outset to recommend that you read about the School of Paris in the books Michael Plekon devoted to the question.

The School of Paris: a Symbolic Reality, a Place of Memory

The School of Paris is a reality difficult to identify. It can- not be conceptualized. I would say that it is a movement, a symbolic reality, which the French historian Pierre Nora calls a “place of memory.” But the collective memory is not very precise: nobody really knows when it starts and when it fi- nishes. Some, like Alexis Kniazev, traced it as far back as the Mohyla Academy of Kiev! The memory tends also to associate with the School of Paris thinkers such as Vladimir Lossky or Nicolas Berdiaev, who never taught there. Conversely, one tends to forget that Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff, because of their departure to the United States after the war, did in fact teach at Paris and did credit their formation in Saint Serge with a good share of their creativity and their engagements with the many topics of their scholarly writings. The School of Paris and Eucharistic Ecclesiology 515

Some of the difficulties in coming to an understanding of the nature and role of the Paris School are not always entirely or exactly theological, but often explicitly political. Thus, for example, George Florovsky vigorously opposed Serge Bulga- kov in 1936–37; and in the case of the socialist George Fedo- tov and the monarchist Kiprian Kern, we see political factors at work to such an extent that Fedotov was excluded from the Institute in 1938! And they were very sharp in the ecumenical world, in particular between Anton Kartashov, favorable in 1935 to intercommunion with the Anglicans within the framework of Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius, and Vassili Zenkovski, who was hostile toward the proposal. Nonetheless, as Getcha wrote recently, the School of Paris is indeed a coherent whole, not unlike the schools of An- tioch and Alexandria in the fourth century. The School pos- sesses a collective memory of the last several decades, preser- ving many important fruits of the work of, and association between, such figures as Bulgakov and Florovsky, and Ber- diaev and Schmemann. These relationships reach out beyond Paris: in the USSR one adds the figure of Mérejkovski, whose anti-communism was so influential on his generation; in the United States, Paul Valliere recalled that Bulgakov and Flo- rovsky find their spiritual roots in Soloviev and Boukharev. In all cases, in spite of often vast differences and sometimes viru- lent criticism of one against the other, figures as diverse as Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Nicholas Lossky, and Zenkov- sky, on the one hand, and the “idealists” on the other – Berdiaev and Bulgakov in particular – are held together in their common association with the Paris School. Given such a diverse group, one must ask Why? First of all, it is enough to point out the very significant historical fact of a common spirit, especially when under attack. In 1937, all the professors – except, notably, Florovsky, who had moved to Serbia at the time – of the Saint Serge Institute supported the sophiological thought of Bulgakov against the attacks of Metropolitan Serge of Moscow and those of the synod of the Russian Church Outside Russia. But Florovsky returned to teach at St. Serge in 1938. He agreed not to reconsider the question further given the intellectual victory gained within 516 Antoine Arjakovsky

this School by the sophiological current. What held the School together, both in its diversity and then when, as here, under fire as during the Bulgakov crisis – what kept professors from Kas- sian Bezobrazov to Vladimir Iljine together – was a common thought which one can characterize in the following way: Or- thodox thought was symbolic or dogmatic but not conceptual, antinomic but not dialectical, eschatological but not utopian. How, under these conditions, can one affirm, at the same time and without appearing ridiculous, the diversity and the unity of the thinkers of Saint-Serge? There are, I think, three ways. First, I propose to recognize within the School of Paris three currents of thought, each held together by the theanthro- py at their heart. None of these three currents, however, was aware of the depth of the unity between them, and as a result the divergences between them could be transformed into true arguments. Schematically one can say that these three large currents, theocentrism, personalism, and sophiology, begin from three different but not contradictory points. For the first – encompassing thinkers such as Bezobrazov, Florovsky, and Fedotov – theology is the relation between man and God in his absolute depth. For the second – with Berdiaev and Mother Marie Skobtzoff chiefly – the fundamental relation deter- mining all knowledge is that which links God as Person who reveals Himself to man, created in the image of the Trinitarian God. Finally, for the last one – involving Serge Bulgakov and Vladimir Iljine in particular – it is the representation of the relation between God and His creation which is the beginning of all creativity of thought. I will add that within the framework of the review The Way (Put’), there was a synchronic evolution of the thought of its contributors at the School. If the School of Paris could be understood as “modernist” in the 1920s, it was indisputably non-conformist at the beginning of the 1930s; later, on the eve of the Second World War, under the impulse of Bulgakov, Berdiaev and Fedotov, it discovered herself as “spiritual.” I insist on this point because one cannot defend the point of view that Orthodox thought does not evolve if it is Orthodox! As an example, I would say that Bulgakov, Berdiaev, and Fedotov certainly read with passion Khomiakov’s ecclesiology The School of Paris and Eucharistic Ecclesiology 517

of sobornost’ before 1917. In his 1912 Essay on Khomiakov, Berdiaev wrote a theory of generalized sobornost’ in which man knows of an integral knowledge that transcends objective- zation. “It is of other criterion of the truth only its interior obviousness in the Spirit, but this obviousness is given only to man in communion” (“Il n’est d’autre critère de la vérité que son évidence intérieure dans l’Esprit, mais cette évidence n’est donné qu’à l’homme en communion”).1 However, at the be- ginning of the 1930s, Berdiaev, without disavowing the au- thentic base of sobornost’, distanced himself with regard to a pneumocentric ecclesiology which would be opposed to the incarnation of the Word, particularly as it involved the expression of the principle of personal authority visible at the same time in the Church and the world. A similar concern animated Fedotov, whose sensitivity to the work of Moehler gradually led Fedotov to the patristic theology of the participation in the uncreated energies. Finally Bulgakov, without disavowing his enthusiasm for the thean- thropic thought of Soloviev, nonetheless, from 1925, mounted a significant criticism of the symbolist sophiology of the latter’s Russia and the Universal Church. I will finish my argumentation on the coherence of the School of Paris by widening my matter with the spiritual dimension of the context in which we live. If darkness invades our world at accelerated speed, it is partly due to its guessing the proximity of its end. While leading to a eucharistic eccle- siology, the School of Paris prepared a revival of our civiliza- tion at which we have not yet arrived. Nonetheless, even if such a revival has been postponed, Berdiaev, since 1921, did not hesitate (perhaps proleptically) to announce the arrival of a new Renaissance followed by the New Middle Age that huma- nity entered. Such thinking, with clear Augustinian overtones, resulted in Fedotov, in 1932, entitling his book the New City (Novij Grad). I will conclude this point by quoting Bulgakov from 1936:

1 Olivier Clément, Berdiaev (Paris: DDB, 1991), 233. 518 Antoine Arjakovsky

Never before has the Christian conscience been so pressingly confronted with questions concerning hu- manity’s creativity and its responsibility to its own Divine-humanity. History unfolds itself before us as an apocalypse; the apocalypse as eschatology; the “end” as fulfilment; our Lord’s in the Parousia as his meeting with the Church: “And the spirit and the bride say, Come! Even so, come Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:17, 20).2

Some Aspects of the Sophiological Ecclesiology of Bulgakov

Allow me now to go into greater detail about this so- phiological ecclesiology of Bulgakov. I highly recommend that you read chapter VII of his book The Wisdom of God, which provides, in ten pages, a better summary than I can offer at this point. For my part I will insist more on the consequen- ces than on the bases of this thought. In 1932, in his book Orthodoxy, Bulgakov put into ques- tion part of the denominational self-definition of the old Orthodoxy of at least the previous four centuries. For him, Or- thodoxy is defined neither by a territory, neither by a rite, nor even by a council or a confession of particular faith.3 It is, on the one hand, “the Church of Christ on earth” and, on the other, “the new life with and within Christ driven by the Holy Spirit.” For him, the word “Orthodoxy” has a double physical and spiritual meaning, each indissociable one from the other. Or- thodoxy is the Body of Christ, a mystical reality, human- divine, at the same time visible and invisible. This body has perfect self-awareness only in Christ within the Spirit. Its belonging to history enables the understanding of its itinerant

2 S. Bulgakov, Sophia, the Wisdom of God: an Outline of Sophiology (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1993), 19. 3 S. Bulgakov wrote in Put’ (B131, p. 3) in connection with the deci- sions of the seven ecumenical councils that one “should not take them as se- parate crowned oracles to each other, but like a single whole.” On this speech and the reactions to it, cf. A. Arjakovsky, La génération des penseurs religieux de l’émigration russe (Paris-Kiev: The Spirit and the Letter, 2002), 358–67. The School of Paris and Eucharistic Ecclesiology 519

identity, the multiplicity of its self-awareness by degrees. Conversely, the belonging of this body to eternity, the capacity that the Churches have to come out of themselves, of their historical condition, is the source of their unity, their holiness, their catholicity, and their apostolicity. Orthodoxy, however, is also understood by Bulgakov in a spiritual way, as “the new life,” both as an act, a way of think- ing, and a model of social organization. It is here also in- separable from the two hands of the Father. Orthodoxy is thus not an abstract notion, a concept, but a reality that is personal, alive, Trinitarian, and human-divine, manifesting the Incarna- tion of Christ. As Bulgakov would put it,

Christians bear this name precisely because they are christic, for they are in Christ and that Christ is in them. The divine incarnation is not just an idea or a doctrine, it is before all an event which occurred only once in time, but which has the power of eternity. This incarnation, which remains as the perfect meeting of two natures, the divine one and the human one, without division but without confusion, is the Church.4

This ecclesiological vision of Bulgakov is thus clearly rooted firmly in his triadology and more precisely in his pneu- matology. Compactly, one can say that, from a theological point of view, the sophiology of Bulgakov is nothing other than an awakening, rooted in divine revelation, of the personal dimension of the , of the Spirit of God, and the hypostatic plenitude of the Holy Spirit. Bulgakov indeed clearly distin- guishes the personality from the third divine hypostasis of its nature: “If,” as he writes, “the Spirit of God is the tri-unity of three hypostases in their difference, then the Holy Spirit is their hypostatic unity in the third hypostasis.”5 In other words, the Spirit of God is always tri-hypostatic, while the Holy Spirit is the personal realization of the divine Spirit. This underlines the personal dimension and does not render abstract the gifts of the Holy Spirit – communion, prophecy, asceticism, humility,

4 S. Bulgakov, L’Orthodoxie (Paris: Age d’Homme, 1980 [1932]), 7–8. 5 S. Bulgakov, Put’, B136R, 67. 520 Antoine Arjakovsky

love, etc. The other consequence was to identify the Wisdom of God with the Spirit of God. “By herself the Divine Sophia,” wrote Bulgakov, “is certainly also a spiritual principle, she is the spirituality of the tri-hypostatic spirit.”6 This ecclesiological redefinition of Orthodox identity was not immediately assimilated by the Orthodox thinkers. Today most of the theologians – such as the current dean of Saint- Serge Institute, Boris Bobrinskoy – when speaking about the Church, emphasize and defend, rightly, her “mystery” against all intrusions of modern reason. The conscience of the Church has been magnetized by the thought of Bulgakov and also by that of his friends, Nicolas Berdiaev and George Fedotov. The patristic and liturgical revival which marked the Or- thodox world in the second half of the twentieth century, in spite of its reserves in regard to the preceding generation, has been emphatic in arguing that the Church is not an abstract reality but a divine-human Who; such a “personalist” under- standing is the only raison d’être of sophiology. This is why Vladimir Lossky ended up accepting in his collection, pub- lished in 1967 as A l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu, that the concept of conscience connected with the Church, the con- cept of self-awareness or of auto-revelation, if it is understood in an open and not closed way, is deeply Orthodox. Vladimir Lossky has even allowed the principle of kenosis inside the Trinity, which Bulgakov was the first to suggest in the twen- tieth century. The Trinitarian unity cannot be abstract and completely closed to human intelligence, which is also created at the image of God. Trinitarian unity, the movements of ge- neration and procession, is basically a movement of circulation of the divine glory in which man has taken part since the beginning. Bulgakov’s efforts only sought to continue and purify the Palamite tradition of the deification of man and creation through the uncreated energies by simply raising the question of the personal source of these energies. This cosmic murmur of the burning bush, this unutterable praise of the , this friendship of John for the Bridegroom, this growth in the

6 S. Bulgakov, Le Paraclet (Paris: L’Age d’Homme, 1996),146. The School of Paris and Eucharistic Ecclesiology 521

plenitude of the Lamb of God, this prayer in us of the Paraclete, this revelation of the Father whose love is such that He is always Himself and out of Himself, this upsetting voice of the Bride in the last verse of the Apocalypse, “Come, Lord Jesus”: this “sophiological symphony” was, if not fully under- stood and accepted, nonetheless heard by Meyendorff, Schme- mann, Clément, Evdokimov, and Khodr. Let me be clear: I am not here, in Saint Vladimir’s, affir- ming that Meyendorff was a sophiologist! His disagreement with the sophiological vision of Fedotov, expressed in a note in The Russian Religious Mind, is known. Moreover, his article on the history of Orthodox theology, published in 1983 in the St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, clearly expresses his hostility toward sophiology.7 But which sophiology? Was it that of the current Russian and Platonic Symbolists, such as Vladimir Lossky, who have surpassed Bulgakov to some extent? Was it the more “romantic” sophiology of Florovsky in the Ways of Russian Theology? Or was it that manifested by the Trinitarian interpretation by Bulgakov of the figure which appears near God at the beginning in the Book of Proverbs? I pose these questions because the principal reproach which Meyendorff made toward sophiology suggested that it sought an impersonal intermediary between God and man, whereas we know now that the sophiology of Bulgakov finds its roots in the personalist vision of the uncreated energies! And the uncreated energies, as we of course know, find the greatest statement in the work of Gregory Palamas, whom Meyendorff studied with such brilliance and who influenced him so much. Thus in this way do we see yet another mark – perhaps not fully recognized, even by Meyendorff himself – of the School of Paris on the work of your former dean! Much the same could be said about another of your late deans, Alexander Schmemann. Until the end of his days, as his Journals testify, he was irritated by the perceived “Gnos- ticism” in Bulgakov. But you know that the young Schme- mann was led to study in Saint Serge and afterwards came to appreciate that Bulgakov “will remain in the memory of the

7 Rev. J. Meyendorff, “Creation in the History of Orthodox Theology,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27 (1983): 27–37. 522 Antoine Arjakovsky

Church what he really was: a prophet and a contemplator of the mystery, a guide with … spiritual authenticity.”8 Thus each one in his own way – Meyendorff and Schme- mann but also Evdokimov, Afanassiev, and Clément with others – worked out a new eucharistic synthesis of Orthodoxy as body and spouse of the Logos. They became aware that the Eucharist is not a in the Church but the sacrament of the Church, that sacrament which constitutes the Church as the Father’s House, the Body of Christ, and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The influence of this eucharistic ecclesiology has been so profound that we can now say, without hyperbole, that the ecclesiology of the ecumenical movement can only be an ecclesiology of communion. It is not the question here of an abstract koinonia or one limited to the borders of an empire. The unity of the local Churches in the Church is carried out, as Clément writes, “by eucharistic consubstantiality” and “ex- presses an analogy – participation in the trinitary commu- nion.”9

The Eucharistic Ecclesiology of the School of Paris and the Ecumenical Movement

The consequences of a recovered eucharistic ecclesiology for the ecumenical movement are in some ways incalculable. I will limit myself to three points, very briefly. First, this eucharistic synthesis, founded on a personal, sa- piential, and hypostatic vision of the Trinity, postulates, as Clément proposed in his book Rome autrement in 1997, at the same time an episcopate (and thus permanent conciliarity), and the presidency of the bishop of Rome: both, he insists, must guard the plenitude of the eucharistic communities and their status as sister Churches. From this point of view also, ec- clesiology rediscovers the evangelical meaning of the idea of “”: the bishop is no longer the customs

8 A. Schmemann, “Trois images,” Le Messager de l’ACER 57 (I–1972), 17. 9 O. Clément, “L’Eucharistie,” dans L’Encyclopédie de l’Eucharistie (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 457. The School of Paris and Eucharistic Ecclesiology 523

officer of a territory, but he becomes again the pastor of his flock. Second, this widening of the borders of the Church to all worldly life inevitably leads the ecumenical movement to move from a more internally focused theological dialogue to that of an “ecumenism of life.” Such an ecumenism is con- scious of the dogmatic importance of serving Christ by feeding the hungry, lodging the foreigner, dressing the naked, and visiting the prisoner (cf. Matthew 25:31ff.). Such an ecume- nism has also come together in the remembrance and celebra- tion of the thousands of martyrs who fought together, whatever their confession, against various totalitarianisms in the twen- tieth century. Such an ecumenism brings together so many young people of all confessions to gather in Taizé or at the pilgrimage of Grabarka in Poland. Such an ecumenism is lived daily by the many couples in “mixed marriages” who embody the reality of Christian division but also the hope of the unity of the body of Christ. Third, this authentically Orthodox vision of the Church meets up with a major scholarly movement of the Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant world of the last several decades. I am thinking in particular about the works of such thinkers as Jean-Marie Tillard, Konrad Raiser, and Catherine Pickstock. All share this eucharistic vision of the Church, thus preparing a major movement “of ecclesification of life” according to the expression of Bulgakov, going from the redefinition of the bases of the modern state to a new design of the world econo- my. According to Raiser, if the Church is a hermeneutic com- munity holding “a treasure in eathern vessels,” according to the expression of Saint Paul (II Cor. 4:7), it is appropriate today that the ecumenical movement passes from a herme- neutic of suspicion (which retains only one critical reading of the Scriptures) to a hermeneutic of coherence (which also seeks to serve the truth by the search of a meaning, and for this reason it is also necessary to interpret the interpreters!).

524 Antoine Arjakovsky

Conclusion

I am aware that I largely overflowed the subject which was entrusted to me by Professor Bouteneff and I pray you to forgive me. It was the anticipated joy of the encounter with you which led me to present to you in the greatest disorder the most beautiful fruits of this School of Paris. But these fruits today become ripe in the conscience of the Church. I am thus doubly grateful to him, for his trustful invitation to come to express myself in this place of memory of the Orthodox conscience, and for the living tradition that he represents in these walls.

® ® ® ®

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 46 (2005) Nos. 3–4, pp. 525–542

The Way of a Pilgrim: A Synopsis of Recent Scholarship on a Spiritual Classic

Suzette Phillips

Introduction

The well-known Russian spiritual classic Otkrovennye ras- skazy strannika duknovnomu ottsu svoemu1 – or The Way of a Pilgrim as it is commonly known in the English-speaking world – is a collection of four simple stories recounting a pilgrim’s (strannik’s2) journey through Russia, Ukraine, and Siberia as he attempts to understand and acquire the practice of unceasing prayer. This text is the best-known and most popu-

1 Otkrovennye rasskazy strannika dukhovnomu svoemu ottsu in the original Russian has been translated as Sincere Stories told by a Pilgrim to his Spiritual Father or Candid Narratives of a Pilgrim to His Spiritual Father. It is commonly known in English as The Way of the Pilgrim. For convenience, I shall henceforth refer to it as The Way of the Pilgrim. 2 A strannik (Russian) or strannyk (Ukrainian) was a typical figure in ancient Russian society (see Michel Evdokimov, Pèlerins russes et vaga- bonds mystiques [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1987]). This term “denotes a reli- gious wanderer who wanders from monastery to monastery in search of spiritual enlightenment, rather than a pilgrim who travels to a specific holy location” (Anat Vernitski, “‘The Way of a Pilgrim’: Literary Analysis of a Religious Text,” Slavonica 9 [2003]: endnote 2, p. 121). The strannik’s journey is continuous, thereby emphasizing the process of the spiritual jour- ney rather than an end result. Continual prayer, which the strannik seeks, is by nature a never-ending process (see Vernitski, “The Way of the Pilgrim,” 116). The strannik’s state of constant wandering and voluntary homeless- ness allows him to identify with Christ by being in the world, but not of the world. For the purposes of this paper, strannik or wanderer will be used inter-changeably. 526 Suzette Phillips

lar book on Eastern Slavic spirituality among English-speaking readers.3 The Way of a Pilgrim is said to be “the only text of its kind, describing the mystical-religious quest for a way of prac- ticing prayer.”4 It is an instruction for those wishing to follow a path of prayer. The story depicts “the radical deepening of the strannik’s knowledge of poverty of spirit and of the living experience of divine presence that interior prayer opens him to.” The experience of “both exterior events and graded stages of inner self-revelation” leads him “to an ever-more radiant awareness of the Christ-fire burning within him and in … creation.”5 This article will explore various aspects of The Way of a Pilgrim. The first section outlines the story and structure of The Way of a Pilgrim. Theories about the authorship of the work are then presented in the second section. A brief histo- rical overview regarding the publication of the text follows in the third section. The fourth section situates The Way of a Pilgrim in the context of Eastern Christian spirituality. The fifth describes the recent reception of The Way of a Pilgrim in the Western world. In the sixth section, the inter-textuality of The Way of a Pilgrim is presented, and in the seventh, a litera- ry analysis. The eighth and final section briefly considers the text’s narrative structure and use of pilgrimage as a root meta- phor.

