EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 12

INQUIRIES INTO EASTERN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy Rome, 17-21 September 2008

Edited by Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples and Stefanos Alexopoulos

PEETERS LEUVEN PARIS WALPOLE, MA 2012

CONTENTS

Preface

. .

V XI

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark M. MOROZOWICH, Tradition and Natural Disaster: The Role of Liturgical Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter JEFFERY, The Mystical Chorus of the Truth Itself: Liturgy and Mystery in Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . Susan ASHBROOK HARVEY, Performance as Exegesis: Womens Liturgical Choirs in Syriac Tradition . . . . . . . . Gerard ROUWHORST, The Celebration of Holy Week in Early SyriacSpeaking Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maxwell E. JOHNSON, Baptismal Liturgy in Fourth-Century Jerusalem in the Light of Recent Scholarship . . . . . . . . . Robert F. TAFT, Reservation and Veneration of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

47

65

81

99

Gregory WOOLFENDEN, The Processional Appendix to Vespers: Some Problems and Questions . . . . . . . . . . 121 Gabriele WINKLER, Unsolved Problems Concerning the Background and Significance of the Vocabulary of Praise in Some of the Oldest Eucharistic Prayers . . . . . . . . . 135 Sebasti JANERAS, Una celebrazione liturgica tutta particolare a Costantinopoli nel secolo sesto . . . . . . . . . . 173 Chrysostom NASSIS, The Adventures of a Liturgical Commemoration: The Sixth Ecumenical Synod in the Heortologion of the Byzantine Rite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

VIII

CONTENTS

Nino SAKVARELIDZE, Einige Besonderheiten der Deutung der vierten Bitte des Vaterunsergebetes durch Maximos den Bekenner in ihrer altgeorgischen Gelati-bersetzung (12. Jahrhundert) 209 Stig Simeon R. FRYSHOV, The Georgian Witness to the Jerusalem Liturgy: New Sources and Studies . . . . . . . . . 227 Andr LOSSKY, Typica manuscrits sabates du 12e sicle: Reflets dune tradition composite . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Panayotis KALATZIDIS, La disposition intrieure rdactionnelle des manuscrits liturgiques, Paris, Coislin 213; Grottaferrata G. B. I; Athnes, Ethnike Bibliothke 662 . . . . . . . 279 Michael ZHELTOV, The Rite of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Oldest Russian Leitourgika (13th-14th centuries) . . . . . . . 293 Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES, The Descent to the West in the Liturgical Commentaries of Symeon of Thessalonica . . . . . . . 311 Vassa LARIN, The Bishop as Minister of the Prothesis? Reconsidering the Evidence in Byzantine and Muscovite Sources . . 319 Michael PETROWYCZ, The Addition of Slavic Saints to 17th Century Liturgical Calendars of the Kyivan Metropolitanate . . 331 Simon MARINCK, The Ruthenian Heirmologion in the History of Byzantine Liturgical Music: Status quaestionis . . . . . 345 Hlib LONCHYNA, Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky and Liturgical Reform: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS, The State of Modern Greek Liturgical Studies and Research: A Preliminary Survey . . . . . . 375 Nina GLIBETIC, Liturgical Renewal Movement in Contemporary Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Margot FASSLER, Chanting and Children at St. Marks Coptic Orthodox Church, Jersey City . . . . . . . . . . 415

CONTENTS

IX

Marcel MOJZES, Introduzione alla teologia e spiritualit dei Katanyktika dellOktoichos . . . . . . . . . . . 433 Emmanuel FRITSCH, The Altar in the Ethiopian Church: History, Forms and Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

Nina GLIBETIC

Introduction1 When on June 5th, 2006, Bishop Jovan (Mladenovic) issued an act in his diocese (Sumadija) instructing his presbyters to celebrate the Divine Liturgy with the holy doors open and to pronounce liturgical prayers aloud, he could not have predicted the far-reaching effect this document would have on the Orthodox Church in Serbia.2 Not only did some of the faithful in his diocese, including clergy and monks, express great protest and dissidence,3 but the Divine Liturgy became a key topic in the October regular Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade.4 The discussions at the Holy Assembly resulted in the formation of the Committee for Research on Liturgical Questions, which includes members noted for contrasting views.5 Until the findings of the Committee are accepted, the
1 I would like to thank Gabriel Radle and Steven Hawkes-Teeples S.J., for their help in the writing and editing of this paper. I am also indebted to Professor Nenad Milosevic who, through his lectures at the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade, was the first to inspire my curiosity on this subject. All translations from the Serbian original are my own. 2 Jovan (Mladenovic), Orthodox Bishop of the Sumadija Eparchy, document filed as E.br. 987, issued on 5 June 2006 in Kragujevac. The unpublished document instructs that all the prayers, from the First Prayer of the Faithful until the end of the Divine Liturgy, are said audibly, clearly and articulately. 3 Some disputes have been covered by the Press, for example: A. Milutinovic, Istina o Venwanima i osveee temea crkve svetoga Nikolaa u Tuleima, Official Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: http://www.spc.rs/Vesti-2007/04/1804-07-c.html#tul (accessed 24 January, 2009); M. Pesic, Ko navlawi zavesu na crkvene dveri, Politika Online: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Ko-navlachizavesu-na-crkvene-dveri.sr.html (accessed 24 January 2009). 4 Communications of Holy Assemblies are published in Pravoslave, the bimonthly official newspaper of the Serbian Patriarchate. See Saopjtee za avnost: redovno drugo zasedae Svetog arhiereskog sabora Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, odranog u Beogradu od 4. do 8. oktobra 2006. godine, Pravoslave 950 (Belgrade, 15 October 2006), pp. 2-3. 5 The committee was formed on 6 October 2006. Its members are: the president, Metropolitan Jovan (Pavlovic), Bishop Georgije (Djokic), Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic), Bishop Irinej (Bulovic), Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), Bishop Ignatije (Midic).