1. The Story and Structure of The Way of a Pilgrim

The tale of The Way of a Pilgrim is the first-person ac- count of a poor, lame strannik who wanders through Russia, Ukraine, and Siberia in the nineteenth century6 with only a

3 The Way of a Pilgrim, trans. Gleb Pokrovsky (Woodstock, VTt: Sky- light Paths Publishing, 2001), xv. 4 S.A. Ipatova, ‘“Otkrovennye rasskazy strannika dukhovnomu svoemu ottsu”: paradigma siuzeta,’ Khristianstvo i Russkaia literature (Sankt Peter- burg: ‘Nauka’, 2002): 30. Referenced in Anat Vernitski, “The Way of the Pilgrim,” 114. 5 The Way of a Pilgrim, x. 6 Nineteenth century Russia was a time of spiritual revival in the Russian Orthodox Church, and an age of great Russian literary figures such The Way of a Pilgrim 527

knapsack containing dry bread and a Bible. After hearing Saint Paul’s injunction to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17) during the Divine Liturgy, the strannik seeks out a starets7 (spiritual father) to teach him how to live this out. The starets responds by putting the Dobrotoliubiye8 into the stran- nik’s hands and explaining to him the practice of the – the repetition of the phrase “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”9 He then instructs the strannik to say the Jesus Prayer at first 3,000 times a day, then 6,000 times, and finally 12,000 times. Gradually the strannik stops counting the number of recitations as the prayer has be- come united with his every breath and heart-beat. Throughout the narrative, the strannik is focused on the Jesus Prayer, and tells of his search for true prayer, his frustra- tion with conventional teaching, his wanderings, and his failed

as Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. The second half of the century saw radical social reforms. Prior to 1860, nearly half of the Russian population lived in serfdom. The events depicted in The Way of a Pilgrim are believed to have occurred during the reign of Tsar Alexander II (1855–1881), who liberated the serfs in 1860. The lack of evidence in text of the great social upheaval brought about by this change suggests that the events portrayed were not likely to have happened much after 1860. See Pokrovsky, The Way of a Pilgrim, 4. 7 According to Vernitski (“The Way of a Pilgrim,” endnote 4, p. 121), “elders are people of spiritual authority established not by the Church hierarchy but by popular consent. They were usually priests or monks, but their status did not depend on their role within the Church, thus making them purely a popular phenomenon.” Cf. Pierre Pascal, The Religion of the Russian People, trans. Rowan William (London: Mowbray, 1976). 8 The Dobrotoliubiye is the Slavonic translation of the Greek – a collection of quotations and references from earlier texts of Patristic and Byzantine spirituality. This translation was written by Païssy Velitchkovsky in 1793. For the English translation, see The Philokalia: The Complete Text, compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth, trans. and eds. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, 4 vols. (London and Boston: Faber, 1979–95). “Dobrotoliubiye” will be used throughout this article when referring to the Philokalia, and all quotes refer- ring to this collection will be from this English translation. 9 The “Jesus Prayer” is a term of convenience in Byzantine spirituality which designates the invocation of the name Jesus, whether alone or inserted into a more or less extended formula. See Lev Gillet (“A Monk of the Eastern Church”), The Jesus Prayer (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 21. 528 Suzette Phillips

attempt to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Of particular interest is the strannik’s depiction of the many people and trials that he encounters along his journey. Ordinary circum- stances of daily life come to be points of departure for prayer and divine theophanies for him and others.10 Whether the strannik comes across a peasant, civil servant, or landowner, he is able to find someone who shares his longing for ceaseless prayer. The work itself is comprised of two parts. The first part – The Way of a Pilgrim – consists of four tales that relate to various aspects of the strannik’s journey. The second part – The Pilgrim Continues His Way – is comprised of three further tales (the first of which is very similar in style to the original four, while the latter two take the form of dialogues between the strannik and several other characters). The first part is more simplistic in its presentation, while the second part – with its more theological presentation – lacks the naïveté and charm of the first tales. It is the first part that is of interest here.

2. Theories about its Authorship

Traditionally, The Way of a Pilgrim was considered to be an anonymous work written by an uneducated strannik living in Russia during the middle of the nineteenth century, likely in the years 1853–1861. It was thought that the tales were of his real-life experiences, which had initially been transmitted oral- ly and were later recorded by monks of Mount Athos in Greece.11 In recent years, however, historians have questioned this belief. New evidence suggests that The Way of a Pilgrim was written by an educated churchman as a theological and literary text, rather than an autobiography. Various scholars have proposed several possible indivi- duals as the work’s author. In the introduction to a new

10 Richard Byrne, “Journey (Growth and Development in Spiritual Life)” in The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, ed. Michael Downey (Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1993), 573. 11 Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 4. The Way of a Pilgrim 529

Russian translation of The Way of a Pilgrim,12 Father Superior Tikhon, Bishop Feofan Zatvornik, Saint Amvrosii Optinskii, and Archimandrite Mikhail are suggested as possible authors.13 In Aleksei Pentkovsky’s highly regarded historical critical analysis of the work published in 1999, he claims that the writing of the earliest version (the Optino version) of the first four tales is actually the work of two specific monks.14 According to Pentkovsky, the first author of The Way of a Pilgrim is “Archimandrite Michael,” or Michael Kozlov (1826–1884). Michael was the author of “The Seeker of Un- ceasing Prayer,” a work which is now lost. He had originally been an “Old Believer”15 who converted to Orthodoxy, and spent much of his life as a missionary among the Old Ritua- lists. The Old Ritualist background is significant, as the phe- nomenon of wanderers or stranniks – the background of The Way of a Pilgrim – was particularly characteristic of the per- secuted Old Ritualist sect. Pentkovsky claims that the second author was Arsenii Treopol’sky (1804–1870). Like Michael, Arsenii was a wan- derer who spent much of his life traveling between monaste- ries. Pentkovsky suggests that Treopol’sky used and supple- mented Michael’s work. The “strannik” therefore, according to Pentkovsky, was a real person, or rather two real people – Arsenii Treopol’sky and Michael Kozlov – who lived as wanderers in the middle years of the nineteenth century.

12 Otkrovennye rasskazy strannika dukhovnomu svoemu ottsu (Russia: Izdanie Sretenskogo monastyria, 2000). 13 Ibid., 3–4 (referenced in Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 4). 14 See The Pilgrim’s Tale, ed. Aleksei Pentkovsky, trans. T. Allan Smith (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 1–46. 15 An “Old Believer” (also known as “Old Ritualist”) or in Russian a Starover, was a member of a group of Russian religious dissenters who refused to accept the liturgical reforms imposed upon the Russian Orthodox Church by the patriarch of Moscow Nikon (1652–58). Numbering millions of faithful in the seventeenth century, the split into a number of different sects, of which several survived into modern times. 530 Suzette Phillips

3. History of the Publication of the Text

The history of the published version of The Way of a Pilgrim is complex. First printed in Kazan in 1881 by Archi- mandrite Paisii Sarovskii, several editions of the work fol- lowed within a short period of time. A fourth edition was published in Moscow by 1884. In 1911, The Pilgrim Con- tinues His Way – likely the work of a different author – became available in print. According to Pentkovsky, Treopol’sky’s version was the basis of the first 1881 publication.16 This published version is believed to have been edited by monk Paisii Fedorov who supplemented Treopol’sky’s text from another of his works entitled a “Candid Missive of an Eremitic Anchorite to his Elder and Mentor in Interior Prayer.”17 The standard 1884 fourth edition of The Way of a Pilgrim is believed to owe something to the editorial work of Saint Theophan the Recluse. In this version, the role of the spiritual father is heightened, and the Dobrotoliubiye is emphasized. It is the 1884 publication of The Way of a Pilgrim that was translated into English by R.M. French in 1930. According to Pentkovsky, the three further tales published in 1911 – The Pilgrim Con- tinues His Way – are also in part indebted to Treopol’sky.18

4. The Way of a Pilgrim in Eastern Christian Spirituality

The Way of a Pilgrim is situated within the hesychast tra- dition of Eastern Christian spirituality.19 refers to

16 It was first published in Russia under the title Otkrovennye rasskazy strannika dukhovnomu svoemu ottsu. 17 Smith, The Pilgrim’s Tale, 21. 18 Andrew Louth, “Book Review: The Pilgrim’s Tale,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 46 (2002): 402–03. 19 Philip Sherrard, “The Revival of Hesychast Spirituality,” World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest – Christian Spirituality III: Post-Reformation and Modern, eds. Louis Dupré and Don E. Saliers in collaboration with John Meyendorff (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989), 417–31. While hesychasm is characteristic of the spirituality of the Eastern Christian Churches (see Petro B.T. Bilaniuk, “Eastern Christian Spirituality” in The New Dictionary of Catholic Spiritua- lity, ed. Michael Downey [Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1993], The Way of a Pilgrim 531

a form of spirituality that focuses on the attainment of personal perfection by union with God through perpetual prayer.20 The word itself is derived from the Greek hēsychia (“quiet” or “stillness”). Hesychasm is comprised of four essential and distinguishing elements: devotion to the name of Jesus, sor- row for sin, the discipline of frequent repetition, and a non- discursive, imageless prayer leading to inner silence.21 Though the word hesychasm does not appear in The Way of a Pilgrim, it is the form of spirituality depicted throughout the story. The strannik learns, lives, and gradually exemplifies he- sychasm as he both practices the Jesus Prayer and studies hesychasm’s central text, the Dobrotoliubiye. The strannik’s goal is that of hesychastic and contemplative prayer: know- ledge of and union with God.22 Throughout The Way of a Pilgrim, the strannik practices and teaches others about the Jesus Prayer, which is at the very heart of hesychasm.23 A form of mental prayer “performed by the mind in the heart,”24 the Jesus Prayer has primarily been used by contemplatives who have given themselves to the “remembrance of God” unceasingly and in all things.25 These persons adopt its prayerful repetition as a way of life. Gradually, the prayer comes to speak continually to them within their own unconscious mind and affects their every response – conscious and unconscious. Their intent in praying the Jesus Prayer is to be lead back to their original, unfallen nature as made in the image of God;26 their hope is that selfless

329), it cannot claim to be the only “Orthodox” mysticism, which has always taken varied forms. Nonetheless, it holds a place of high regard. 20 David Hester, The Jesus Prayer – A Gift from the Fathers (Ben Lo- mond, CA: Conciliar Press, 2001), 6. 21 Ronald J. Zawilla, “Hesychasm,” in The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, 471. 22 Pokrovsky, The Way of a Pilgrim, 18. 23 Grace A. Brame, “The Prayer of Jesus and Its Relationship to Hesy- chasm and Orthodox Spirituality,” The Patristic and Byzantine Review 5 (1986): 48. 24 Païssi Velitchkovsky as quoted in Ignatius Brianchaninov, On the Prayer of Jesus, trans. Father Lazarus (London: John M. Watkins, 1965), 47. 25 Brame, “The Prayer of Jesus,” 48. 26 Ibid. 532 Suzette Phillips

love is able to so increase that their contemplation becomes “the utmost exercise in charity.”27 Through use, the Jesus Prayer addresses three keys of Eastern Christian spirituality as emphasized in the Dobrotoliu- biye. These include: “purification from the Fall, meditation on divine realities, and divinization,” theōsis, or “resurrection to an original God-like state.”28 Brame notes that “each of these is respectively dependent upon genuine penitence, the practice of the “remembrance of God,” and receptivity to the transformative work of the Holy Spirit.”29 With its inclusion of these three elements, some maintain that the Jesus Prayer is so important to the Orthodox that it can replace all other pray- ers.30

5. The Way of a Pilgrim in the Modern Western World

The Way of a Pilgrim has been instrumental in the disco- very of the hesychast tradition in the intellectual life of the modern Western world and the work has been acknowledged for the subtle ways in which it opens up and depicts hesy- chasm in an accessible and inspiring way. An interest in, and appreciation of, hesychasm in the Western world passed through two major stages. The first stage occurred over the last century and involved the redisco- very of the writings of the Greek patristic tradition initially by Roman Catholic scholars. Central to this stage was the pub- lication and exploration of patristic texts largely related to hesychasm and the hesychast way of life. The second stage was marked by the “descholasticization” and “dehistoriciza- tion” of hesychasm, and the recognition of hesychasm as a

27 Lev Gillet (“A Monk of the Eastern Church”), Orthodox Spirituality: An Outline of the Orthodox Ascetical and Mystical Tradition (Crestwood, N.Y: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), 30. 28 Philip Sherrard, Athos, Holy Mountain (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1982), 160, as quoted in Brame, “The Prayer of Jesus,” 49. 29 Brame, “The Prayer of Jesus,” 49. 30 Lorenzo Scupoli, Unseen Warfare, ed. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, trans. E. Kadloubovsky and G.E.H. Palmer (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1983),158. The Way of a Pilgrim 533

living tradition that permeates every aspect of the inner life of the Church. The translation of The Way of a Pilgrim into western European languages (German in 1925, French in 1928, and English in 1930) led to the second stage of the discovery of hesychasm. It came as a revelation to a West in which the split between abstract theology and individualistic “mysticism,” gnosis and eros, knowledge and method, had undermined the contemplative tradition, and in which many were beginning to turn to the non-Christian religions of the East for guidance. The Way of a Pilgrim made the hesychast tradition acces- sible to a modern Western readership in several ways. First, it presented the practice of the hesychast way of life and the Jesus Prayer in a context not limited to monastics, nor to the past. Hesychasm was rather portrayed as being understandable to contemporary persons of various ages and walks of life, all of whom were able to practice unceasing prayer. Second, the strannik’s possession and love of the Dobrotoliubiye, as well as frequent reading from and study of it, introduced its readers to a spiritual treasure-trove. George Maloney has suggested that the Dobrotoliubiye has perhaps had the greatest influence after the Bible in keeping alive the traits typical of Russian spirituality.31 The Way of a Pilgrim was perhaps the first in- timation of and introduction to the “secret science” (kryptē meletē) of prayer and spiritual wisdom detailed in the Dobro- toliubiye. The Dobrotoliubiye consists of a series of texts that together constitute a manual, guide, and companion to the hesychast prayer of the heart and the following of the hesy- chast way. The strannik regarded his copy of the Dobrotoliu- biye with a reverence usually reserved for the Bible alone. It appeared to explain, step-by-step, the stages of the mysterious spiritual journey on which the strannik had embarked, and to lay down the guidelines as to how these stages were to be traversed. In many ways, the characters in The Way of a Pil- grim, and especially that of the strannik, offer an accessible

31 Smith, The Pilgrim’s Tale, x. 534 Suzette Phillips

portrayal of the spiritual life and journey as set forth within the more complex texts of the Dobrotoliubiye. The Dobrotoliubiye’s influence on the piety and cultural world of Russia in the nineteenth century is reputed to have been extensive. The works of Dostoevsky, to go no further, testify to this. The significance of hesychasm as a whole was initially acknowledged with the of Gregory Pala- mas (1296–1359), its great theological defender; and then again in 1988, when, on the occasion of the millennium of Rus’ Christianity, the translators of the Dobrotoliubiye and proponents of hesychasm (Paisii Velichkovsky [1722–1794], Ignatius Brianchaninov [1807–1867], Theophan the Recluse [1815–1894]), the starets Amvrosy of Optino, and modern hesychast Silouan, were canonized. The Way of a Pilgrim began appearing in the libraries of English-speaking North Americans following its translation into English in 1930 by R.M. French.32 Since then, it has remained constantly in print and has enjoyed a growing readership. One of the biggest surges in the book’s popularity came with the publication of J.D. Salinger’s best-selling novel Franny and Zooey33 in 1961. (Franny Glass, one of the no- vel’s principal characters, is obsessed with the Way of a Pil- grim and with the practice of the Jesus Prayer). Since the 1960s, four different English translations have appeared, the most recent being in 1999 and 2001.34 Re- publication of an earlier translation by Olga Savin took place

32 See The Way of a Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues His Way, trans. R.M. French (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). 33 J.D Salinger, Franny and Zooey (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1991). 34 Pokrovsky, The Way of a Pilgrim (2001); The Way of a Pilgrim and a Pilgrim Continues on His Way, trans. Olga Savin (Boston, MA: Sham- bhala Publications, Inc., 1991, 1996, 2001); Smith, The Pilgrim’s Tale (1999); The Way of a Pilgrim: And the Pilgrim Continues His Way, trans. Helen Bacovcin (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1978; Doubleday and Company, 1992); The Way of a Pilgrim: And the Pilgrim Continues His Way, trans. R.M French (Milwaukee, WI: Morehouse Publishing, 1931; NY: Harper, 1954; NY: Seabury Press, 1965, 1975; SanFrancisco: Harper, 1991; Pasadena, CA: Hope Publishing House, 1989, 1993; London: Triangle/SPCK, 1986). The Way of a Pilgrim 535

in 2001,35 while a year previously a “reader’s guide” providing commentaries on the text made its way to the book shelves.36 A re-publication of an earlier work by Fedotov was released in 2003.37 Numerous publishing houses and bookstores carry the work in every format possible from soft cover pocket-sized to audio-book. In addition to its appearance in text form, The Way of a Pilgrim has certainly found its way into the fabric of North American society in a variety of other ways. A reading of the narrative over eight segments aired on Radio Canada in 1986 on a program entitled Second Regard.38 As well, retreats have been developed around it,39 plays have been enacted, and novels that include mention of The Way of a Pilgrim have been written.40 In today’s globally-linked Internet society, a search for the book’s title will yield hundreds of hits pointing to web sites of a spiritual nature – Christian (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant), Jewish,41 Hindu, Buddhist, and those focused on

35 When asked reasons for re-printing The Way of a Pilgrim, James Yu of Shambhala Publications indicated that it “continues to sell steadily.” (E- mail correspondence on 26 February 2003 from James Yu, Editorial Assistant, Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA.) 36 Dennis J. Billy, The Way of the Pilgrim: Complete Text and Reader’s Guide (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 2000). 37 G.P. Fedotov, The Way of a Pilgrim and Other Classics (Dover Publications, 2003). 38 E-mail correspondence on March 7, 2003 from Denise Sicard, Chef, recherche et service à la clientele, Service documentation et archives, Société Radio-Canada, Montréal, QC, Canada. 39 Kerry Walters, A Retreat with Brother Lawrence and the Russian Pilgrim – Praying Ceaselessly (Cincinnati, OH: St Anthony Messenger Press, 2000). 40 Ronald E. Boutelle, Abandoned (CyberSubsidiary, 1999), at http:// www.cedarpost.com/0001ab/default.htm.). See also Richard Seltzer, The Name of Hero, http://www.samizdat.com/hero15.html. 41 In 1999, Robert Leiter, literary editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, wrote a book review in which he related his impression of the impact of Salinger’s Franny and Zooey and The Way of a Pilgrim within the Jewish community in the late ‘50s and ‘60s. He claimed that reading The Way of the Pilgrim led youth of Jewish decent off on their own religious quests, clutching copies of The Way of the Pilgrim or Siddharta – anything that took them away from Judaism. He then expressed hope that the publication of Jewish Matters might turn the table around. Jewish Matters is a collection of essays about the Jewish faith. It is considered by Leiter to be 536 Suzette Phillips

inter-religious dialogue – as well as to generally non-religious sites. Internet newsgroups and online forums also contain countless threads of discussions on The Way of a Pilgrim. Recent popular reviews of The Way of a Pilgrim have spoken very favorably of the work. Needleman, e.g., author of Lost Christianity, says that it is “one of the most influential spiritual books of the last hundred years. It is one of those rare books that can make a difference in a person’s life”42 because “it cannot help but inspire the prayer-life of its readers.”43 Interest in The Way of a Pilgrim is also evident at acade- mic and scholarly levels. In recent years, the work has been taught in various academic institutions from high school through university.44 Additionally, prominent popular writers and intellectuals have acknowledged this Russian classic in

“The Way of a Pilgrim” for the 1990s. It was Leiter’s expressed hoped that young people might hold fast to Jewish Matters as they set out on their religious quests. He even posited that if this very portable paperback had existed in the ‘60s, perhaps many protracted searches for the “light of Truth” might have been shortened or avoided completely. See Robert Leiter, “Jewish Matters – ‘The Way of a Pilgrim’ for the 90s,” Jewish World Review 21 (Dec. 30, 1999), http://www.targum.com/reviews/JewishMatters- review.html. See also Doron Kornbluth, ed., Jewish Matters: A Pocketbook of Knowledge and Inspiration (Israel: Targum/Feldheim, July 1999). 42 See http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/subject/hd/fak7/hist/o1/logs/byzans -l/log.started960610/0388.html. 43See http://hallmemoirs.com/index.php/Mode/product/AsinSearch/038 5468148/name/The_Way_of_a_Pilgrim_and_the_Pilgrim_Continues_His_ Way_A_New_Translation/browse/2374/page/1. 44 E-mail correspondence on March 3, 2003 from Professor Ted Bobosh of the University of Dayton who used The Way of a Pilgrim in introductory course on religion: http://academic.udayton.edu/TedBobosh/rel103.html. Further correspondence, on March 5, 2003, from Professor Scott Kenworthy of Miami University, who noted that he has used The Way of a Pilgrim in both his graduate seminar on Russian Religious Thought and also in a course on Religion in Russian History and Culture (http://casnov1.cas.muohio. edu/havighurstcenter/kenworthy/religthought.pdf). On March 4, 2003, James Tautkus indicated to me that in 1999–2000 he used The Way of a Pilgrim with high school students in grades 9–12: see http://home.neo.rr.com/ pmonest/waypilg.pdf. Finally, Dr. Kelley Raab of St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, also uses The Way of a Pilgrim in a course entitled “Contemporary Christian Thought:” http://web.stlawu.edu/relstudies/ christian.htm. The Way of a Pilgrim 537

their writings. These include persons such as Elisabeth Behr- Sigel,45 Louis Bouyer,46 Paul Evdokimov,47 Lev Gillet,48 Iré- née Hausherr,49 Andrew Louth,50 George Maloney,51 John Meyendorff,52 Susan Muto,53 Henri Nouwen,54 Tomáš Špid- lík,55 and Kallistos Ware.56 The reception and popularity of The Way of a Pilgrim in the North American context has led Elizabeth Behr-Sigel, a prominent Orthodox theologian, to comment:

it is impossible to enumerate all the … translations and re-publications of the Pilgrim that have appeared in

45Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “The Way of the Pilgrim,” in The Place of the Heart: An Introduction to Orthodox Spirituality, trans. Steven Bigham (Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1992), 113–20. 46 Louis Bouyer, Orthodox Spirituality and Protestant and Anglican Spirituality: The Orthodox Renaissance in Greece and Russia, trans. Barbara Wall (London: Burns & Oates, 1969), 52–53. 47 Paul Evdokimov, Ages of the Spiritual Life. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998). 48 Lev Gillet, The Jesus Prayer;On the Invocation of the Name of Jesus. 49 Irénée Hausherr, The Name of Jesus, trans. Charles Cummings (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1978); Hésychasme et prière (Roma: Pont. Institutum orientalium studiorum, 1966); La méthode d’orai- son hésychaste (Roma: Pont. Institutum orientalium studiorum, 1927). 50 Louth, “Book Review: The Pilgrim’s Tale,” 400–03. 51 George A. Maloney, Prayer of the Heart (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1981). 52 John Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, trans. Adele Fiske (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 166– 68. 53Susan Muto, “The Way of Ceaseless Prayer,” in Steps Along the Way – The Path of Spiritual Reading (Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1975), 134–67. 54 Henri J.M. Nouwen, “Prayer – Unceasing,” in The Way of the Heart (New York, NY: Ballatine Publishing Group, 1991), 66–68. 55 Tomáš Špidlík, The Spirituality of the Christian East: A Systematic Handbook, trans. Anthony P. Gythiel (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publica- tions, 1986), 315–25. 56Kallistos Ware, “Ways of Prayer and Contemplation: I. Eastern,” in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century (World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest), eds., Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff (New York, 1985), 16: 395–414; “‘Pray Without Ceasing’: the Ideal of Continual Prayer in Eastern Monasticism,” Eastern Churches Review 2 (1969): 253–61. 538 Suzette Phillips

nearly every Western language. How can we explain the unforeseen success of a work that, though it is moving, appeared to be destined for a limited circle of people who had specific cultural interests? In our time of so-called unbelief, the extent of the work’s success certainly constitutes a puzzling spiritual phenolme- non.57

While The Way of a Pilgrim is not the ultimate summation of the Eastern Christian spiritual tradition, it certainly has had a significant impact on the modern Western world and holds a prominent place within the hesychast tradition of Eastern Christian spirituality. As a spiritual classic, it has a striking power.

6. Intertextuality of The Way of a Pilgrim

To begin to understand the power of The Way of a Pilgrim, we must, of course, study the text itself, beginning with its intertextuality.58 Intertextuality evident in The Way of a Pil- grim has been discussed by Jaroslav Pelikan59 and Leonard Stanton.60 Of particular note is Stanton’s discussion. He indicates that three authorial levels are evident in The Way of a Pilgrim: scriptural, patrological, and contemporary. Of the approximately 3,978 lines of the originally published text of the first four tales, Stanton indicates that about 1.3% are scriptural; 3.1% are patrological; and the remaining 95.6% are contemporary. Of the lines noted to be at the contemporary level, 288 or 7.2% of the whole text is comprised of quotations from the strannik’s starets, who is the strannik’s living link to

57 Behr-Sigel, The Place of the Heart, 124. 58 The abstract term for the habit, characteristic of Eastern Christian spirituality and theology, but by no means confined to it, of constructing a treatise by stringing together quotations and references from earlier sources. 59 See Smith, The Pilgrim’s Tale, ix–x. 60 Leonard J. Stanton, “Three Levels of Authorship in The Way of a Pilgrim,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33 (1989): 221–34. The Way of a Pilgrim 539

the Fathers and to Scripture. The remaining 88.4% of the overall text is the strannik’s own narrative.61 Stanton suggests that the dominance of the strannik’s nar- rative over scriptural and patristic texts goes beyond percent- tages. Its authority is dependent on the narrative’s agreement with Scripture and the Tradition of the Fathers – an agreement that makes the strannik an Orthodox writer. This dominance of the strannik’s narrative also provides an example of the value of the process of prayer over the privilege normally attached to the work of prayer or even of Scripture. The praying strannik – by his personal, practical commu- nion with the realized eschatology of the Incarnate Word – enjoys proximity to Jesus comparable to that of the evangelists or the Fathers. Inasmuch as he is an adept practitioner of prayer of the heart, he has authority. Stanton notes that privi- lege in this way devolves to the person of the strannik who, in his deification, is perhaps the finest nineteenth century literary example of Russian kenotic Christianity. The strannik be- comes an icon of the eschatological reality of Christ, whose energies are not distanced by time and space.

7. Literary Analysis of The Way of a Pilgrim

The Way of a Pilgrim is noted to be both a narrative in the genre of Russian spiritual literature62 and a Russian literary text63 from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Much of

61 Stanton notes that these percentages are based on Part One of the most complete version of the text available (YMCA Press, 3rd ed., 1948; 4th ed., 1973); Part One of that text corresponds to the original 1884 edition. Some sections of the longer text (YMCA, 1973, pp. 118–81) are editorial addenda comprised almost exclusively of patrological instructions on prayer; these are not included in R.M. French’s translation. Other parts of chapters five through the end have transcriptions of long quotations from instructional works on prayer read by the holy men whom the strannik visits. Because Stanton’s immediate concern is the integration of scripture and patrology into the strannik’s narrative, the percentages in chapters 1–4 were deemed sufficient to illustrate his point. (See Stanton, “Three Levels of Authorship in The Way of a Pilgrim,” footnote 2, 222). 62 Cherry Sonderer, “Book Review: The Pilgrim’s Tale,” Anglican Theological Review 82 (2000): 831. 63 Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 113–22. 540 Suzette Phillips

the work’s literary structure has been analyzed and explained by Anat Vernitski64 in her comprehensive and convincing research.65 Vernitski’s close textual analysis of several pas- sages offers the reader a taste of the work’s literary qualities, including its structure, motifs, and literary devices. Her analy- sis demonstrates that The Way of a Pilgrim is a literary text written with artistic devices in mind, rather than the simple tale of a strannik. Moreover, her study concludes that, in addition to being theological in nature and dealing with spiritual experience, The Way of a Pilgrim is also an accomplished literary work – in fact, one of the finest examples of Russian nineteenth century skaz.66 To connect the four stories comprising The Way of a Pilgrim, the author has relied on the character of the strannik, and the themes of religious wandering and perfection of prayer. These elements give the work cohesiveness. The protagonist-narrator – the strannik – is a specific character with a unique personality who conveys the wisdom of the Fathers of the Church to the reader. The strannik’s character and the themes are transmitted through the strannik’s many monologues as well as through his dialogues with various characters he meets on his journey. Both the dialogues and monologues are written in a pseudo-folk style resembling oral speech.

64 Dr. Anat Vernitski is the Research Officer in Russian Culture from the Department of Linguistic, Cultural and International Studies School of Arts University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK. Vernitski presented a paper entitled “‘The Way of a Pilgrim’: Literary Analysis of a Religious Text” in March 2002 at the Religion in Russia and Eastern and Central Europe Study Group Workshop: Religious and Spiritual Themes in Russian Cultural History. 65 Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 113–22. 66 Ibid., 114. For summaries of the history of skaz theories, see I.R. Titunik, “The Problem of Skaz (Critique and Theory),” in Papers in Slavonic Philology I: In Honor of James Ferrell, ed. Benjamin A. Stoltz (Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Slavonic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan, 1977), 276–301; and Peter Hodgson, “More on the Matter of Skaz: The Formalist Model,” in From Los Angeles to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev September 1983, ed. Vladimir Markov and Dean S. Worth (Columbia, OH: Slavica, 1983), 119–54. The Way of a Pilgrim 541

Vernitski argues and demonstrates that such a narrator is characteristic of the skaz,67 and is therefore in the genre of Russian spiritual literature, as well as that of Russian letters generally. Of Russian origin, the term “skaz,” derived from skazat, literally means “tale,” “speech,” “to relate,” “to tell.”68 While not an exclusively Russian or Slavic phenomenon – as the examples of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Ring Lardner’s “Haircut,” and Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye”69 in English literature show – the skaz was first noted and analyzed by the Russian Formalists.70 In identifying The Way of a Pilgrim as a skaz, Vernitski convincingly elevated this classic “from the position of a naïve monologic narrative by a real-life strannik to that of a sophis- ticated literary work which engages with the artistic interest of such mainstream nineteenth-century writers as Gogol71 and Leskov72” – both of whom employed an individualized narra- tor of a story in a style resembling the spontaneity and col- loquialism of oral speech.73

8. Narrative Structure and Use of Pilgrimage as a Root Metaphor

Jaroslav Pelikan notes that the special mixture of spiritual naïveté and speculative power in The Way of a Pilgrim owes some of its effectiveness to the narrative structure and to the organizing principle of the pilgrimage. He suggests that the use of pilgrimage as a root metaphor in this Russian classic is

67 Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 117. 68 See “skaz,” Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=137844. 69 See http://www.cx.unibe.ch/ens/cg/genres/pppn.htm. 70 Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 117. For summaries of the his- tory of skaz theories, see Titunik, “The Problem of Skaz (Critique and Theory),” 276–301; and Hodgson, “More on the Matter of Skaz,” 119–54. 71 For a further biographical sketch of Gogol, see “Nikolay (Vasilye- vich) Gogol” at http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gogol.htm. 72 The brilliance of Leskov’s narration transcended his frequent at- tempts to serve an idea. See translations of his tales by D. Magar, “Nikolai Semyonovich Leskov,” in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia at http:// reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/L/Leskov-N.html. 73 Vernitski, “The Way of a Pilgrim,” 117. 542 Suzette Phillips

closer to that of Bunyan74 or Comenius75 than to Chaucer.76 While acknowledging Chaucer’s unforgettable reflection that “many of our brother and sister pilgrims wander because they have nothing to do or because they are lazy,” The Way of a Pilgrim describes the journey of the soul to God in the lan- guage of the strannik’s journey to Jerusalem. Pelikan posits that The Way of a Pilgrim could well have closed with Bunyan’s words about Mr. Valiant-for-Truth: “So he passed over, and the trumpets sounded for him on the other side.”77

8. Conclusion

This article has explored various aspects of The Way of a Pilgrim including its authorship, history, and place within the Eastern Christian Spiritual tradition, its reception in the modern Western world, its inter-textuality, literary qualities, narrative structure, and use of pilgrimage as a root metaphor. It is hoped that this brief synopsis of research to date on this spiritual classic may provide the foundation for further research into this text and the spiritual phenomenon that revolves around it, not least because of this work’s pervasive and perduring power to evoke widespread interest among the spiritual seekers of our day.

® ® ® ®

74 John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (Signet Classic: 2002). 75 Howard Louthan et al, eds., John Comenius: The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart (Classics of Western Spirituality, no. 90) (Paulist Press, 1998). 76 Geoffrey Chaucer, Larry D. Benson, The Canterbury Tales: Complete (Houghton Mifflin College: 2000). 77 Jaroslav Pelikan, to The Pilgrim’s Tale, xi–xii.

Book Reviews

Editor’s Note

Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies is pleased to announce the addition of two new sections to the journal. In addition to our regular book reviews (and the occasional review essay), we are now offering our readers a “Briefly Noted” section that will run brief reviews of books for which we are otherwise unable to run a longer review for any number of reasons. Unless otherwise signed, these brief notices will be written by members of our editorial staff. External scholars, however, are encouraged to submit such notices also, taking care to note that these notices should be no longer than 350 words. These brief notices are ideal for books which are being reprinted after a long interval and deserve renewed attention or books whose interest to this journal is peripheral rather than direct.

In addition, as a service to scholars and readers, the “Books” section of Logos will now be carrying regular updates of books received both by this journal and also by the library of Saint Paul University, Ottawa, where the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies (publisher of this journal) makes its home. This library has Canada’s largest and most important collection of books in theology and related disciplines, and is one of the top theological libraries in North America. With the hiring of new specialists in Eastern Christian studies, the library now has the manpower to continue expanding its collection.

Publishers and authors should take note that if they send us a book, it will receive, at a minimum, mention on the “books received” list and, wherever possible, a longer review by a competent scholar. 544 Book Reviews

Lucian Turcescu, ed. Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Mo- dernity in Theology (Iaşi/Oxford/Portland/West Palm Beach: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2002). ISBN 973–9432– 29–8. 260+ pp.

Dumitru Stăniloae (1903–1993) is currently one of the most widely studied contemporary Orthodox theologians. In witness of this, one need only consider the large number of books published about him together with actual translations of his works in the last decade. In addition, several papers about his life and the ongoing relevance of his work were given in November 2005 at the annual gathering of the American Aca- demy of Religion in Philadelphia; many more papers about him continue to be published in learned journals. 2002, in addition to the work under review here, also saw the publication of Stăniloae’s Orthodox Spirituality: A Prac- tical Guide for the Faithful and a Definitive Manual for the Scholar (trans. Newville and Otilia Kloos [South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary Press; ISBN 1–878997–66–1]). While the subtitle sounds un- bearably pompous, we have it on good authority that the Ro- manian original, called simply Spiritualitatea ortodoxa, offers help to those who are battling the passions for the sake of achieving true knowledge of God. This is a very practical, vi- tal, and approachable treatment by a twentieth-century author who is nevertheless conversant with the entire neptic tradition of mystical ascent. In seeking an introduction to Stăniloae’s life and thought, this current book will be of especial help, containing as it does not only essays by nine specialists but also an introduction by the Canadian scholar Lucian Turcescu, one-time sessional lec- turer of the Sheptytsky Institute and now professor at Concor- dia University in Montreal. The book is divided into three sections with three papers in each: the first treats the patristic influences on Stăniloae and his own “neo-patristic synthesis”; the second treats his ec- clesiology and ecumenical views; and the last section treats the “modernity of Stăniloae’s theology.” Biographical sketches of the contributors – who include such prominent scholars as Book Reviews 545

Ronald Roberson and Andrew Louth – together with an index round out this collection. By no means the last word on the life, thought, or scholar- ly activity of Dumitru Stăniloae, this deceptively thin volume is in fact quite helpful in presenting the accomplishments of a man who (in the years leading up to his death in 1993) was on not a few occasions referred to as the greatest living Orthodox theologian. That is certainly a debatable title but what is not up for discussion is the immense significance that Stăniloae has for the Romanian Church in particular. Almost single-handedly, the young Stăniloae realized that the scholastic and rather arid type of theology that dominated most of nineteenth-century Orthodox thought needed to be replaced by something truly life-giving. It is for that reason that translators of Stăniloae’s monumental three-volume Dog- matic Theology, when publishing this work in English (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 1994), decided to rename it The Experience of God. It is precisely his emphasis on knowledge of God, humanity, and the world through experience rather than through ratiocination that is an expression of his effort to liberate Orthodox theology from the shackles of what Georges Florovsky called its “pseudo-morphosis,” an unhealthy Latin- ization in structure which sometimes even led to a Latinization in content. The reference to Florovsky is not coincidental: both men are associated with what has been subsequently termed the “neo-patristic synthesis” in contemporary Orthodox theology. One might associate Dumitru Stăniloae with promoters of thought of Gregory Palamas as well. Such names as John Meyendorff and Basil Krivocheine stand out in that regard. The fact is that Stăniloae copied out extensive passages of yet- unedited manuscripts of the writings of Palamas in the Biblio- teque Nationale at Paris. This allowed him to address ques- tions beyond the scope of the saint’s published works, which Krivocheine was limited to in his exposition. Perhaps it was the chance to come face to face with Palamas, along with an acute understanding of the Romanian Church’s position at the crossroads of the sociocultural map of Europe, constituting a Latin people with a majority Orthodox 546 Book Reviews

identity, that incited the man to pursue the publication of the Romanian Philokalia. This is far more than simply a transla- tion into Romanian of any one or all three of the more famous collections of neptic mystical writings, namely the Greek by Nicodemos the Hagiorite and Macarios of Corinth, the Old Slavonic by Paissy Velychkovsky, and the Russian by Theo- phan the Recluse. Stăniloae saw the work of Paissy Velychkovsky, the Ukrainian Athonite who moved to Moldavia and continued his work of compilation and translation there, as still alive in some way and therefore devised the project of a twelve-volume Philokalia. Beginning in 1946, and continuing for the next forty-five years until 1991, a scant two years before his falling asleep in the Lord, the story of this expanded project is aptly related in the present volume by Maciej Bielawski. It is no exaggeration to identify this massive work as a valuable key to the interpretation of Stăniloae’s theological maturation. The expansion of Bielawski’s article into a dissertation would make for a fascinating study. No less a scholar than Andrew Louth offers an analysis of Stăniloae’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology published in Bucha- rest in 1978 (the first volume of the English translation was noted above); the second volume was recently published in English as The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theo- logy, Volume Two: The World – Creation and Deification (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 2004). What was a three- volume work in Romanian is to be issued in six parts in English. Louth examines the sources of Stăniloae’s dogmatics and appreciates its broad patristic engagement, but at the same time laments the “little real engagement with Western theology … although there is a readiness to point out its deficiencies” (64). Louth further shows how Fr. Stăniloae’s theologizing holds the apophatic and the kataphatic in balance and characterizes his thought as “an exposition of doctrine that is more than a dis- cussion of propositions; it is rather an elucidation of a way of life.” It is therefore so appropriate that this volume includes a brief excerpt from the memoirs of Lidia Stăniloae, his only surviving child, which give us a glimpse into a particularly Book Reviews 547

moving moment of the great theologian’s life: his return from prison in 1964. Gheorghe Drăgulin offers a very brief study of the influ- ence of the Aeropagite on Stăniloae’s thought. He places Dio- nysius next to Palamas and Maximos the Confessor in the list of patristic authors who shaped Fr. Dumitru’s theological imagination. A section of the present volume devoted to ecclesiology and ecumenism allows us a glimpse of Stăniloae’s critique of Nicolas Afanasiev’s eucharistic ecclesiology from the pen of the editor of the present collection, Lucian Turcescu, who em- phasizes that Stăniloae goes further than the now-fashionable thought of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. Tur- cescu focuses on what he calls Stăniloae’s concept of “open sobornicity” in which the problem of not being able to share the Eucharist with everyone due to an awareness of the danger of indifferentism is balanced by an openness toward every theological system. As Turcescu puts it, “in the concept of ‘open sobornicity,’ every theological system is welcomed as offering some valid theological insight.” This, however, does not mean that all systems are equal. Each must be welcomed into an encounter of ecumenical discovery but the weaknesses of each must also be exposed. Thus, for Churches like the Orthodox and Catholic, which are not ready for eucharistic sharing with communities of the Reformation, a door is opened for furthering ecumenical understanding nevertheless. Himself an ecumenical activist and chronicler of especially East-West efforts at understanding, Ronald Roberson presents an article about Dumitru Stăniloae on Christian unity. Rober- son offers an extended reflection on several ideas which Stăniloae put forward as possible directions for ecumenists to follow. Readers would do well to pay attention to this section. For those familiar with the painstaking efforts of Roberson at recording significant events in the life of the various Eastern Churches in his often-revised The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey or his monthly newsletter published by the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interfaith Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the structure of the article is familiar and just as lucid. Roberson takes us through 548 Book Reviews

Stăniloae’s understanding of the fullness of the Orthodox Church and his evaluation of the position of the so-called Oriental Orthodox Churches (more properly known as non- or pre-Chalcedonian). Fr. Dumitru believed that full reconcilia- tion between the Orthodox who accepted Chalcedon and those who did not was a real possibility but that serious work needed to be done to demonstrate the fact that their Christologies were not opposed to each other and agreement needed to be sought on the question of the number and nature of ecumenical coun- cils. Next, Roberson probes Stăniloae’s pessimism with regard to Western Christianity, both Roman and Protestant. He saw Roman notions of papal authority as unilateral, exaggerated, and destructive of freedom. The Reformation, for Stăniloae, was in large measure a reaction, perhaps even an overreaction, to the authoritarian nature of Catholicism. When reading Stăniloae’s analysis of what he saw as the exaggerated Christocentrism of Western Christianity, one might have dif- ficulty differentiating his thought from that of Vladimir Lossky or a host of other Orthodox thinkers who allow themselves the luxury of reductionism around the doctrine of the filioque, which they see as the root of so many evils, all stemming from an inadequate appreciation of the Holy Spirit. Roberson shows how this concern with “filioquism” informs Stăniloae’s under- standing of grace, of the experience of God in the sacraments, and the insufficiently personal dynamics of episcopal and other authority in the Church. Roberson deserves special recognition for daring to uncover a rather mysterious chapter of the life of Stăniloae, himself a . With all of the nearly hagio- graphic literature that abounds these days surrounding the person of Fr. Dumitru, it is particularly difficult to understand how the man could be so blasé about the brutal suppression of what used to be the second-largest Eastern Catholic Church in the world, namely the Romanian Greco-Catholic Church. I had the unpleasant opportunity to pose this question to the late Fr. Dumitru during his visit to Chicago in the 1980s. At that time he seemed simultaneously repentant and unmoved by the fact that he had justified the oppression of these fellow Christ- Book Reviews 549

ians. Roberson mentions that Stăniloae never rescinded his simplistic explanation that the Romanian Greco-Catholics never really wanted to be administratively united with Rome but that this was a loyalty held only by their hierarchy. Per- haps we will never have a satisfying answer to the question of why a man who so eloquently defended the necessity of theo- logy being an expression of lived experience – or what the West likes to call “spirituality” – would sign his name to docu- ments that so clearly violate historical truth. But then perhaps only those who have undergone torture at the hands of militant atheists, whose human sensibilities were trampled by the hopelessness of a brutal regime that remained Stalinist long after Stalin was gone, could have any real insight into what human beings must do to survive when the bestial becomes daily life. Interestingly, the next article in this volume examines Stăniloae’s theology of ministry but also has some important things to say about ecumenism. Dănaţ Mănăstirenau sees Stăniloae in line with other Orthodox who regard papal prima- cy and infallibility as the central obstacles to Orthodox- Catholic reconciliation and offers this interesting piece of thought:

the Orthodox propose a return to the conciliar prin- ciple of the first millennium, while the Catholics are proposing a relatively new model of conciliar consen- sus, introduced at the in 1439, which tried to bridge the gap between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. The latter model admits the theoretical possibility of pluralism, as long as the for- mulations under discussion are complementary and not mutually exclusive. This approach could be applied for instance to the two understandings of the procession of the Holy Spirit. However, the pluralist model has not been accepted by the Orthodox, who insist on an ecumenical policy based on returning to the situation before the schism.