394

N. GLIBETIC

Holy Assembly has requested that the established, centuries-old liturgical tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church be maintained in every diocese [drati se ustaenog vekovnog poretka naje Crkve].6 Bishop Jovan subsequently annulled his act and the tension in his diocese somewhat calmed. However, there soon emerged a challenge regarding a larger liturgical question. Namely, it became clear that in Serbia the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in different ways and the faithful, including hierarchy and laity, are not always in agreement regarding what constitutes the established, centuries-old Serbian liturgical tradition. At the risk of speaking too generally, one can discern two tendencies in these debates with regard to the liturgical question. There are those who want certain practices abandoned because they see them as contrary to the Serbian, and more broadly, the Orthodox liturgical tradition and there are those who oppose these changes, seeing them as contradicting the established Orthodox liturgical tradition. The former have spontaneously implemented reforms in worship on the parish level, a move criticized by the latter as, among other things, betraying the tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church. What lies behind these debates is a tension between a spontaneous and still emerging liturgical movement and a critical reaction against this movement. Our intention in the following pages is to offer a preliminary description. We will do so by examining the general characteristics of this movement, the specific liturgical reforms being implemented by it, and the historical circumstances that led to it. Lastly, we hope to show that the liturgical reforms belong to an overall ecclesial renewal, one seeking a more authentic expression of life in Christ.

1. Sources Before describing the movement, some brief remarks about the sources are in order. Because the liturgical movement in Serbia is contemporary to the writing of this essay, books and academic studies on this subject are lacking.7 In addition, unlike the liturgical rebirth
6 Sveti arhiereski sabor Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve: saopjtee za avnost sa redovnog zasedaa odranog u Beogradu od 14. do 25. maa 2007. godine, Pravoslave 965 (Belgrade 1 July 2007), pp. 2-3. 7 At the same time, the topic of liturgical renewal is not new in Serbia. For example, see the discussions at the first and second Catechetical Symposium held in Belgrade in

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

395

movement in Greece described by Pavlos Koumarianos at the 2006 Society of Oriental Liturgies conference, the Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church has not organized conferences nor published encyclicals on this subject and the Committee for Research on Liturgical Questions has yet to issue its findings.8 For someone researching the movement, the sources are limited and often polemical, and the information is scattered. There are public debates, some of which have been published on-line or in various journals such as Pravoslave, the official magazine of the Patriarchate.9 Personal letters, usually of complaint, have been written and addressed to the Holy Synod.10 One can find a growing number of articles and books published in Serbia dealing with the liturgy.11 Finally, controversial brochure-type literature opposed to the renewal is easily available, ever proliferating

1980 and 1981: Parohia kao iva molitvena zaednica: Prvi Katihetski Simposion Arhiepiskopie beogradsko-karlovawke, Teolojki Pogledi XIII (Belgrade, 1980) 3, pp. 73-161; Svete tane i ivot parohie: Drugi Katihetski Simposion Arhiepiskopie beogradsko-karlovawke, Teolojki Pogledi XVI (Belgrade, 1981) 1-3, pp. 1-79. For a more recent work discussing twentieth-century liturgical reform in Byzantine-rite churches see: Marcel Mojzes, Il movimento liturgico nelle chiese bizantine: Analisi di alcune tendenze di riforma nel XX secolo (Rome, 2003). This book does not discuss the Orthodox Church in Serbia, but the recently published 3-volume work of the theologian and liturgist, Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), does: A. Jevtic, Hristos Nova Pasha: Boanstvena Liturgia, 3 vols. (Belgrade-Trebinje, 20072008). 8 Pavlos Koumarianos, Liturgical Rebirth in the Church of Greece Today: A Doubtful Effort of Liturgical Reform, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III, 4 (2007) 119-144. 9 For some examples, see the letter written by the editors of Banatski Vesnik: O Sveto Liturgii i promenama u o, Banatski Vesnik LXVI (Vrsac, December 2006) 3-4, pp. 1-9, and the reply of Bishop Atanasije: A. Jevtic, O Boansko Liturgii Pashi Gospodo i najo, Pravoslave 961 (Belgrade, 1 April 2007), pp. 10-12. 10 For example, see the letters of Bishop Jefrem (Milutinovic) and Bishop Georgije (Djokic) addressed to the Holy Assembly of Bishops and published in Pravoslave: J. Milutinovic, Narujavae bogoslubenog poretka, Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007), pp. 6-8; G. Djokic, Tradicionalno i savremeno bogosluee, Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007, pp. 9-17. Bishop Atanasije replied to both these letters: A. Jevtic, O obnovi liturgiskog ivota, a ne promeni ili reformi Liturgie, Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007), pp. 18-26. 11 In recent decades, many works dealing with the history and theology of Orthodox worship have been published in Serbia. Primary source material important for the study of Christian worship has also been translated and issued. Additionally, one can find books opposed to the liturgical movement, for example: V. Dimitrijevic, Pisma o liturgisko obnovi (Gornji Milanovac, 2008); Gresni Miloje, Ne pomiwi stare mee: pisma i razgovori, 2d ed. (Gornji Milanovac, 2008). The latter and similar works are almost always polemical in tone and content.