550 Book Reviews

While this author’s emphasis on complementarity seems to resonate with my own views on how Eastern Catholics can develop a theology that simultaneously takes seriously diver- gent Orthodox and Roman views, I am not sure that I under- stand exactly how this author interprets the Council of Flo- rence and whether or not a major correction of his interpreta- tion needs to be called for.1 The last section of the book invites the hope that a creative interpretation of Stăniloae’s theologizing will be presented, surpassing the mostly straightforward exposition of the pre- vious two sections. Like many of the other articles, Marc- Antoine Costa de Beauregard begins his “Le Cosmos et la Croix” by singing the praises of “un des plus grand théologiens de vingtième siècle.” The joining of a meditation on cosmolo- gical themes with an appreciation of the suffering of the Church would indeed be a promising endeavor and might reveal fruitful avenues for the enriching of Christian thought. The comparison of Lossky and Stăniloae by Silviu Eugen Rogobete’s article is a profitable exercise because the two thinkers are linked in the minds of many as foremost exposi- tors of the neo-patristic synthesis. What is especially helpful in this article is the analysis of how mystical life and Orthodox epistemology can only be understood together. The final piece by Emil Bartoş examines deification in Stăniloae’s thought from the perspective of the various theological disciplines. The aim of this article is to present deification in such terms that it might be seen by evangelical Christians as an acceptable, biblically based understanding of salvation that reflects the “reality of the Christian experience of the Holy Spirit and sanctification” and the optimism that the author sees as central characteristic of the earliest Church. While Stăniloae is criticized as relying too heavily on patristic sources and not enough on biblical ones, one is tempted to ask if the author is attempting to communicate Stăniloae’s theolo- gy/spirituality, which insists on experience, or his own dreams of what certain central Orthodox positions could mean to evan-

1 See my “Orthodox in Communion with Rome: the Antinomic Cha- racter of Eastern Catholic Theology,” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 39 (1998): 71–87. Book Reviews 551

gelicals were they only restated in the precise key that evan- gelicals demand. All in all, this slender volume is much weightier than it first appears, with a convenient place-marking ribbon attached to the hardcover binding that reminds one of liturgical books. Ironically, the most serious criticism of that can be leveled at Dumitru Stăniloae is that despite his astounding command of the patristic corpus delineated in the broadest possible way (as including authors potentially up to our own day), he seems to quote the lex orandi of the Orthodox theological tradition in an almost minimalist fashion. However, the ribbon is still a very handy addition for even though the articles are relatively brief, one might do well to relish them slowly, marking one’s place and returning to it in leisurely fashion rather than swallowing the book and its heavy contents whole; the result would surely be a case of theological indigestion. Congratulations to our former colleague of the Sheptystky Institute, Dr. Turcescu, for bringing together some insightful analyses of the father of modern Romanian theological thought.

Andriy Chirovsky Sheptytsky Institute, Ottawa

® ® ®

552 Book Reviews

Metamorphosis: The Transfiguration in Byzantine Theology and Iconography, by Andreas Andreopoulos. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY. 2005. ISBN: 0881412953. 286 pp.

The Transfiguration of Christ is an event that is important in the spirituality and theology of the Christian East and yet it has not received the attention it should have in either the East or the West. Such is the bold claim that begins this book by Andreas Andreopoulos, an academic whose research interests include patristics, iconography, and liturgical art. Andreopou- los is no stranger to academic journals and is currently a visi- ting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, in addition to having taught at several North American universities in the past. In this most recent offering, readers are taken through both the theology and iconography of the Transfiguration, from its earliest beginnings in patristic exegesis to the pinnacle of its theological development in hesychastic thought and practice; from simpler depictions in early Christian art to the hesychas- tic and ascetically influenced iconography of the later Middle Ages. What is at stake for him is that the Transfiguration is “one of the most captivating concepts of Christianity” and that which cannot be rivalled in “metaphysical splendour.” In fact, in this event in the life of Christ, he sees something which “encompasses and explicates core Christian beliefs.” Andreopoulos presumes neither too much nor too little of his readers. He begins his study with a succinct summary of the theology of the icon in the Eastern Churches, as well as the scriptural sources of the Transfiguration. After broaching these fundamentals, he takes us even deeper, looking at apo- cryphal sources and summarizing the key themes which appear in the Fathers of the Church about the meaning of the Trans- figuration: as an , a soteriological event, and as an eschatological event foreshadowing the resurrection and second coming of Christ. Readers are thus drawn into an awareness of the profound theological implications that are given to the Transfiguration as not only a manifestation of the glory of the Lord, but also a model for each and every Christ- Book Reviews 553

ian, a model for our own participation in the divine energies of God, which is to say, our deification or theosis. The primary focus of Metamorphosis is on the theology of the Fathers and the practice of the iconographers. After his presentation and analysis of the sources of Transfiguration theology, readers are given an in-depth look at the iconogra- phic elements of the Transfiguration icon as well as variations and developments that can be found within it through the cen- turies. In particular, this includes detailed studies of two rep- resentations of the Transfiguration: that of the church of Saint Apollinaris in Classe and that of the monastery of St. Cathe- rine in Sinai. Andreopoulos’s iconographic analysis especially considers the different types of “mandorla” and what the theo- logical emphasis of these different shapes might have been. For example, it is proposed that the round mandorla is more consistent with a narrative approach to this icon, which related to the Old Testament idea of the “shekinah” or tabernacle where God’s presence is. By comparison, the oval mandorla is interpreted as something that possibly found its original home within monastic communities, being an expression of luminance, which is related to and ascetical ascent. Of course, the mandorla is but one aspect of his discus- sion, though a particularly important one, which runs through- out the book. Other themes include a discussion of how , , and the apostles are positioned, as well as how Mount Tabor evolves in its depiction, from barely noticeable to strongly emphasized. Andreopoulos’s intent is to show the different theological strands and emphases that are to be found within the Transfiguration in relation to such elements, and, in so doing, to show us the richness and importance of it in Byzantine thought and art. In addition to this, Andreopoulos does an excellent job tying together strands of Church history, theology, and icono- graphy, thereby giving us a deeper contextual understanding. For instance, how did the iconoclastic heresy and the resulting elaboration and sophistication of the theology of the icon play a role? What theological factors led to the eventual promi- nence of the oval mandorla between the eleventh and four- 554 Book Reviews

teenth centuries? What of the growth of hesychasm and the popularization of the theology of light? Andreopoulos at- tempts to put the pieces of the puzzle together for his readers. As a result of the iconoclastic debates, the role and theology of the icon becomes substantially more defined and sophisticated. Through this process, the icon comes to be understood as not simply a catechetical tool by which to express biblical nar- ratives, but also an exegetical tool in which to expound upon the deeper theological meanings of these events. In other words, icons were no longer simply a visual means to get across a biblical story: they were theological expositions which also drew upon the Fathers and other theological sour- ces, expressing the hidden truths and meanings of such events not necessarily explicit in the scriptural narrative. This approach could not but profoundly influence the icon of the Transfiguration as well as other icons. Of course, the dominant exegesis would in turn be influenced by other fac- tors, not least the strong influence of monasticism in the Eastern Church during this time. For Andreopoulos, this is one possible explanation for the ascent of the oval mandorla as the more dominant form of this period, being that form which, he theorizes, is more ascetic and more closely related to theo- sis and the theology of light – something more fundamentally, but not exclusively, related to monastic life and pursuits. It is this kind of contextual approach and analysis of the interplay between history, theology, and iconography that Andreopoulos pursues throughout Metamorphosis and which offers to readers a far richer understanding and appreciation of Transfiguration theology and iconography. Andreoupoulos’s book is a true work of scholarship which posits not only the thought of others, but also his own. While some of his conclusions seem more convincing than others, they are nonetheless thought-provoking and a vehicle to draw us deeper into the profound mystery of the Transfiguration. The book itself is packed with endnotes, a comprehensive index and a bibliography, which is divided into primary and secondary sources. In addition, the book includes 24 black and white plates and 15 color plates, complete with a detailed in- dex specifically for these illustrations, thus giving readers Book Reviews 555

quick and easy access to the location and era of each. The full- page color plates are particularly useful as reference points to readers, and are essential aids to understanding the textual con- tent. As for that textual content, the book is not inaccessible to the general public, particularly to those accustomed to reading even a small measure of theology or who have a basic familia- rity with theological vocabulary. While it is certain that theo- logians will draw from this book the greatest depth of thought, there is no doubt that anyone who picks it up will walk away from Metamorphosis with their appreciation of the Trans- figuration deepened. In an age where even Christians can find themselves saturated by a lack of the sense of the supernatural and forgetfulness of the call to holiness, this book can serve to strengthen us as we strive to live out our Christian vocation.

Shawn Tribe London, Ontario

® ® ®

556 Book Reviews

David Bentley Hart. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthe- tics of Christian Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. 448 pp.

To review a work like this, either in the sense of “exa- mine” or of “evaluate,” is a tall order indeed. Paeans to both the author and to what could well prove to be his magnum opus have resounded from the pens of such luminaries as Geoffrey Wainwright in First Things (“Few, if any, other theo- logians could have written The Beauty of the Infinite,”) and William Placher in The Christian Century (“I can think of no more brilliant work by an American theologian in the past ten years”). An entire session of the American Academy of Reli- gion convention in Philadelphia in November 2005 was devo- ted to discussion of Hart and his “aesthetics of Christian truth.” And a cursory glance at the text itself will confirm that this Eastern Orthodox theologian’s thought merits the caveat which I once heard directed toward prospective readers of Plato: “No one understands him, who reads him once or quickly.” That said, for those who need further persuasion as to the value of engaging with this text, a few reflections from one who has done so may be of use. What strikes one immediately is the sheer volume of con- tent that Hart has sought to include in his book, which almost amounts to two books in one. The first and third parts, “Dio- nysius Against the Crucified” and “Rhetoric Without Reserve” respectively, together form a taxonomy and critique of post- modern philosophy and its influence on Western culture. Part I focuses on the critique of the Christian narrative proffered by Nietzsche, particularly as represented by the French theorist Gilles Deleuze (considered by Hart to be the former’s para- mount twentieth century successor), as well as the notorious Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard. Hart reserves the better part of his treatment of Heidegger for Part II, although the latter inevitably figures also in this first section, whose burden is to provide the conceptual backdrop against which the panorama of Hart’s own theology will unfold. The primary question at stake is whether or not Book Reviews 557

“Truth,” as an articulation of the reality of being, is inextri- cably bound up with violence. Through recourse to the work of the English philosopher- theologian John Milbank (of “Radical Orthodoxy” fame), Hart endeavors to show that, pace Nietzsche et al., the original cast of being is gratuitous: creation is not necessary, but is the gift of a God who is love. The truth of being, therefore, does not consist at root in the “will to power,” a wresting from a pri- mordial “sublime” of some illusory semblance of order which is then foisted violently, through force of argument, upon others. It is not essentially dialectical, but rhetorical: the ex- pression by God of His own inner beauty in the lineaments of the visible world, refracted in the unique particularity of the form of Christ. Hart attempts to invert the value placed by his interlocutors on the idea and experience of difference: what if, instead of disclosing the essential chaos of being, it were seen to manifest the latter’s archetypal capacity for beauty? Hart attributes to difference, as the potentiality of beauty, an eternal, positive significance deriving from its divine proto- type: the Trinitarian “dance” (perichoresis) of distinct person- hood within a common nature. Recourse to this “aboriginal” and “peaceful” difference, expressed in the gospel in its proc- lamation, on the one hand, of the essential goodness of crea- tion (with the corollary of evil’s ultimate non-existence), and, on the other, of the particular form of Christ, is the only way to eschew the postmodern account of phenomenological diversity (and its representation by knowledge) as essentially antagonis- tic. It is the only rationale for not mistrusting or withdrawing from the world but rather embarking on a poetic traversal of its own variegation, considered as an epiphany of God Himself. Hart asserts:

to know the world truly is achieved not through a positivistic reconstruction of its “sufficient reason,” but through an openness before glory, a willingness to orient one’s will toward the light of being, and to receive the world as a gift, in response to which the most fully “adequate” discourse of truth is worship, prayer, and rejoicing (132). 558 Book Reviews

While abjuring what he calls the “metaphysics of vio- lence,” Hart concedes that the history of philosophy has often witnessed the “violence of metaphysics”: the attempt to tota- lize knowledge within a system which stands above and apart from the particularity of phenomena and which serves to efface the latter in the service of its own clarity and coherence. Here he welcomes the hermeneutical shift in philosophy that has demonstrated how ideas cannot transcend their linguistic forms, and how, in consequence, one must pay attention to the particular, and see, in every attempt to systematize given “nar- ratives” of reality into a meta-narrative, but one more story. Hart finds in this shift an invitation to Christianity to rehearse its own particularity with renewed creative vigour and to recover the unique beauty of its own narrative. This is the burden of Part II of The Beauty of the Infinite. Drawing deeply from the wells of Pseudo-Dionysius and ’s speculative theology, and informed by the theological aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Hart con- tends that only the Trinity, as a conception of the Divine, is able at once to portray God as truly transcendent – a chief con- cern of the Neo-Platonist philosophical milieu of the early Church – and yet truly apprehensible: to do justice, as it were, to both the “God of Being” and the “God of Israel.” Because of the intrinsic otherness within the God of Christian Scripture, the differentiation of the world may be appreciated as truly communicative of Him:

Created difference “corresponds” to God, is analogous to the divine life, precisely in differing from God; this is the Christian thought of divine transcendence, of a God who is made inconceivably near in – whose glory is ubiquitously proclaimed by – creation’s infinity of difference from God (180).

The explication of this analogy, of the analogia entis, forms the core of The Beauty of the Infinite, particularly in the first part. The second part is more explicitly theological in a creedal sense, and here, in his “Dogmatica Minora,” Hart takes Book Reviews 559

up afresh the classical themes of the Trinity, creation, salvation and eschatology, and rethinks how it all “works.” His predilection for Saint Gregory of Nyssa notwithstan- ding, Hart’s theological horizons are not easily traceable along the lines of a particular confession. Hart’s Orthodox Weltan- schauung is strikingly fully orbed, his peripheral vision taking in much more than one might expect. Where else, for exam- ple, does one find an Eastern theologian interrogating Heideg- ger, and offering a bold but nuanced riposte to his highly influential “onto-theological” critique? Or expatiating upon the theological significance of the music of Johann Sebastian Bach as a paradigm of the infinite love of the Trinity reflected in the finitude of creation? Or contemplating soteriology via the theories of sacrifice of Réné Girard and Saint Anselm, and finding favour with the latter – as Hart also does with An- selm’s fellow scholastic, St. – and his Cur Deus Homo? Put together the philosophical curiosity of a Nicholai Berdyaev, the creative and rhapsodic style of a Paul Evdokimov, and the theological breadth and scholarly rigor of a Jaroslav Pelikan, and you will have an approximation of the intellectual stature of David Bentley Hart. As far as criticisms go, I have basically two: one regar- ding form, another, content. Hart states that his essay at- tempts, “with whatever obvious defects, the elaboration of a particular rhetorical idiom, an alternative style of address” (31). His poetic and prolix style may charm some but equally it may irk others. Hart has a proclivity for neologisms as well as unusual and (unless one is possessed of a mastery of Latin and Greek) not readily decipherable words. Have a robust dic- tionary at hand when reading this work. The Beauty of the Infinite is also perhaps unnecessarily dense and elliptical – Hart calls it “long and eccentric” and “often repetitive.” Many readers will be enervated, I suspect, by the labyrinthine arguments of Hart’s philosophical com- batants, presented as a foil to his own equally complex expostulations. Although Hart asserts that his initial task is to “describe a rhetoric free of violence, an opening of the dis- tance between selves that can span being without negation, privation, or strife, a rhetoric that show finite difference to 560 Book Reviews

belong – before all else – to an infinite display of blessings at peace with one another” (90), he spills much ink in dialectical conflict with his intellectual foes, whose distance and diffe- rence from him do not always appear as a display of blessings! Secondly, for an author who avers, as quoted above, that “the most fully ‘adequate’ discourse of truth is worship, prayer, and rejoicing” (132), it is odd to find hardly any men- tion of liturgy in the body of the text. True, Hart credits Byzantine worship and prayer as one of his chief inspirations (30), but the starting point for his Dogmatica Minora is the rather than the liturgical tradition per se. If the creed functions, as Hart claims, as “a kind of ‘phenomenology of salvation,’” surely it does so only within a given liturgical tradition where its affirmations are actually “put into play.” It would be interesting to know how Hart views the liturgy as such, which he confesses has helped him learn to love the beautiful. All in all, however, this book is a theological tour de force, worth ruminating upon – several times over if need be. For Eastern Christians in particular, I would suggest, it sets a new standard for scholarship. Hart’s manifestly catholic Orthodoxy is well-versed in the patrimonies of the West no less than the East, answering the philosophers of our day with a deliberation and sophistication equal to that of the other Cappadocian Gregory, “the Theologian.” David Bentley Hart’s example recalls this latter’s warning: “Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one” (Oration XXVII). Not to everyone indeed, but indubitably to this one.

Brian Anastasi Butcher Sheptytsky Institute, Ottawa

® ® ®

Book Reviews 561

Blessed Bishop Nicholas Charnetsky, C.SS.R., and Compa- nions: Modern Martyrs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, ed. John Sianchuk, C.SS.R. Ligouri, Missouri (2002). 112+ pp.

This is an important book. It is important because the story of the martyrs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church – until 1990 the largest underground religious body in the world – deserves to be widely told and remembered, and not only by and among Ukrainian Catholics, but by all people who must not be allowed to forget the ocean of blood poured out by the most murderous ideology ever to terrorize the face of the earth, Soviet Communism. This book poignantly witnesses to the mass slaughter of millions precisely by focusing on a few whose stories help to refute the ghastly boast of Stalin that “a million deaths is a statistic.” It is important to tell, and continually retell, these stories as a prophylaxis to human amnesia and the enduring dangers of despotism and totalitarianism. As Evelyn Waugh wrote in 1939 after a trip to Mexico in which Catholics were being killed and socialism was making alarming advances there and elsewhere in the shadow of the Soviet Union:

Civilization has no force of its own beyond what is given it from within. It is under constant assault and it takes most of the energies of civilized man to keep going at all. There are criminal ideas and a criminal class in every nation and the first action of every revo- lution, figuratively and literally, is to open the prisons. Barbarism is never finally defeated; given propitious circumstances, men and women who seem quite order- ly will commit every conceivable atrocity. The danger does not come merely from habitual hooligans; we are all potential recruits for anarchy. Unremitting effort is needed to keep men living together at peace.

We may continue to live in peace only by remembering the violence of the past, including the barbaric atrocities of Soviet Communism that snuffed out the four Ukrainian Catho- lic members of the Redemptorist order portrayed here. The 562 Book Reviews

book is divided into four chapters: one each for the bishops, Nicholas Charnetsky and Basil Vsevolod Velychkovsky, and one each for the priests, Ivan Ziatyk and Zenon Kovalyk. These four, together with twenty-four others, were beatified by the late Pope John Paul II during his historic visit to Ukraine in June 2001. After an extremely brief introduction, Bishop Nicholas is treated first. The chapter has clear photographs of many places in the bishop’s life together with photographs of the bishop himself at different points in his life. The change in the bishop, as seen in a photograph taken shortly before his death, can only be seen to be believed. The second chapter, devoted to Basil Velychkovsky, follows a similar pattern as the first, but this time with commendable “color.” Basil is not portrayed as a “clothes rack for virtues” – Cardinal Newman’s apt critique of typical hagiographies – but instead we are told of his early life, warts and all. Thus, e.g., we know that in seminary in Lviv (to which he had gone to escape the policy of mandatory celibacy in his home eparchy of Stanyslaviv) Basil liked to sneak out at night with his friends to smoke and drink – activities then heavily reprobated in seminarians but which, to this reviewer, seem innocent and unremarkable if one accepts Chesterton’s aphorism that “Catholicism is a thick steak, a frosted stout, and a good cigar.” Basil persevered in his vocation and, with God’s grace, became a formidable priest, boldly preaching at public litur- gies when forbidden to do so. Interrogated afterwards by the NKVD (the Ukrainian secret police), he revealed himself to be as wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove by the answer he gave, telling the authorities that he persisted in the “illegal” celebration because outsiders were saying the Soviets were enemies of religion, and Fr. Basil was simply proving them wrong. “I did it for the sake of your prestige and reputation” he slyly told the dumbfounded officers, who released him because he was too popular to detain. His arrest would come in the summer of 1945. In 1955, he was released and went to live in Lviv. In 1959, Fr. Basil was appointed a bishop but had to wait until 1963, upon Metropo- Book Reviews 563

litan ’s release, for episcopal ordination, performed secretly and hurriedly in a Moscow hotel room right before Slipyj was bundled onto a plane and exiled to Rome. Arrested again in 1969, Bishop Basil was released in January 1972, his health shattered, and was sent abroad, eventually coming to Winnipeg – at the invitation of the Canadian Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk – where he died on 30 June 1973. The third and fourth chapters, devoted to Fathers Ivan Ziatyk and Zenon Kovalyk respectively, are very brief. Fr. Ivan’s indictment (“Ivan Ziatyk … promotes the ideas of the Roman Pope of spreading the Catholic Faith among the nations of the whole world and of making all Catholics”) really stands in many ways as a summary judgment on all the martyrs mentioned in this book. In the end, it is clear that the Soviets – who also martyred many brave Orthodox clergy and laity, whose stories also must continue to be told – went after Eastern Catholics with an especial vengeance precisely because of their loyalty to the pope, who is the citizen of no man’s regime, the subject of no earthly ruler. Ziatyk was arrested, interrogated, and tortured many times. On Good Friday 1952, according to witnesses, he was assigned latrine duty. He spilled some water on the ground, giving the guard an excuse to beat him before pouring water all over him on a bitter Siberian day. The beatings and cold claimed his life in a prison hospital on 17 May 1952. Fr. Zenon is treated in the last chapter. Arrested by the NKVD in December 1940, he spent six months in jail where worked among the prisoners, administering the sacraments, leading prayer services, even blessing water on the feast of Theophany. In June 1941, with the Germans invading Galicia, the Soviet jailers shot most of the prisoners but they chose another death for Fr. Zenon: when the Germans entered the jail, they encountered “a priest crucified upon the prison wall, his abdomen cut open and a dead human fetus pushed into the wound.” After these four detailed chapters, there are two appendices to the book, the first listing twenty-five martyrs in total – including the aforementioned four – broken down into the categories of bishop (eight are mentioned), priest (thirteen), 564 Book Reviews

female religious (three), and layman (one). Some of these are well known (e.g., the , Leonid Feodorov, and the archimandrite, Clement Sheptytsky) but most are still obscure to Western readers and the extremely brief descriptions – only a couple of sentences for each – are too brief to allow them to come to life the way the four featured in the earlier chapters do. It is very much to be hoped that other books are in the works, covering these other martyrs and allowing their stories to be told, celebrated, and thus remembered by the Church universal. The second appendix is devoted to short, generic prayers to the martyrs. These unsatisfactory “insert-names-here” types of prayers need to be replaced by better texts, which will focus on individual martyrs and allow something of the individuality and particularity of each life to shine forth in the way, say, that the sketches in a typical synaxarion often do. Poets, liturgists, and musicians have an important opportunity here to compose, at the very least, troparia and kontakia for these martyrs, to say nothing of other liturgical texts. These are small flaws in an otherwise noteworthy book, which has commendably begun the important task of making known a few of myriad Christians in the twentieth century who, having washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, now intercede for the Church militant even as they enjoy their eter- nal reward. May this book also ensure that their memory is eternal.

Adam DeVille Sheptytsky Institute, Ottawa

® ® ®

Book Reviews 565

Peter Galadza, The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptysky (1865–1944). Orientalia Christiana Analecta 272 (Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Roma and Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Ottawa, 2004). 524 pp.

The author of this study, Peter Galadza, is the holder of the Kule Family Chair of Eastern at the Shep- tytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies at Saint Paul University, Ottawa. For a number of years, he has been at the forefront of the revival of liturgical studies in Ukraine. Both these facts give weight not only to the scholarly work that underpins this study, but also make the observations and judgments of the author of great importance to the future direc- tion of both the study and practice of liturgy for the emerging Greco-Catholic Church in Ukraine. From the purely scholarly point of view, Galadza’s use of material housed in the Central State Historical Archive in Lviv makes this publication an in- comparable tool for further research. The title of this book gives no clue as to the complexity of its content. The study, based on the doctoral dissertation of the author at the University of Toronto under the direction of the late Petro Bilaniuk, covers a broad spectrum of theology, liturgiology, international politics, and conflict within the Ukrainian Church. Although Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky occupies a central place in the history of the Church, and has been the subject of several scholarly investigations – for good or ill – many of the conditions and ideas discussed in this book from an historical perspective are still central to Eastern Catholic Church life today. The book, the last work to be edited by the formidable Robert Taft for the Orientalia Christiana Analecta series, is divided into two almost equal parts. Part 1 deals with Shep- tytsky’s theology and part 2 Sheptytsky’s liturgical work. In addition, there are five appendices consisting of three detailed schemata of works of Sheptytsky that touch on liturgical themes; historical maps of Ukraine; and Bishop Khomyshyn’s pastoral letter, “On Byzantinism.” This last document gives 566 Book Reviews

invaluable insight into several ongoing controversies within the Ukrainian Church. An in-depth study of Sheptytsky creates quite a few prob- lems. As the author himself points out:

my attempt at comprehensiveness raises the following question: As scholarship usually investigates the sig- nificant, of what value is comprehensiveness when large portions of Sheptytsky’s writings are simple paraphrases of standard post-Vatican I Catholic thought albeit tailored to the specificities of East Galician life?

However, as Galadza goes on to state: “Sheptytsky’s theo- logy deserves a full portrait because while he was not always a seminal thinker, he was usually a seminal ‘actor’ – especially in the Eastern European context” (p.118). Nevertheless, the problems do not stop there. Sheptytsky was a pastor and not an academic theologian. Although his writings grapple with the central themes of Christian thought, these themes are not presented in a systematic way. In order to deal with a collec- tion of writings that span over forty years, the author has imposed a loose thematic structure. This is not always satis- factory – as the author himself seems to acknowledge when he writes that “because our approach is thematic, pastorals written for poor immigrants will be studied alongside treatises inten- ded for clergy and theologians” (p. 120). Time and again it must be stated that Sheptytsky adopted the post-Tridentine approach to ecclesial and theological questions. The author does make comparisons between his subject and more or less contemporary Orthodox theologians, including, principally, Vladmir Soloviev (1853–1900) and Alexsei Khomiakov (1804–1860). Unfortunately, neither of these Russian thinkers was considered “mainstream” during his lifetime and to compare them with a hardworking, Jesuit- educated Greco-Catholic pastor is not very enlightening. This intellectual “over-stretching” is all the more noticeable as the author has under his hand a series of letters exchanged between Sheptytsky and Metropolitan Antony Kharpovitskii Book Reviews 567

(1863–1936), who is both more representative of nineteenth century Russian Orthodoxy and more likely to have been clo- ser to Sheptytsky’s theological level. Nevertheless, Galadza is clearly aware of the reality of Orthodox Church life in tsarist Russia and also the possibility of its influence in the formation of Sheptytsky’s theology. He offers an insightful critique of Sheptytsky’s limitations as a theologian and provides three reasons why Sheptytsky was not able to create a true Eastern Catholic theology. As Galadza writes:

at least three reasons suggest themselves: (a) The absence of, and the virtual impossibility of producing, distinctively Eastern Catholic theology before the Council (Vatican II); (b) Sheptytsky’s thoroughly Western training during a period still dominated by anti-Orthodox polemic; and (c) the Orthodox East’s own retention of scholastic, and more generally Western, categories during part of Sheptytsky’s life- time (pp. 237–38).

The second part of the book deals with Sheptytsky’s litur- gical work and is organized around his pastoral letters, over- sight of the production of new editions of liturgical books, and his participation in various synods. The author makes many comparisons between Sheptytsky’s thought and the Western liturgical movement, as well as several papal documents that deal with the liturgy. It would be interesting to compare Shep- tytsky’s concerns with those of Orthodox bishops living in post-tsarist Russia. The “Findings of the Diocesan Bishops on the Problem of Church Reform,” published by the Saint Petersburg Synod Press in 1906, contains many observations that find an echo in Sheptytsky’s writings. Galadza succinctly describes the difficulties that faced the Ukrainian Church and its liturgical life. He writes that such internal Church conflicts, “without an appropriate (Eastern) theological context, … were bound to degenerate to the forma- lism of ecclesial culture” (p. 295). All the protagonists, theologians, polemicists, and bishops suffered under the same disadvantage because “the Vatican’s 568 Book Reviews

policy on Greco-Catholic worship did not become clear until the mid-1930s, and in the meantime Ukrainian Catholic bishops were left to maul each other; allowed to believe that they, each going his own way, were following papal man- dates” (p. 310). (Anyone tempted to believe that this is a “Uniate” problem should read “On Questions of Liturgical Practice. A Letter to my Bishop by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 17 [1973]: 239–43.) It is clear from the history presented here that “Rome” saw the Ukrainian Church at one time as a barrier to Orthodox proselytism, and encouraged the retention or adaptation of Polish Roman Catholic customs, and at other times used the Ukrainian Church as a “bridge” to Orthodoxy and favored the adoption of Niconian usages. Sheptytsky’s first duty was to his faithful and although he was “ecumenically minded” he could not sacrifice his Church for the good of the “separated brethren.” I think that it is this sense of duty, rather than as fear of Roman , that accounts for the many contradic- tions in both his actions and his writings. Today, by contrast, although many of the issues are the same as in Sheptytsky’s time, the dynamic has been radically altered. Polish political influence has disappeared (replaced perhaps by “European” political influence) and Orthodoxy is no longer a foreign religion in Ukraine. Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox are, willingly or unwillingly, engaged in a common quest, the discovery of “ourselves.” It is, there- fore, pointless to pretend that the issues raised in this book are purely of “academic” interest. The Ukrainian Church is under- going a dramatic and conflict–ridden rebirth. As Galadza states: “it will probably take another thirty (years) for the ef- fects of political liberation to affect the liturgical question” (p. 65). As that liturgical question continues to be worked out, Galadza’s work will be essential to a deeper understanding of Sheptytsky’s influence and legacy in particular. More gene- rally, Galadza’s scholarship is of great value not only in itself but as the starting point for further serious research into both Book Reviews 569

the history and theology of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church.

Andrew Quinlan

® ® ®

Jim Forest. Confession: Doorway to Forgiveness. (Maryk- noll, NY: Orbis, 2002).

Is there any sacrament more unloved than confession? Is there any mystery of the Church more unwanted? All the others are welcome guests at the Church’s banquet of grace and salvation, but confession is like the crotchety old uncle whom you invite out of obligation but whose presence you dread and therefore actively pray against – all the while preten- ding that of course the presence of Uncle Gasiotis is desired. All the other sacraments are much more loved in the Church than confession. Such a collapse in love for, and therefore practice of, this sacrament led, in 1984, to the late Pope John Paul II of blessed memory writing in Reconcilatio et Penaetentia that “the sacrament of Confession is in crisis.” In R&P, he attempted to arrest this decline and to encourage us to rediscover this sacrament of mercy and forgiveness, but the evidence to date is that most people have not paid attention. Confession remains the unloved, and therefore unpracticed, (or at least very infrequently practiced) sacrament. In this context, Jim Forest offers his thoughtfully ecumeni- cal book, at once theologically reflective and pastorally useful, as a means to help in a contemporary renewal of the practice of confession – and not merely in those Churches (Catholic and Orthodox chiefly, but occasionally also among some Angli- cans) who have an historic sacramental practice of it. Rather, he intends his book for all Christians and his purpose in 570 Book Reviews

writing is threefold: “to help revive confession where it has been abandoned or neglected, to help the reader prepare a bet- ter confession, and to help those who hear confessions better serve as Christ’s witness, taking care not to impede the sacrament’s healing strength” (ix). The healing strength of the sacrament is a gift of Christ the Divine Physician through the hands of the confessor, who is himself a physician of souls. In our day, sadly, too few people want to experience this healing. Forest underscores this point in his description of Henri Nouwen’s lament over the little-visited agency of a wonderful priest-confessor in the Netherlands: “Can you ima- gine? Here is a man with a vocation not only to be a channel of God’s forgiveness but also to give spiritual direction and wisdom. But no one wants it. It is like a town with a beautiful fountain that everyone ignores” (xiii). What a different situa- tion we face from that of the early Church! Forest contrasts our modern confessional reluctance with Origen of Alexandria on the penitent who “does not hold back in shame from decla- ring his sin to the priest of the Lord and asking for medicine” (23). In such a context as ours, the necessary point de départ is to expose the modern world’s reluctance to deal with the rea- lity and, especially, the naming of sin:

Actions traditionally regarded as sinful have … been seen as natural stages in the process of growing up, a result of bad parenting, a consequence of mental illness, an inevitable response to unjust social condi- tions, pathological behavior brought on by addiction, or even as “experiments in being.” Sin, we’ve also been told, is an invention of repressed, hypocritical clerics who want to keep the rest of us in bondage – “priests in black robes binding with briars our joys and desires,” in the chiming syllables of William Blake (2).

Forest’s concern in proposing a re-appropriation of the categories of sin is that an acknowledgement of one’s sinful- ness leads to the recovery of a positive sense of guilt, “which Book Reviews 571

in turn will provide the essential foothold for contrition, which in turn can motivate confession and repentance” (6). This “blessed guilt is the pain we feel when we realize we have cut ourselves off from that divine communion that radiates all creation” (8). Thus, for Forest, confession seeks to restore communion with God, neighbour, creation, and self. He writes:

Confession is more than disclosure of sin. It also in- volves praise of God and profession of faith. Without the second and third elements, the first is pointless. To the extent we deny God, we reduce ourselves to accidental beings on a temporary planet in a random universe expanding into nowhere. To the extent we have a sense of the existence of God, we discover creation confessing God’s being and see all beauty as a confession of God (14).

Forest goes on to offer a short history of confession which I found useful for an understanding of the particularly Eastern approach to confession as “medicinal.” He explains the de- velopment of confession from a public event into a process of spiritual direction given by an older monk or to a younger member of the community. After attesting to this common monastic influence on confession in the early Church, Forest then gives a largely Western history of the sacrament. While this account does acknowledge the travels of the Celtic mis- sionaries to Eastern Europe (as far east as Russia), there is little given about the development of the sacrament in the Christian East beyond the fifth century. This lacuna is not un- common according to John Erickson, who has suggested that “most writers on the history of penance turn directly from anti- quity to the western Middle Ages, ignoring crucial develop- ments in the Byzantine East.” Once he establishes his theoretical framework, Forest then offers tools for examining one’s conscience. All these reflec- tions are accompanied by questions which, for the most part, are helpful, relevant and of sound spiritual direction. He con- cludes his book with psalms to read both before and after 572 Book Reviews

confession. (It is curious that he does not include Psalm 6 of the six classical penitential psalms). Prior to this conclusion he relates contemporary stories of confession and repentance. In fact, it is this anecdotal sharing which is the strength of the book in general. It would have been helpful if he had organized the stories according to cer- tain themes. In his chapter, “Finding A Confessor,” he wisely points out that one need not seek for a saint as a confessor. As a matter of fact, he warns that “thinking you need a saint to hear your confession can be a barrier rather than an aid to spiritual growth” (117). He goes on to say that “the search for the ‘perfect’ priest is like the search for the ‘perfect’ parish. The perfect parish does not exist, but you can go to hell looking for it, refusing to be part of any parish made up of people who are flawed as you are” (118). He suggests that we look for someone close, who knows us and understands our situation (119). Yet we need not be concerned that our sins will remain in that priest’s memory (119–120). He recognizes that penitents sometimes demand too much of confession, asking even that it be a psychology session. For this reason, many priests, fearing themselves in- adequately trained, shy away from hearing confessions (120). Forest elaborates on the qualities of a good confessor. If there are shortcomings in the chapter, I would say that they fall into the category of taking a negative approach to all these qualities instead of dwelling on and developing the positive qualities of a good confessor. Perhaps Forest could have spent more time on compatibility, shared vision, objectivity, listen- ing skills, confidentiality, and trust (this latter was not even mentioned as pivotal to the sacramental encounter) and the celebration of coming to Christ all over again. Examples of words of encouragement, consolation, and instruction would have been helpful as well. Still, Jim Forest has produced a worthwhile work. Whether one is concerned with the possibilities for designing an ecumenical approach to the sacrament, or one considers the renewal of the ministry of the priest-confessor in those Chur- ches which offer sacramental reconciliation (as I am), thank- Book Reviews 573

fully, Confession: Doorway to Forgiveness provides a ready reference for these and other salutary purposes.

Stephen Wojcichowsky Eparchy of Edmonton

® ® ®

Antoine Arjakovsky, Entretiens avec le Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, Vers un christianisme post-confessionel (Paris: Edi- tions Parole et Silence, 2005), 208+ pp.

This very interesting book is more than just a series of “Discussions with Cardinal Lubomyr Husar.” It begins with an introduction by Father Boris Gudziak, the rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv, which sets the tone of the whole book. This introduction gives the background of Husar from his early work as a priest in the Diocese of Stam- ford, Connecticut at a summer camp near Ellenville, New York; and then tells of his time as archimandrite of the Studite Monastery at Castel Gandolfo near Rome. We are told, more- over, of Husar’s time as a “secret bishop” for nearly two decades (Husar had been ordained a bishop without Rome’s knowledge or consent in 1977, when Josyf Cardinal Slipyj wanted to assure the continuity of the apostolic succession after his own death) and then of his return to Ukraine in 1993, taking his monastery with him. After this, Husar took up work as exarch at Kiev before being given increasing responsibilities for the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (UGCC) both because the health of Cardinal Lubachivsky required it and also because Pope John Paul II was increasingly trying to “regularize” the situation with Husar, who eventually became the UGCC’s “major archbishop” in succession to Lubachivsky 574 Book Reviews

in 2001. This electoral synod was followed almost immediate- ly by Husar going to Rome to be made a cardinal. This introduction is followed by four “discussions” over some eighty pages between Antoine Arjakovsky and Cardinal Husar: “His Life Story,” “The Orange Revolution,” “The Patriarchate of the Church of Kiev,” and “The Gift of Faith.” In each of these four areas, the author, using a question-and- answer format, discusses with the cardinal the meaning and history of such topics as the ecumenical importance of the UGCC and its place as a “bridge” between Constantinople, Rome, and Moscow. The author skillfully draws out the thought of Husar and his vision for the Church he leads. The book also includes three other rather extensive texts by Husar himself: “The Ecumenical Mission of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Vision of Metropolitan Sheptytsky,” “The People of God on the Earth of the Hills of Kiev” (the talk he gave upon the occasion of the return of his metropolitan see to Kiev), and his pastoral message of 6 September 2004, “Concerning the Affirmation of the Patriarchal System for the Greek Catholic Ukrainian Church.” All of these texts have been rather widely circulated in several languages, including English. In addition to the interviews and Husar’s own texts, the book concludes with two additional parts. The first is a four- page biography of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky. The se- cond part features eight pages of photographs of Husar from his childhood up till the Orange Revolution in 2004: he is shown with his family, with Ukrainians in various parts of the diaspora, and with the late Pope John Paul II. The real heart of the book, however, is the “post scriptum” entitled “Quelques mots d’amour.” These “loving words” by the author come after the “discussions” and before Husar’s own texts. The author, Antoine Arjakovsky, holds a doctorate in history from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences So- ciales in Paris, and is a French Orthodox layman. He works currently as the director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv. Basing himself on an incident during the interviews, when the batteries on the tape recorder ran out and the cardinal Book Reviews 575

continued to speak “off the record,” the author is reminded of a song by a French singer called “Ces quelques mots d’amour.” The “love” is that of the cardinal for his Church and its people coupled, in turn, with the admiration of the author – and others – for Husar, who is seen in all his actions as a pastor primarily, with all the other considerations flowing from this basic star- ting point. In witness of this, consider the following two examples. The author reviews how the cardinal ably threaded toge- ther the commemorations of the “Holodomor” (the terror- famine in 1933) and the conduct of the Orange Revolution in 2004, tying together the two crises for the Ukrainian people. Another example of this pacific way of acting is the car- dinal’s actions, along with the Latin Catholic archbishop of Lviv, Marian Cardinal Jaworski, in establishing an historic reconciliation in June 2004 between the Polish and Ukrainian peoples. Once more Husar is portrayed as seeking peaceable development and growth, not only for his reborn UGCC but also in working with the other Churches in Ukraine and the diaspora. Arjakovsky notes some additional examples of Husar’s work for unity with the Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs, especially in their sorting out their relationships with the Rus- sian Orthodox Church and the patriarch of Moscow, Alexis II. With his knowledge of the Ukrainian diaspora, Arjakovsky says that the cardinal encourages his people to be modern, but without the faults of “modernity.” He wants them to continue to keep in mind the vertical dimension of their existence before God. The cardinal asks himself, in a text of June 2001, whether it is still possible to address God as Father – not as a distant Divine Being but rather as the father of a family help- ing a needy child. Taking up the sub-title of this book, the author says that the cardinal condemns the two faces of confessionalism in which the majority of Christians live today – that is, on the one hand, a minimalism and doctrinal relativism, and, on the other hand, a rigorist traditionalism with an exclusivist identity. Arjakovsky argues that exposing this ugly confessionalism is the most precious gift given by the cardinal to the Church of which he is the chief pastor. In seeking to overcome this phe- 576 Book Reviews

nomenon, the more important question is not “who am I?” but “to where is God calling us”? For the author and the cardinal, part of the answer to this latter question will require the UGCC to hold together Rome and Constantinople: God is calling both “old Rome” and “new Rome” to receive that unity which is a gift of God. It is incumbent on Christians to work for that full and visible unity because only common participation in the same chalice and the invocation, together, of the Holy Spirit will make visible the Kingdom of God. That journey to Orthodox-Catholic unity is not an easy one, and occasionally there are hazards along the road which threaten even the achievements to date. One such recent ha- zard has been the question of whether Cardinal Husar should be recognized as the “patriarch” of the UGCC. Arjakovsky does not avoid this question, and his own answer is very straightforward: yes, of course, he says, going on by way of support to quote Michel Dymyd – director of the Canon Law Institute of Lviv – who notes that this possibility was envi- saged by Vatican II (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 11). He also notes, however, that proceeding in this fashion – given the uniform, manifest hostility among all the Orthodox when the proposed patriarchate was first discussed by Rome in the last years of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II – is not perhaps the best way to serve the communion of sister Churches defen- ded by the Orthodox Metropolitans Nicodeme Rotov and John Zizioulas. The author describes the complexity of the question and also points out that the main purpose of the Institute of Ecume- nical Studies in the Catholic University of Ukraine is to work out the answer to such questions. For him and for Husar, the goal is not a title but rather the unity of the Christian Church. The cardinal, Arjakovsky notes, often recalls the words of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky in 1915: “We are not divided between Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Anglicans. We are divided rather between those who want unity and those who do not.” To this Husar adds: “Today the question is to know if we want unity, or whether we want the faithful of another Church to join us, something which is entirely dif- ferent.” Book Reviews 577

For Arjakovsky, unity is neither a peace treaty nor an architectural plan. It is, rather, an eschatological vision which must be lived here and now. For Husar, ecumenism is not a pact but an act, a gesture of love in witness of the folly of God’s love. The Church is one wherever men accept the gift of God’s love, the overwhelming gift of the unity of mankind in the glory of God. In the end, what strikes this reviewer most about this book is Husar’s confidence in the inevitability of the unity of the Church, and the central place he sees for the UGCC in that process. Let us continually hope and fervently pray that Husar is right and such unity will indeed soon be given to the entire Church.

Philip J. Sandstrom Brussels, Belgium

® ® ® ®

Briefly Noted

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue by Adriano Garuti, O.F.M., edited and translated by Michael J. Miller (Ignatius Press, 2004), 339+ pp.

With this book, the Franciscan theologian Adriano Garuti examines the one issue universally acknowledged as the most significant stumbling block to all ecumenical progress, espe- cially with Orthodoxy: the papacy and its claims. Garuti, who teaches ecumenical theology in Rome and since 1975 has worked for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, offers a detailed summary and analysis of the topic of the pa- pacy in the official Orthodox-Catholic, Anglican-Catholic, and Lutheran-Catholic international dialogues, giving about a third of the book to each. The seventeen-page bibliography and copious footnotes are themselves worth the price of the book, which should be read primarily as an ecumenically useful reference work. It begins with a thin introductory chapter, “The Primacy as an Ecumenical Problem,” and ends with an appendix that contains a previously published article criticizing what the writer rather crankily believes to be the excessive use of the phrase “sister Church” in ecumenical discussions. The one substantial fault of this book lies in its tendentious presentation of the dialo- gues. Tendentiousness seems to be a chronic fault of Garuti’s writings, leading to criticism from Walter Cardinal Kasper and others about his earlier works, criticism which is no less valid for this book and must be borne in mind even as the book remains helpful by combining in one volume so much material from three major ecumenical conversations.

® ® ®

580 Briefly Noted

Essays on Ecumenism compiled and edited by Anton C. Vrame and Cory Dixon (Inter-Orthodox Press, 2003), 112+ pp.

This short little book is a surprise and a disappointment: it is a surprise because a disappointment. The nine essays are all unduly short, badly edited – and ten years old. Most of the pa- pers were written in 1993 or shortly thereafter, but the book was not published until a decade later. One might expect that given such a long interval between writing and publication, the articles could have been strengthened by, inter alia, fuller, lon- ger expositions of their topics and the introduction of a more substantial apparatus (footnotes, etc.). One might also have expected that, given a decade, the editors could have run the articles through a spell-checker at the very least – even though this would not have caught the grammatical errors and other solecisms that afflict this short book. Finally, one might expect the editors to have provided biographical notes on all the contributors together with an index, but these things are also lacking.

® ® ®

The Early Coptic Papacy: The Egyptian Church and its Leadership in Late Antiquity by Stephen J. Davis (American University of Cairo Press, 2004), 251+ pp.

Stephen Davis’s book is the first volume of a projected three-volume series. (Volume 2, by Mark Swanson, will be The Coptic Papacy in Islamic and volume 3, by Magdi Girgis, Michael Shelley, and Nelly van Doorn-Harder, will be The Emergence of the Modern Coptic Papacy.) This series attempts to fill some of the lacuna in the scholarly literature, and to update the same, since the last major English-language study, J.M. Neale’s The Patriarchate of Alexandria, was pub- lished in 1847. This current volume is impressively researched and annotated and lucidly written; it should prove valuable to theologians and historians but also prove accessible to non- Briefly Noted 581

specialists. It is to be hoped that the publication of this series will draw attention to one of the most venerable Churches of Christian antiquity still today insufficiently known in the world and still persecuted in Egypt by hostile Muslims and an autho- ritarian government. There are three minor weaknesses with the book. First, the book veers occasionally towards anachronism in its use of ec- clesiological and theological terminology from later eras; se- cond, the author is very much an historian, and occasionally manifests an attenuated grasp of certain foundational doctrines and conciliar decisions; and finally the author occasionally evi- dences an over-fondness for interpreting conflicts in the Coptic Church in the Chalcedonian era through the lens of the “colo- nialist” theory of the late Edward Said (and, more egregiously, Michel Foucault). The text itself runs only to 131 pages, followed by three appendices, a lengthy bibliography revealing great familiarity with primary sources as well as secondary literature, and an index. Overall, this is an important achievement and the next two volumes are eagerly to be anticipated.

® ® ®

The of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky (James Clarke and Co., 1957, reprinted 2005), 252+ pp.

One of the biggest frustrations in Eastern Christian studies is the fact that very important works sometimes come out in very small print runs and then disappear, sometimes never to be republished. Thanks be to God, Vladimir Lossky’s The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church has been maintained in print over the decades. Our thanks go to James Clarke and Company (JCC) of Cambridge, England, for keeping this clas- sic work in print for our European friends. (St. Vladimir’s Se- minary Press in New York regularly keeps it available in the United States.) Clarke and Company has offered an English 582 Briefly Noted

translation – based on the work done by members of the Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius – since 1957, with reprints in 1968 and 1973; the paperback edition was first presented in 1991 and reprinted in 2005. The type in this latest reprint is still visibly mechanical rather than computer-genera- ted, which arouses wistful sentiments about a simpler time before electronic media established their hegemony over our lives. This reissue affords one the opportunity of a reassessment, however brief, of this major work, which was not without cer- tain problematic categorical statements of Lossky that the con- temporary reader coming to this work for the first time needs to take with a grain of salt. We must not forget that the original French text of this book was published in 1944, when Lossky, not unlike many Orthodox theologians, tried to argue that the difference between East and West on the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit was the root of numerous other divergences in- fluencing everything from the government of the Church to personal spiritual life. Since then, much progress has been made in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue to discover, inter alia, that what seemed in earlier times to be insurmountable doctri- nal differences, especially those pertaining to the Trinity, are not necessarily so. Today, e.g., we live after the declaration on the procession of the Holy Spirit issued by Rome 1995 and the numerous occasions, sometimes in the presence of the Ecume- nical Patriarch, when Pope John Paul II recited the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed in the original Greek (without the filioque, of course). Professor Lossky died a year after the first publication of the English translation of this book. What a treat it would have been to hear his comments on many developments in the West that have acknowledged various Greek patristic empha- ses as central to Christian life. It would have been interesting, moreover, to hear his thoughts on the fact that today his classic work is a standard text for Eastern Catholic seminarians and other theology students, who find in Lossky’s neo-patristic synthesis a key to the rediscovery and development of the Briefly Noted 583

Eastern theological tradition, to which this book is so im- portant a guide.

® ® ®

Who is God? by Irma Zaleski (Novalis, 2003), 142+ pp.

The Polish-born Zaleski, author of several other similar books published by Novalis, has penned another collection of nearly two dozen short reflections on various aspects of the life of faith. These reflections, which average about three pages each, are longer than typical maxims but shorter than a typical chapter. The reflections are divided into three sections in the book: “The Mystery of God,” “The Vision of Faith” and “Conversion of the Heart.” Sprinkled liberally throughout are various sayings from the , scriptural quotations, and passages from the writings of modern mystics and saints, including Mother Macrina, Saint , and Saint Therese of Lisieux. The book’s overarching goal is to ask the question “Who is God” and, instead of rushing to an answer, offers instead a more sober, restrained response at once apophatic and yet also, however haltingly, kataphatic. The reflections seek to prompt the reader to reflect on the “immense Mystery of God: on the mystery of faith that is also a mystery of love” and, in this way, to open “our small, finite being to the infinite being of God…, remembering him always and learning to live in his presence.” The author very modestly offers her reflections, fully aware that “we can help and encourage each other…but we cannot find the path or walk it for anyone else.”

® ® ®

584 Briefly Noted

In Everlasting and Edifying Remembrance of our Venerable Pioneer Missionaries: Their Amazing, Exemplary and Effi- cient Faith, Remarkable Self-Sacrifice and Absolute Dedica- tion in the Lord’s Vineyard among the Original Ukrainian Settlers in Canada – Centennial Jubilee Reflections by Ber- nard Basil Dribnenky, OSBM (Toronto: Basilian Press, 2004).

The overlong title of this book, more redolent of the prolix style of Victorian epigraphs than the brevity beloved by mo- derns, is a clue to what an unusual publication it is. In sub- stance, it is an important contribution to Canadian ecclesias- tical and cultural history: it tells the story of the role of the Basilian Fathers (and, to some extent, the Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate) in providing pastoral (and practical) care to the many Ukrainian Catholic immigrants who populated Canada’s prairies in particular, beginning in the late 1800s. Many of the stories told here – and many others that could be told, for this is by no means a comprehensive, still less a scho- larly, history – do indeed recount heroic suffering and sacrifice on the part not just of the clergy but especially of the people whom they served. There is a level of dedication on the part of the first settlers that many of us today would find difficult to muster if we, like many of them, were simply dumped at the end of a railway line in no place in particular in, e.g., Alberta and told that we were on our own now to begin constructing shelter, feeding our families, and farming the land, making use of what few implements we had been able to carry from the old country. That so many survived is a testimony to their tenacity, but that they went on to flourish and build entire communities, including so many of the domed churches which dot the prairies still, is a greater testimony to the grace of God. It is not churlish, then, to note that such stories of extra- ordinary grace, sacrifice, and survival, are not well served by this book in several ways. First, the sometimes self-congratu- latory tone – witness the subtitle – only barely hides the in- security of the author, who seems to believe that in order to make his point, he must shout at the reader and magnify everything disproportionately. Briefly Noted 585

This strange magnification is seen literally in the book’s layout: it is written in enormous type, widely spaced, with un- accountably vast sections of white space. Many of the photo- graphs featured are reproduced so badly as to be worthless: the pixilation has destroyed the images and one is left in many cases with nothing more than black and white shadows of what were presumably people in group portraits. Finally, the book was poorly edited for grammar and spelling. For all that, however, this book remains an important testi- mony to – as we noted – great sacrifice not widely appreciated today. It deserves an audience.

® ® ®

Revolution of the Spirit, edited by Laure Arjakovsky with com- mentary by Petro Didula and photographs by Petro Didula, Hryhoriy Prystay and the staff and students of the Ukrainian Catholic University. Trilingual: English, French, Ukrainian. Lviv: Ukrainian Catholic University, Institute of Ecumenical Studies, Svichado Publishing, 2005.

Felix Khmelkovskyy, Those Days at Maidan: Photoalbum. Ukrainian and English . Lviv: Svichado Publishing, 2005.

Альманах Помаранчева Революція: Як це було. Хронікa перемоги. [Almanac: the orange revolution. How it was. Chronicle of victory.] Eds. Volodymyr Ruban, Volodymyr Ilc- henko. Publisher: Andrew Kinsel. Available in Ukrainian and English editions. Kyiv: Perekhid Outdoor, 2005.

Данило Яневський. [Danylo Yanevsky] Хроніка помаран- чевої революції [Chronicle of the «orange» revolution.] Kharkiv: Folio, 2005.

586 Briefly Noted

Данило Яневський. [Danylo Yanevsky] Обличчя «пома- ранчевої» революції [Faces of the «orange» revolution.] Kharkiv: Folio, 2005.

The fall and early winter of 2004 were a time of political upheaval in Ukraine but, more significantly, a time that has been characterized by at least one of the several notable publications chronicling the events as a “revolution of the spirit” – known more widely as the Orange Revolution be- cause of the party colors adopted by presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko and his allies and spread throughout the entire countryside of Ukraine wherever his supporters were to be found. The color orange has never been significant to Ukrainians and that is perhaps why it was able to take on new significance and meanings that were not determined before- hand, thus enabling the upward movement of the spirit in Ukraine to signify different things for different people. Look- ing from a perspective of only a brief time, it is difficult to know what the long-term ramifications of the Orange Revolu- tion will in fact be, but the books we note here are of rather one mind in ascribing to the events of late 2004 and very early 2005 a significance of both historic and spiritual proportions. The book published by the Institute of Ecumenical Studies of the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU) together with Svichado Publishers, Revolution of the Spirit, takes an un- abashedly Christian view of the events, beginning with the introduction of Professor Jeffrey Wills, vice-rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University, who offers a meditation on time which draws analogies from the book of Acts as well as Ecclesiastes and alludes to the Beatitudes. Other brief texts are inserted throughout in order to explain the multitude of photos in this very attractive coffee-table book. The choice of photos included in the album also sends a deeply spiritual and even churchly message about the Orange Revolution. There is certainly a very overt emphasis placed on the spiritual reality of what was happening and indeed the rector, faculty, staff, and students of the UCU made sure that their entire school was very present at the maidan (Ukrainian for “city square,” more specifically Independence Square in Kyiv), the central rallying Briefly Noted 587

point for the hundreds of thousands of people from all over Ukraine who came to the capital in order to stand guard over that most delicate of human arrangements, the democratic election of their government. This was no truancy on the part of the UCU: while in Kyiv, they carried out a variety of ministries, prayed, and did on-the-spot political and social analysis, a process that continued back on campus once the gargantuan efforts on the streets of Kyiv had culminated in victory for the pro-democracy forces. Realizing that the southeast of Ukraine had been fed a line about central and western Ukraine for so long that the popula- tion there simply had no real understanding of their more wes- terly countrymen, the UCU reacted to this problem by inviting several hundred students from the industrial heartland of leftbank Ukraine – especially the city of Kharkiv – for celebra- tions of in Lviv. By all accounts, no textbook and no classroom experience have ever done such a profound job of enlightening both students and professors in the complexity of the rebirth of a people whose collective soul had been trampled for centuries. Later, President Yushchenko would single out the UCU along with such institutions as the National University of the Kyiv Mohyla Academy for their part in stan- ding up to what was perhaps the greatest threat to freedom in Ukraine, the execution of hope. Certainly the Revolution demanded incredible sacrifices on the part of a very large percentage of the populace, some of whom stayed in a hastily erected tent-city in Kyiv for the duration of the struggle until the popularly elected president was indeed installed instead of the crony of the outgoing re- gime, who had been proclaimed the victor by a cowed elec- toral commission and congratulated by a singularly lonely Vladimir Putin. The sacrifices of these many weeks would give way to the more complicated and more challenging tasks of eliminating corruption at all levels, challenges which are ongoing and not always as neatly or obviously met with suc- cess. Revolution of the Spirit is full of photographs and docu- ments reflecting on the overtly spiritual and indeed Christian perspective on the bloodless revolution. We owe a debt of 588 Briefly Noted

gratitude to the editor, Laure Arjakovsky, and Petro Didula, who wrote the commentary and supplied many of the photo- graphs along with Hryhoriy Prystay and the staff and students of the UCU. What they have done is to shed particularly spiritual light on events that an increasingly secular West no longer has categories to understand. There are, of course, those who saw the Orange Revolution in primarily sociopoliti- cal terms but the Revolution of the Spirit has chronicled a Christian perspective on events in an indelible fashion. Even if the “Eurocrats” become entirely incapable of perceiving the Holy Spirit at work, this book will remain as evidence of things perhaps unseen by the high and the mighty. Other publications of note include Felix Khmelkovsky, Those Days at Maidan, published in Lviv in 2005. This book is published by the Ukrainian Catholic publishing house, Svichado, which acted as co-publisher for Revolution of the Spirit. It is a very personal and therefore very intimate portrait of events from street level, and while it captures some of the Christian themes so eloquently put forth in word and image in the latter volume, it is quite clearly the work of one man, who experienced – as he explains on the inside dust-jacket – “in my revolution, there is no politics – only Love, Hope, and Faith. But the greatest of these is love.” Khmelkovsky, not a profess- sional press photographer, has nevertheless presented some very visceral images and the range of emotion experienced at the maidan is captured for posterity. He offers three pages of very personal testimony as to why he took part in the Orange Revolution. This is presented in Ukrainian, with a translation into English on opposite pages. Beyond that, text is left at a bare minimum, allowing the faces of the participants to tell most of the story. The Orange Revolution: How This Was. A Chronicle of Victory by Volodymyr Ruban and Volodymyr Il’chenko had an advantage over the Ukrainian Catholic University and Svichado inasmuch as they had inside access to the corridors of power and chronicle not only what was going on in the street but also what was taking place behind closed doors: this book allows one to see outgoing President Leonid Kuchma smiling with Russia’s Vladimir Putin; it shows some of the Briefly Noted 589

tense negotiations; and it attempts at least to hold the two sides in relative balance, or rather to show the key players of both camps, because the book is clearly pro-Yushchenko, despite some protestations regarding neutrality. In a sense, this volume is a calling card for an advertising/ publishing firm. It serves as a showcase for Perekhid Outdoor, a company that prides itself on innovative approaches to advertising – getting the message across with effective images and a minimum of text. The reader will find easy-to-read tables with polling results and pertinent comments from people of all ranks. There are very helpful maps of where the sup- porters of Yuschenko stood in Kyiv, where the police barri- cades were erected, and where the supporters of the regime- backed Viktor Yanukovych chose to stake out their place in the capital as well as throughout the country. The regional division between Central and Western Ukraine, which backed the pro-democracy bloc, and the South-East, which voted for the government-backed candidate, is brought out visually through graphic representation, with percentages of votes for the two candidates rendered in a very effective manner. The book offers certain essential facts in a very succinct fashion, organized in chronological fashion, and has no parti- cular spiritual point of view from which to offer an interpreta- tion of events. It begins with the situation leading up to the revolution and ends with a series of portraits of some of the key individuals, with “before” and “after” labels allowing the reader to understand how the Orange Revolution affected the careers of certain powerbrokers on both sides of the divide. This is a very interesting view of the Orange Revolution, but it does not pretend to offer spiritual insights. The version avai- lable to us at Logos is entirely in Ukrainian (an English version is also available), but the visual certainly overwhelms the verbal, and it is a handsome volume, which is known to be distributed by the new President as a gift to special visitors. Those who lack knowledge of the Ukrainian language can still benefit much from the photos, maps and charts, which are often rather self-explanatory. The last two books that we will mention here in this brief overview are by Danylo Yanevsky and are published in Khar- 590 Briefly Noted

kiv by Folio Press. The first is Chronicle of the Orange Revo- lution, which gives a day-by-day and indeed at times a minute- by-minute rundown of the events from the perspective of the TV news anchorman whom most of the opposition forces soon identified as the face that they could trust in presenting the events at a very tense time in a way that uncovered the truth, rallied its defenders, and yet took care not to incite either side to extremes. The second book by Yanevsky is a series of verbal portraits in the form of interviews and background sketches illustrating the chief personalities involved in the Orange Revolution. The title Faces of the Orange Revolution should not lead the reader to jump to the conclusion that it is but another picture book. There are, in fact, portraits of the “key players” included, if one believes that the key players were individuals rather than the populace at large, but the over- whelming mass of material in this book is in verbal format – unlike the three above-mentioned volumes. Yanevsky is a trained historian and experienced journalist and the news anchor for Channel 5, the TV source looked to by supporters of the Orange Revolution for not only dry facts but an analysis of the very tense and ever-changing situation. Of all the characters who played their various roles in this momentous series of events, perhaps one woman stands out as embodying the feisty spirit that the Ukrainian people had kept pretty well hidden for a while until enough was enough and they just would not take it any more. This was the sign- language-interpreter at the government-controlled news pro- gram. As the slick anchors offered the official version of the news of Yanukovych’s victory in the first round of voting, this woman had the gumption to address all the deaf citizens of Ukraine, telling them not to pay attention to what the orally (and aurally) endowed newsmen were saying but rather to recognize Viktor Yuschenko as their president and the winner of the polling. With her job and perhaps even her personal security at stake, Natalia Dmytruk rallied the forces of the deaf to withstand the lies of those who could no longer hear the cries of the nation. When the deaf, the blind, and the lame rise Briefly Noted 591

up, there is apparently no stopping them. A revolution of the spirit indeed!

® ® ® ®

Books Received

Unless otherwise specified, the books below are listed simply in the order in which they were received.

Books Received by Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies:

Trevor Boiling, Quietism, Dynamic Passivity, and the Void: Based on the Spiritual Guide of Miguel de Molinos (Cambridge: James Clarke and Company, 2005).

Bert Groen and Wil van den Bercken, eds., Four Hundred Years Union of Brest: A Critical Re-evaluation (Leuven: Peeters, 1998).

Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge: James Clarke and Company, 2005 [a reprint of the original 1957 publication]).

Paul Robert Magocsi and Ivan Pop, An Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture (New Revised and Expanded Edition) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005). (A review will be forthcoming in the next issue of Logos.)

Bernard Basil Dribnenky, OSBM., In Everlasting Remem- brance of our Venerable Pioneer Missionaries (Toronto: Basilian Press, 2004). (A review will be forthcoming in the autumn 2006 issue of Logos.)

John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Chur- ches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). (A review will be forthcoming in the next issue of Logos.)

594 Books Received

Books Received by the Saint Paul University Library:

Carolyn L. Connor, Women of Byzantium (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004).

D.H. Stamatis, A Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Or- thodox Church (Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 2003).

Warren T. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stan- ford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988).

Wil van den Bercken, Manon de Courten and Evert van der Zweerde, eds. Vladimir Soloviev: Reconciler and Polemi- cist: Selected Papers of the International Vladimir Solo- viev Conference held at the University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands, in September 1998 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000).

Aleksander Dukhnovych, Virtue is More Important than Riches: a Play in Three Acts, trans. Elaine Rusinko (Boul- der: East European Monographs; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1994).

Timothy S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).

Slavko P. Todorovich, The Chilandarians: Serbian Monks on the Green Mountain (Boulder: East European Mono- graphs; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1989).

Joseph Tawil, The Patriarchate of Antioch throughout History: an Introduction (Boston, MA: Sophia Press, 2001).

Dumitru Macaila, The Right to Life: the Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Abortion (Salisbury, MA: Regina Ortho- dox Press, 2001).

Books Received 595

Dumitru Staniloae, Orthodox Spirituality: a Practical Guide for the Faithful and a Definitive Manual for the Scholar, trans. Jerome Newville and Otilia Kloos (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002).

David J. Lane, trans., Subhalmaran: the Book of Gifts (Lou- vain: Peeters, 2004).

Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius: deux débats théologiques après le triomphe de l’orthodoxie (Louvain: Peeters, 2004).

Rose Varteni Chétanian, trans. La version arménienne ancient- ne des homélies sur les Actes des Apôtres de Jean Chry- sostome: homélies I, II, VII, VIII (Louvain: Peeters, 2004).

Aram Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanona- girk Hayoc) de Yovhann’s Awjneci: église, droit et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle (Louvain: Peeters, 2004).

Jill Kamil, Christianity in the Land of the Pharaohs: the Cop- tic Orthodox Church (London: Routledge, 2002).

Hans Förster, Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den kop- tischen dokumentarischen Texten herausgegeben (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2002).

Timothy S. Miller, The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire (Washington, DC: Catholic Uni- versity of America Press, 2003).

Roman Malek, ed. The Chinese Face of Jesus Christ (Sankt Augustin: Jointly published by Institut Monumenta Serica and -Zentrum, 2002)

Paul R. Magocsi, Historical Atlas of Central Europe (revised and expanded edition) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002). 596 Books Received

Juan Maria Laboa, ed. and Matthew J. O’Connell and Made- leine Beaumont, trans. Atlas historique du monachisme d’Orient et d’Occident (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003).

Henri Tincq, Chrétiens en terre d’Islam (La Tour d’Aigues: Éditions de l’Aube, 2004).

Roger E. Hedlund, ed. Christianity is Indian: the Emergence of an Indigenous Community (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004).

Fede e martirio: le Chiese orientali cattoliche nell’Europa del Novecento: atti del Convegno di storia ecclesiastica con- temporanea (Città del Vaticano, 22–24 ottobre 1998) (Città del Vaticano: Libreria editrice vaticana, 2003).

J. Getcha, A Lossky, eds. La liturgie, expérience de l’Église: études liturgiques (Paris: Presses Saint Serge, 2003).

Jean-Michel Thierry de Crussol, Monuments arméniens de Haute-Arménie (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2005).

Serhii Plohky and Frank E. Sysyn, Religion and Nation in Modern Ukraine (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrai- nian Studies Press, 2003). (See review in this issue.)

Ernst Christoph Suttner, Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 2003).

Anton C. Vrame, ed. The Orthodox Parish in America: Faith- fulness to the Past and Responsibility for the Future, (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003).

Paul R. Magocsi, Galicia: A Historical Survey and Bibliogra- phic Guide (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985).

Books Received 597

Peter Galadza, ed. The Divine Liturgy: an Anthology for Wor- ship, (Ottawa: Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, 2004).

Gary Vikan, Sacred Images and Sacred Power in Byzantium (Aldershot, Hampshire; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003).

Michel Quenot, Les icônes des 12 grandes fêtes (Saint-Mau- rice: Éditions Saint-Augustin, 2004).

Anthony Bloom, Rencontre avec le Dieu vivant: lecture spiri- tuelle de l’évangile selon saint Marc, trans. Michel Evdo- kimov (Paris: Cerf, 2004).

Jean-Claude Larchet, Le starets Serge (Paris: Cerf, 2004).

Richard G. Hovannisian, ed. The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (New York: Palgrave Macmil- lan, 2004).

Yuri Piatnitsky et al, ed. Sinai, Byzantium, Russia: Orthodox Art from the Sixth to the Twentieth Century (London: Saint Catherine Foundation, 2000).

Radomir Niksevic, The Mystery of the Wonder-Worker of Ostrog, trans. Ana Smylyanich (Cetinje: Svetigora, 2003).

Joseph Simonius Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clen- mentno-Vatican: An Encyclopedia of Syriac Authors (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002).

Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, trans. Eugene Aydin (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002).

Henry Maguire, ed. Byzantine Magic (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995).

James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism: Con- taining the 14th c. Apologia of Demetrios Kydones for 598 Books Received

Unity with Rome and St. Thomas Aquinas Contra errores Graecorum (Steubenville, OH: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992).

Elizabeth A.S. Dawes, The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Com- nena (London: Kegan Paul, 2003).

Valerie A. Kivelson and Robert H. Greene, eds. Orthodox Russia: Belief and Practice under the Tsars (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003).

Bernadette Dieker and Jonathan Montaldo, eds. Merton and Hesychasm: the Prayer of the Heart: the Eastern Church (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2003).

Aïda Kanafani-Zahar, Liban: le vivre ensemble, Hsoun, 1994– 2000 (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2004).

Jad Hatem, Recherches sur les christologies maronites (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2002).

Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A West- ern Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).

Daniel B. Clendenin, ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology: a Con- temporary Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).

Paul M. Blowers and Robert Louis Wilken, trans. On the Cos- mic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writings from St. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003).

Nicholas V. Sakharov, I Love, Therefore I Am: the Theologi- cal Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002).

Books Received 599

John Chryssavgis, trans. Letters from the Desert: a Selection of Questions and Responses (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladi- mir’s Seminary Press, 2003).

John Behr, Andrew Louth, and Dimitri Conomos, eds. Abba: the Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West: Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003).

M. Basil Pennington, The Monks of Mount Athos: a Western Monk’s Extraordinary Spiritual Journey on Eastern Holy Ground (Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths, 2003).

Comité Mixte Catholique-Orthodoxe en France, Les enjeux de l’uniatisme: catholiques et orthodoxes, dans le sillage de Balamand (Paris: Bayard; Fleurus-Mame: Cerf, 2004).

Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002).

Olivier Clément, You are Peter: an Orthodox Theologian’s Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy, trans. M.S. Laird (New York: New City Press, 2003).

Elias Atallah, Le synode libanais de 1736 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 2002).

Marie-Joseph Le Guillou, L’expérience de l’Esprit saint en Orient et en Occident (Saint-Maur, France: Parole et Silence, 2001).

Janusz Syty, Il primato nell’ecclesiologia ortodossa attuale: il contributo dell’ecclesiologia eucaristica di Nicola Afanas- sieff e Joannis Zizioulas (Roma: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 2002).

Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth- Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 600 Books Received

Victor Roudometof et al, eds. Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition faces the Twenty-First Century (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2005).

Paul Verbeek, Pilger gegen die Macht: Johannes Paul II und der Zerfall des Sowjetimperiums (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2005).

Friedrich Heyer, Kirchengeschichte der Ukraine im 20. Jahr- hundert: von der Epochenwende desersten Weltkrieges bis zu den Anfängen in einem unabhängigen ukrainischen Staat (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003).

Adalberto Mainardi, ed. Optina Pustyn’e la paternità spiri- tuale: atti del X Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualità ortodossa sezione russa, Bose, 19–21 settem- bre 2002 (Magnano: Qiqajon, Comunità di Bose, 2003).

Donald Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002).

Athanasios Basdekis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche: eine Handreich- ung für nicht-orthodoxe und orthodoxe Christen und Kirchen (Frankfurt am Main: O. Lembeck, 2004).

Dominique Le Tourneau, Les mots du christianisme: catholic- cisme, protestantisme, orthodoxie (Paris: Fayard, 2005).

Karl Christian Felmy et al, Le Icone: il viaggio da Bisanzio al ‘900 (Milano: Jaca Book, 2005).

David Thomas, ed., Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule: Church Life and Scholarship in ‘Abbasid (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

Marie-Laure Derat, Le domaine des rois éthiopiens (1270– 1527): espace, pouvoir et monachisme (Paris: Publica- tions de la Sorbonne, 2003). Books Received 601

Claire Bosc-Tiessé, Peintures sacrées d’Éthiopie: collection de la Mission Dakar-Djibouti (St-Maur-des-Fossés: Édi- tions Sépia, 2005).

Harald Suermann, Die Gründungsgeschichte des Maronitis- chen Kirche (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1998).

David D. Grafton, The Christians of Lebanon: Political Rights in Islamic Law (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2003).

Nathalie Duplan, Le cèdre et la croix: Jocelyne Khoueiry, une femme de combats (Paris: Presses de la Renaissance, 2005).

Athenagoras Nicholas Zakopoulos, Plato and Saint Paul on Man: A Psychological, Philosophical and Theological Study (Athena: A.Ch. Zakopoulos, 2002).

_____. Platon kai Paulos peri tou anthropou : theologike, philosophike kai psychologike ereuna (Athena: A.Ch. Zakopoulos: Heptalophos AVEE, 2000).

Matta el-Maskîne, Orthodox Prayer life: the Interior Way (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003).

John Chryssavgis, ed., Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: the Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2003).

Martin Tamcke, Das orthodoxe Christentum (München: C.H. Beck, 2004).

Laurence Albert, Les coptes: la foi du désert (Paris: De Vec- chi, 1998).

_____. Le trésor du monastère Saint-Antoine et articles divers (Limoges: Le Monde Copte, 2003).

602 Books Received

Albert Khazinedjian, La pratique religieuse dans l’Église arménienne apostolique (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2003).

Karékine Bekdjian, Baptême, mariage et rituel funéraire dans l’Église arménienne apostolique, trans. Albert Khazined- jian (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2003).

Jean Michel Thierry, L’Arménie au Moyen Age (Paris: Zo- diaque, 2000).

Claire Mouradian, L’Arménie (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2002).

Claude Mutafian, Atlas historique de l’Arménie: Proche- Orient et Sud-Caucase du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. au XXIe siècle (Paris: Éditions Autrement, 2001).

Juan Nadal Canellas, Stefano Virgulin, eds. Enciclopedia dei santi: le chiese orientali (Roma: Città nuova, 1998–1999).

Petro Petrovych Tolochko, Russkie letopisi i letopistsy X–XIII vv. (Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteiia, 2003).

Aleksei Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov, Istoriia russkogo leto- pisaniia (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2002–).

Miguel de Salis Amaral, Dos visiones ortodoxas de la iglesia: Bulgakov y Florovsky (Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 2003).

Michel Balard, Élisabeth Malamut, Jean-Michel Spieser, eds. Byzance et le monde extérieur: contacts, relations, échan- ges: actes de trois séances du XXe Congrès international des Études byzantines, Paris, 19–25 août 2001 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2005).

Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen, Pèlerinages d’Égypte: histoire de la piété copte et musulmane, XVe-XXe siècles (Paris: Books Received 603

Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), 2005.

Serhii Plokhy, Tsars and : a Study in Iconography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 2002).

Andreas E. Buss, The Russian-Orthodox Tradition and Moder- nity (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (London: Routledge, 2000).

Francis Gautier, La retraite et le sacerdoce chez Grégoire de Nazianze (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002).

James D. Tracy and Marguerite Ragnow, eds. Religion and the Early Modern State: Views from China, Russia, and the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Gilber Dagron, Emperor and Priest: the Imperial Office in Byzantium, trans. Jean Birrell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Michael Maas, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Carmelo Giuseppe Conticello et Vassa Conticello, eds. La théologie byzantine et sa tradition (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002).

Omeljan Pritsak, ed. The Old Rus Kievan and Galician-Volhy- nian Chronicles: the Ostrozkyj (Xlebnikov) and Cetvertyn- skyj (Pogodin) Codices (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1990.

Pylyp Orlyk, The Diariusz Podrozny of Pylyp Orlyk (Cam- bridge, MA: Distributed by the Harvard University Press 604 Books Received

for the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, 1988).

(The following are dissertations received by the library:)

Andriy M. Freishyn Chirovsky, “True and False Mysticism in the Writings of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky” (M.A. thesis) (Toronto: University of St. Michael’s College, 1981).

John M. Freishyn Chirovsky, “Patriarch Josyf (Slipyj) the Confessor and his Ecclesiological Thought: an Analysis from the Perspective of Avery Dulles’ Models of the Church” (unpublished M.A. thesis) (Chicago: Catholic Theological Union, 1997).

Paul Yuzyk, “The History of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church in Canada” (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, 1948).

Michael Petrowycz, “Bringing back the Saints: the Contribu- tion of the Roman Edition of the Ruthenian Liturgical Books (Recensio Ruthena, 1940–1952) to the Comme- moration of Slavic Saints in the Ukrainian Catholic Church (unpublished doctoral dissertation) (Ottawa: Fa- culty of Theology, Saint Paul University, 2004).

Mariya Svidryk, “A Comparative Analysis of the Represen- tation of the Image of St. in Three Influ- ential Iconographic Manuals of Byzantine and Eastern Slavic Iconography” (M.A. seminar paper) (Ottawa: Saint Paul University, Faculty of Theology, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, 2004).

Books Received 605

(The following titles have been transliterated from various Slavic languages, chiefly Ukrainian:)

Ihor Isichenko, Istoriia Khrystovoï Tserkvy v Ukraïni (Khar- kiv: Akta, 2003).

Volodymyr Rozhko, Chudotvorni ikony Volyni i Polissia: dopovnene i perevydane: [istoryko kraieznavchyi narys] (Luts’k: Media, 2002).

Volodymyr Rozhko, Ukraïns’ki pravoslavni sviati istorychnoï Volyni IX–XX st. (Luts’k: Media, 2003).

L’vivs’kyi tserkovnyi sobor: dokumenty i materialy, 1946– 1981 (Kyïv: Vydannia Patriarshoho Ekzarkha vsiieï Ukraï- ny Mytropolyta Kyïvs’koho ta Halyts’koho, 1984).

Andrii Krawchuk, ed., Mytropolyt Andrei Sheptyts’kyi: doku- menty i materialy, 1941–1944 (Kyïv: Dukh i litera, 2003).

Iurii Marynovs’kyi, Pravoslavni monastyri na tereni suchasnoï Cherkas’koï oblasti do 1917 roku (Cherkasy: Vidlunnia, 1997).

Stepan Boruts’kyi, Derzhava, tserkva, liudyna: derzhavno- tserkovni ta mizhkonfesiini vidnosyny u dzerkali suchas- nosti, 1992–2002 (Lviv: Afisha, 2003).

Ivan Omelianovych Levyts’kyi, Galitsko-ruskaia bibliografiia XIX-go stoletiia [sic] suvzgliadneniem [ruskikh] izdanii po’(vivshikhsia v Ugorshchine [sic] i Bukovine [sic] (1801–1886) (Vaduz : Kraus Reprint, 1963).

® ® ® ®

Contributors to Volume 46, Nos. 3–4

Antoine Arjakovsky holds a doctorate in history from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and is director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv, which published his most recent book, Dialogues with Cardinal Lubomyr Husar: Towards a Post-confessional Christianity.

Jars Balan is the Co-coordinator of the Ukrainian Canadian Programme for the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta. In addition to his editing and translating work, he has written extensively on different aspects of Ukrainian life in Canada. In 2004, he served as an historical consultant on the documentary film “Journey of Hope: A Brief History. The Ukrainian Catholic Church in Alberta.”

Brian Butcher is a doctoral candidate at the Sheptytsky Insti- tute in the Faculty of Theology, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, and a (three-year) SSHRC fellow. He is writing a dissertation on the hermeneutics necessary to appropriate Byzantine rites of blessing in a technological age.

Andriy Chirovsky is the holder of the Peter and Doris Kule Chair of Eastern Christian Theology and Spirituality at the Sheptytsky Institute in the Faculty of Theology, Saint Paul University, Ottawa. He is the founder and was the first director of the Sheptytsky Institute.

Will Cohen received a Master of Divinity from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in 2002 and is currently a doctoral student in systematic theology at Catholic Univer- sity in Washington, DC. He is a at Saints Peter and Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in Potomac, MD.

Adam DeVille, a subdeacon of the Ukrainian Catholic Epar- chy of Toronto, is a doctoral candidate at the Sheptytsky 608 Contributors to Volume 46, Nos. 3–4

Institute of the Faculty of Theology, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, where he is writing a dissertation on Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy in response to Ut Unum Sint.

John Jillions is an assistant professor at the Sheptytsky Insti- tute in the Faculty of Theology at Saint Paul University, Ottawa and rector of the Orthodox Church of America’s Cathedral of the Annunciation in Ottawa.

John Madey is retired professor of eastern and ecumenical theology at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Kottayam (India). After his retirement he has been currently teach- ing Eastern Catholic canon law in the canon law licentiate course at the State University of Münster.

Myron Momryk is a project archivist specializing in multicul- tural archives in the Social Archives Section at the Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa. He received an M.A. in Canadian History from the University of Waterloo in 1972 and is a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Shrine of Saint John the Baptist in Ottawa.

Melita Mudri-Zubacz studied music in the former Yugosla- via before completing undergraduate and graduate studies at the Sheptytsky Institute (where she won the Silver Governor General’s Medal). A former instructor of litur- gical singing at Holy Spirit Seminary in Ottawa, Melita is currently Director of the Religious Education Centre of the Archeparchy of Winnipeg.

Suzette Philips is a Ph.D. candidate in theology at Saint Paul University, Ottawa, and a medical rehabilitationist (occu- pational therapist). She has worked in the field of psy- chiatry since 1989, and currently maintains a private prac- tice in the Ottawa area providing counsel, training and support to seminarians, clergy and lay leaders.

Andrew Quinlan holds a doctorate in liturgics from the Ponti- fical Oriental Institute in Rome. He has taught liturgy at Contributors to Volume 46, Nos. 3–4 609

the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv and the Shep- tytsky Institute in Ottawa. He is currently in monastic for- mation at the Ruthenian Holy Resurrection Monastery in Southern California.

Philip Sandstrom is a priest of the Roman Catholic Archdio- cese of New York, now working pastorally in the Arch- diocese of Malines-Bruxelles. His doctorate in theology was obtained in 1987 from l’Institut Catholique de Paris. He has taught homiletics and sacramental theology and liturgy at the American College at Leuven, Belgium, and most recently at the Major Seminary of the Belgian Dio- cese of Namur.

Shawn Tribe has a degree in classical and medieval philoso- phy from King’s University College in London, Ontario. He is the Canadian delegate for the International Centre for Liturgical Studies (CIEL). He has written articles and book reviews on liturgy, theology, and Christian culture in various journals and periodicals.

Stephen Wojcichowsky is a priest and of the Epar- chy of Edmonton and an educator and administrator for the Catholic school system in that city.

Resources Available from the Sheptytsky Institute

CDs and Audio Tapes The Divine Liturgy for Congregational Singing (Two-CD Set) This recording, by the renowned chorus Schola Cantorum of Chicago, under the direction of J. Michael Thompson, includes the main sections of the book, The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship (2004). All of the propers of the eight resurrectional tones are also recorded. Over 2 hours of music. Two-CD Set CDN $25.00 US $21.50

Therapeia: Insights into Healing from Orthodox Theology and Spirituality Opening ceremony for the first Ph.D. (Eastern Christian Studies) program in the “New World” and keynote address by Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald. December 4, 2000. Audio-cassette CDN $7.00 US $6.00

Christian, Muslims and Jews Building a Future Together in the Holy Land A public lecture by Archimandrite Emile Shoufani Melkite-Greek Catholic pastor of Nazareth (Israel). Mostly in French with some English. October 20, 1999. Audio-cassette CDN $7.00 US $6.00

What is Eastern Catholic Theology? Round-table discussion at the 53rd Annual Convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. June 13, 1998. Two 60-minute audio-cassette CDN $7.00 US $6.00

International Symposium on English Translations of Byzantine Liturgical Texts (Stamford, June 17-20, 1998) I. Opening session with Keynote Address (Rev. Robert Taft), “Theological & Philological Accuracy” (Archimandrite Eprem Lash), “The Style of the Translation” (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Rev. Anthony Ugolnik) with discussions. Five 90-minute audio-cassettes CDN $37.00 US $32.00 II. “Survey of Translations” (Rev. David Petras, Bishop Nicholas Samra, Archimandrite Serge Keleher, Dr. Paul Meyendorff, Rev. John Chryssavgis, Archimandrite Daniel Griffith) with discussions. Four 90-minute audio-cassettes CDN $30.00 US $26.00 III. “Singing the Translation” (Michael Thompson, Mark Bailey) with discussions. Two 90-minute audio-cassettes CDN $18.00 US $15.00

COMPLETE AUDIO PROCEEDINGS Eleven 90-minute audio-cassettes CDN $60.00 US $52.00

XIXth Congress of UCWLC (June 25, 1998) Opening speeches and keynote address by Fr. A. Chirovsky 90-minute audio-cassette (Bilingual) CDN $7.00 US $6.00

Video Tapes

The Iconography of Sts. Volodymyr and Olha Church in Chicago A theological commentary by Fr. Andriy Chirovsky on the iconographic program of a properly decorated Byzantine church. Ecclesiology in colour! Available in English or Ukrainian. 45-minute video program VHS (NTSC) CDN $20.00 US $17.00

To Write an Icon A six-hour video course giving step-by-step instructions on the process of creating a traditional Byzantine icon. Schemamonk Damian of Holy Trans- figuration Monastery in Redwood Valley, California is the instructor for this in-depth study, offering not only the technique, but the theology of every facet of the process and a solid introduction to the spirituality of the icono- grapher. Coming soon on DVD Please contact the Institute for prices

Symposium Marking the 50th Anniversary of the Death of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky – Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Nov. 17, 1994 Presentations include: “The Liturgical Activity of Metropolitan Andrey” (Fr. Peter Galadza); “Metropolitan Andrey on Prayer and the Wisdom of God” (Fr. Andriy Chirovsky); “Metropolitan Andrey and Social-Ethical Questions during the German Occupation” (Dr. Andrii Krawchuk) VHS (NTSC) CDN $20.00 US $17.00

Canadian residents add 6% GST. Please contact Sheptytsky Institute Publications for shipping rates.

Sheptytsky Institute Publications, Saint Paul University 223 Main Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1S 1C4 tel. (613) 236–1393 (ext. 2332) fax (613) 782–3026 [email protected] www.ustpaul.ca/Sheptytsky

Books Available from the Sheptytsky Institute

Eastern Christians in the New World: An Historical and Canonical Study of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada. David Motiuk ISBN 1–895937–14–0 A canonical and historical overview of the development of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada, highlighting the growth of the first parish communities, the appointment of its first bishop and the establishment of the Metropolitan See of Winnipeg. The author examines relations with the Latin Church, various decrees of Bishop Nykyta Budka, Bishop , and the Ukrainian Catholic Conference in Canada. The study treats clerics, divine worship, and the administration of the sacraments – viewed in the context of the Ukrainian Church. A significant portion of the work col- lects into one volume the major sources of the Particular Law of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada. These sources are reproduced in their original languages (Latin and Ukrainian), together with English translations. xiv, 426 pp. Price: CDN $49.95 US $43.00

The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship. Peter Galadza, Editor-in-Chief ISBN 1–895937–12–4 A one-volume source for singing the Divine Liturgy in English with sections in Ukrainian. This book contains Sundays, Festal and Weekday Musical Settings for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Music for the Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great, the Hours in English, Propers for the Liturgical Year, Tables for Scriptural Readings, Hymns and Carols, Bles- sings and other Brief Rites. xiv, 1160 pp. Price: CDN $58.95 US $49.95; bulk discounts available.

The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptytsky (1865– 1944). Peter Galadza ISBN 1–895937–13–2 Metropolitan Archbishop Sheptytsky is arguably the most important Ukrainian churchman in modern history. This is the first comprehensive study of the sources and characteristics of his theology, as well as the first full account of his liturgical initiatives. Co-published with Pontificio Istituto Orientale. Volume 272 of their on-going series Orientalia Christiana Ana- lecta. 524 pp. Price: CDN $49.95 US $43.00

Following the Star from the East: Essays in Honor of Archimandrite Boniface Luykx. Andriy Chirovsky, ed. ISBN 1–895937–02–7 This collection of scholarly articles and popular reminiscences high- lights the life and work of Archimandrite Boniface, the founder of Holy Transfiguration (Mount Tabor) Monastery in Redwood Valley California. In addition to articles on the archimandrite’s accomplishments and a bibliogra- phy of his extensive published works, the volume includes scholarly studies in the fields of monasticism, liturgy, iconography, and patristics by over 20 scholars from a variety of universities. xii, 274 pp. Price: CDN $20.00 US $17.00

Pray for God’s Wisdom: The Mystical Sophiology of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky. Andriy Chirovsky ISBN 1–897937–00–0 The first major monograph on the spiritual core of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky’s thought and life – his devotion to the Wisdom of God. Fr. Andriy Chirovsky studies the life and literary output of Metropolitan Andrey, looking for clues to a clearer understanding of the many levels of meaning that Wisdom-Sophia held for the saintly primate of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church. Comparisons with the three Russian sophiologists (Solovyov, Bulgakov, and Florensky) show how much more rooted in the Tradition were the sophiological musings of Sheptytsky. xx, 279 pp. Price: CDN $20.00 US $17.00

Christian Social Ethics in Ukraine – the Legacy of Andrei Sheptytsky. Andrii Krawchuk ISBN 1–895937–04–3 A stimulating study of the legacy of a remarkable religious leader who left his distinctive mark on twentieth-century Christian thought. A Catholic who defended the rights of persecuted Orthodox Christians and who saved Jews during the Holocaust, Andrei Sheptytsky transcended his own Polish and Latin-rite background, devoting his life to upholding universal Christian ideals among the Eastern-rite Catholics of Ukraine. Exhaustively docu- mented, this is the first analysis of an inspiring moral response to delicate Ukrainian-Polish and Catholic-Orthodox issues, socialism and communism, church-state relations and the Nazi occupation. xxiv, 404 pp. Price: CDN $49.95 US $49.95

Canadian residents add 6% GST. Please contact Sheptytsky Institute Publications for shipping rates.

Sheptytsky Institute Publications, Saint Paul University 223 Main Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1S 1C4 tel. (613) 236–1393 (ext. 2332) fax (613) 782–3026 [email protected] www.ustpaul.ca/Sheptytsky

Academic Programs of the Sheptytsky Institute

Undergraduate Programs The Sheptytsky Institute (Saint Paul University, Faculty of Theology) offers the following undergraduate programs of study.

Certificate in Eastern Christian Studies

The Certificate of University Studies in Theology (Eastern Christian Studies) is a 24-credit program, which provides a general but serious initiation to the most important issues addressed by contemporary Eastern Christian theology. This program also allows students to study cer- tain issues more deeply, according to their needs.

Since this program can be completed in two sessions (September-April), it is of special interest to those who lack the time to undertake a Bachelor of Theology program. This program is especially suitable for: professors of religion and catechetics who wish to gain more complete understanding of the message they are called to transmit; religious men and women who have a doctrinal year as a part of their formation; those who wish to take refresher courses to update or broaden their understanding of the Eastern Churches; those who wish to register for the M.A. in Pastoral Studies but do not have the required theological preparation.

Bachelor of Theology Programs (Eastern Christian Studies)

The Bachelor of Theology (ECS) programs seek to foster in the students: a. General knowledge of contemporary theology solidly rooted in the Catholic- Orthodox tradition and open to the contributions of other Eastern and Western Christian and non-Christian traditions; b. The ability to perceive the relationships between the various areas of theology; c. The aptitude to exer- cise critical discernment both in the selection and use of theological texts (scripture, liturgy, , ecclesiastical documents, particular theo- logies, etc.) and also in the assessment of various historical situations (of the church, of the world; of the past and of the present); d. A clear-minded and searching interiorization or personal appropriation of the realities of the faith; e. The aptitude to perceive ministerial activities as contributing to the life of the church in spirit and in truth; f. Adequate knowledge of the sources, the methods, and the tools needed to continue the study of theology indepen- dently; g. More profound knowledge of the disciplines with which theology maintains special bonds; h. Sensitivity to the different cultural formulations of theology and the four great families of Eastern Churches; i. Basic forma- tion in theology which gives access to graduate studies in theology.

The Civil B.Th. (Eastern Christian Studies) is a 120-credit program consisting of two parts: 1) a 30-credit cluster equivalent to one year of university, 2) A 90-credit (30 course) cluster of compulsory and elective courses, which may included up to twenty-two courses in Eastern Christian subjects.

The Ecclesiastical B.Th. (Eastern Christian Studies) is a 90-credit program in Theology to which are added 18 credits of philosophical forma- tion.

The Ecclesiastical B.Th. (ECS) is conferred by Saint Paul University and the Civil B.Th.(ECS) is conferred jointly by Saint Paul University and the . The civil and ecclesiastical B.Th.(ECS) programs can be followed concurrently, if desired.

For a current listing of 2006-2007 courses, please consult www.ustpaul.ca/Sheptytsky

The 2005-2006 Academic Year Summer Programs (2005)

The Nineteenth Annual Sheptytsky Institute Summer Intensive Program at Ottawa, Ontario, June 18 – July 16, 2005.

THO 3325 Theology and Spirituality of Icons (Prof. Andriy Chirovsky)

THO 2144 Selected Topics in Eastern Christian Spirituality: Dynamics of Identity and Faith (THO 2144) (Prof. Michael Hryniuk)

The Ninth Annual Summer Institute at Holy Dormition Monastery in Univ, Ukraine, July 9 – August 6, 2005.

THO 3160 Pentateuch and Historical Books (Prof. Taras Barscevski)

THO 3328 The Holy Mysteries: Byzantine Sacraments (Prof. Michael Petrowycz)

The 2005-2006 Academic Year Undergraduate Courses in Ottawa

FALL 2005 THO 2131** General Introduction to the Eastern Churches (Prof. John Jillions)

THO 3309 Contemporary Moral Issues in Eastern Theology (Prof. Barbara Frank)

THO 3323* Canonical Tradition of the Christian East (Prof. Jobe Abbass)

WINTER 2006 THO 3303 The Seven Ecumenical Councils in Eastern Christian Tradition (Prof. John Jillions)

THO 3315* Eastern Christian Doctrine II: Salvation, Humanity, the Church & Eschatology (Prof. Andriy Chirovsky)

THO 3317 History of the Ukrainian Church (Prof. Andrew Onuferko)

THO 3347* Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours and Liturgical Year (Prof. Peter Galadza)

** Compulsory basic (Foundational) * Compulsory

Graduate Programs

Through Saint Paul University’s Faculty of Theology, the Sheptytsky Institute offers a graduate concentration is Eastern Christian Studies, closely following the established structural pattern of other concentrations in the Faculty, while maintaining a firm commitment to a genuinely Eastern approach to the graduate study of theology. The graduate concentration in Eastern Christian Studies includes both civil degree programs leading to an M.A. (Th.) and Ph.D. (Th.), and ecclesiastical degree programs for the licentiate (L.Th.) and doctorate (S.Th.D.). Four areas of study are offered: Spirituality-Doctrine, Liturgical Studies, Historical Studies, East-West Ecumenism.

For a current listing of 2006-2007 courses, please consult www.ustpaul.ca/Sheptytsky

The 2005-2006 Academic Year Graduate Courses in Ottawa

FALL 2005 THO 6377 Foundational Texts in Eastern Christian Liturgical History (Prof. Peter Galadza)

THO 6378 Resources and Methods for the Study of Eastern Christianity (Prof. John Jillions)

THO 6382 Foundational Texts in Eastern Christian Theology (Prof. Andriy Chirovsky)

THO 6388 Issues in Eastern Christian Liturgical Theology: The Legacy of A. Schmemann (Prof. Peter Galadza)

WINTER 2006 THO 6310 Theological Hermeneutics (Prof. James Pambrun)

THO 6350 Contemporary Theology (Prof. Achiel Peelman)

THO 6352 Studies in Eastern Christianity: Papacy, Patriarchates and Ecumenism (Prof. Andriy Chirovsky)

MISSION STATEMENT

THE METROPOLITAN ANDREY SHEPTYTSKY INSTITUTE OF EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES

The Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies is a centre of higher learning, research, ecumenical understanding and prayer. Founded at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago in 1986, the Institute came under the patronage of the Ukrainian Catholic Bishops of Canada in 1989, and in 1990 became a part of Saint Paul University in Ottawa. As an academic unit of the Faculty of Theology, the Sheptytsky Institute offers accredited undergraduate and graduate degree programs to both men and women – laity, religious and clergy.

As a centre of higher learning, the Institute is committed to quality education in Eastern Christian Theology and related disciplines, both at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, as well as in its outreach programs.

As a centre of research, the Institute is committed to scholarship and publication in the various fields of Eastern Christian Studies, cooperating with other educational Institutions, learned societies and individual scholars.

As a centre of ecumenical understanding, the Institute is committed to fostering respectful and fruitful encounter among the various Eastern Christian Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and between Eastern and Western Christians.

As a centre of prayer, the Institute is dedicated to integrating academic study and worship of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In dialogue with contemporary societies the Institute hopes to communicate the power of Christian Faith and living Tradition, so that all may share in the very life of God.

Spring 2000

Autres revues publiées par l'Université Saint-Paul Other Journals Published by Saint Paul University (223 Main, Ottawa ON K1S 1C4) Theoforum

Revue publiée, en français et en anglais, par la Faculté de théologie. Elle paraît en janvier, mai et octobre. Les articles traitent de sujets d'intérêt pour la communauté théologique et aussi pour le lecteur cultivé, ouvert à ce domaine. Abonnement: CDN 54 $ (TPS incl.). Étranger: CDN 65 $ ou US 48 $. A journal of the Faculty of Theology published in January, May and October. A referred scholarly journal, in French and in English, its articles are also of interest to the general educated reader. Subscription rate: CDN $54 (GST incl.). Outside Canada: CDN $65 or US $48. Secrétaire de rédaction/Editor: Léo Laberge, O.M.I. Studia canonica

Revue publiée deux fois par année, en français et en anglais, par la Faculté de droit canonique. Abonnement: CDN 50 $ (TPS incl.). Étranger: CDN 65 $ ou US 47 $. A journal published twice a year, in French and in English, by the Faculty of Canon Law. Subscription rate: CDN $50 (GST incl.). Outside Canada: CDN $65 or US $47. Roch Pagé, directeur/Editor, Patrick Cogan, S.A., Lynda Robitaille: directeurs adjoints/Associate Editors

Counseling et spiritualité / Counselling and Spirituality* Revue publiée deux fois par année, en français et en anglais, par la Faculté des sciences humaines. Elle a pour but de promouvoir le dialogue entre chercheurs, formateurs et praticiens et de contribuer à l'intégration de la théologie et des sciences humaines dans une perspective œcuménique. Abonnement: CDN 40 $ (TPS incl.). Étranger: CDN 45 $ ou US 38 $. A journal of the Faculty of Human Sciences, published twice a year, in English and French. The journal provides a forum for dialogue among researchers, trainers and practitioners. It aims to contribute to the integration of theology and the human sciences in an ecumenical framework. Subscription rate: CDN $40 (GST incl.). Outside Canada: CDN $45 or US $38. Rédactrice/Editor: Pierrette Daviau, Rédactrice adjointe/Co-Editor: Terry Lynn Gall *succède à SCIENCES PASTORALES / continuation of PASTORAL SCIENCES Mission

Revue bilingue (français et anglais), publiée deux fois par année par l'Institut des sciences de la mission. Mission succède à Kerygma avec le premier numéro de 1994. Revue favorisant le dialogue entre les missionnaires, de même qu'entre les missionnaires et le monde académique. Abonnement: CDN 30 $ (TPS incl.). Étranger: CDN 34 $ ou US 28 $. Bilingual (English and French), published twice a year by the Institute of Mission Studies. Mission is the continuation of Kerygma, starting with the fi rst issue of 1994. A journal which fosters dialogue between missionaries as well as between missionaries and researchers. Subscription rate: CDN $30 (GST incl.). Outside Canada: CDN $34 or US $28. Rédacteurs/Editors: Peter Pandimakil, Carolyn Sharp Revues publiées par l'Université Saint-Paul Journals Published by Saint Paul University Bon de commande \ Order Form 223 Main Ottawa ON Canada K1S 1C4

NOM \ NAME ______ADRESSE \ ADDRESS ______VILLE \ CITY ______PROVINCE ______PAYS \ COUNTRY ______CODE POSTAL \ POSTAL CODE ______TÉLÉPHONE \ TELEPHONE ______TÉLÉCOPIEUR \ FAX ______COURRIEL \ EMAIL ______Commande \ Order

QTÉ TITRE PRIX TOTAL QTY TITLE PRICE TOTAL Theoforum Logos Mission

Counselling et spiritualité \ and Spirituality Studia canonica Paiement \ Payment

❑ CHÈQUE OU MANDAT POSTAL \ CHEQUE OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE À L'UNIVERSITÉ SAINT-PAUL \ PAYABLE TO SAINT PAUL UNIVERSITY

❑ FACTURE \ PLEASE BILL ME

UNIVERSITÉ SAINT-PAUL \ SAINT PAUL UNIVERSITY ATT: CAROLE PAQUETTE 223 MAIN OTTAWA ON CANADA K1S 1C4 (613) 236-1393, POSTE \ EXT.: 2214 Merci de votre commande! Thank you for your order!

LOGOS: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies The Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies Saint Paul University • 223 Main Street • Ottawa, Ontario • K1S 2C4 Tel: 613-236-1393, ext. 2332 • Fax: 613-782-3026 email: [email protected]

LOGOS BACK ISSUES

Volume Unit Price* Qty Total Orders outside Canadian Orders Canada Volumes 46 (2005) Nos. 1-2 CDN $26.50 US $22.00

Volumes 43-45 (2002-2004) CDN $37.45 US $30.00

Volumes 41-42 (2000-2001) CDN $37.45 US $30.00

Volume 40 (1999) Nos. 1-4 CDN $37.45 US $30.00

Volume 39 (1998) Nos. 2-4 CDN $26.75 US $21.50

Volume 39 (1998) No. 1 CDN $10.70 US $8.50 Available on CD only Volume 38 (1997) Nos. 1-4 CDN $37.45 US $30.00

Volume 37 (1996) Nos. 1-4 CDN $37.45 US $30.00

Volume 36 (1995) Nos. 1-4 CDN $37.45 US $30.00

Volume 35 (1994) Nos. 1-4 CDN $20.00 US $16.00 Available on CD only Volume 34 (1993) Nos. 3-4 CDN $26.75 US $21.50

Volume 34 (1993) Nos. 1-2 CDN $10.70 US $8.50 Available on CD only * 6 % GST included in Canadian Price Contact the Institute for airmail rates SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

Name: Email: Address: City: Province/State: Postal Code:

Enclosed is my cheque or money order for $ Cheque or money order payable to: Sheptytsky Institute – LOGOS