396

N. GLIBETIC

and triggering disagreements.12 To comprehend more fully the situation as it emerges, one must also engage in active field work by attending local liturgies and in this way discover what the initiatives are first hand.

2. Description of the Movement Contemporary liturgical renewal in Serbia is neither systematic nor an official, institutional undertaking. Despite some non-spontaneous elements, such as the previously described act issued by Bishop Jovan, it is a spontaneous movement, one without a clearly defined program of implementation.13 This spontaneous quality is partly an outcome of contemporary historical circumstances. The Turkish and Austro-Hungarian occupations, the two world wars and the Communist era have for centuries created difficult situations for the Serbian Orthodox Church, leaving little room for mystagogical reflection. However, with the collapse of the Communist government and the growing interest in tradition and faith identity, the Church has begun to recuperate. In the words of Oliver Subotic, the time in which we live is characterized by a massive rejection of the previous atheistic ideology and by a great interest in ecclesial-liturgical life.14 This growing interest has created an impetus for theological reflection, which has in turn inspired liturgical reforms. Comparing the situation to the one after the Edict of Milan in 313, Subotic continues:
The question which appeared then, and which also appears now, is the following: in what way can we preserve the authentic liturgical expression according to which the Eastern Church lives and breathes, but also satisfy the religious needs of the great number of the newly converted [novoveruuih] who feel that their place is in the Body of the Church, but who still do not have the necessary spiritual sensitivity [istanwanost] relating to the Liturgy.15

12 Some examples are: V. Dimitrijevic, Hleb nebeski i waja ivota (Gornji Milanovac, 2007); Posni Kalendar za 2008. godinu (Lipovac, 2008). 13 For a discussion of spontaneous and non-spontaneous liturgical reform, see the excellent doctoral dissertation defended at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome: Thomas Pott, La rforme liturgique Byzantine: Etude du phnomne de lvolution nonspontane de la liturgie byzanine, Bibliotheca Ephemerides liturgicae. Subsidia 104 (Rome, 2000). 14 O. Subotic, Povratak liturgisko pobonosti, Pravoslave 931-932 (Belgrade, 15 January 2006), pp. 28-29, on p. 28. 15 Subotic, Povratak (see n. 14), p. 28.

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

397

Alongside a dawning ecclesial movement is a growing number of Serbian people who identify themselves as Orthodox Christians but who have undergone little or no catechetical instruction. Their return is not infrequently accompanied by an overemphasized sense of national identity, and results in a narrowly conservative attitude, one aimed at preserving what they consider to be the authentic Serbian liturgical tradition. Because such a mentality is often paired with little theological education and infrequent liturgical participation, every perceived change in worship is experienced as a betrayal of the Serbian tradition and as a self-willed innovation [novotaria], and rejected on these grounds.16 This, at least in part, explains the controversies surrounding the liturgical movement. Those involved in the movement have replied to these and similar accusations. According to them, the fundamental issue is not change [promena] or reform [reforma] of the Holy Liturgy, but the renewal of us all in the Church through the renewal of our Christian, Orthodox, evangelical, liturgical life and existence.17 Or, in the words of Bishop Irinej (Bulovic), what is at stake is our [personal] rebirth, the renewal of our own mind, heart and entire being.18 These writers avoid using the word reform for seemingly two reasons: firstly, because it labels the liturgical movement as only implementing formal, structural changes in the liturgical action without taking into account its broader scope, including an overall ecclesial renewal.19 Secondly, for the sake of dialogue, because the word reform is regarded by many as designating an action that breaks away from the tradition of the Church.20 The liturgical movement therefore and the term movement is here used loosely, to connote something not formally organized has as its primary aim not the reform of worship but the renewal of Christian life. For this very reason, those involved in the renewal hold that the Liturgical

For example: G. Miloje, Ne pomiwi (see n. 11), p. 14. A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18. 18 See I. Bulovic, Introduction to Na putu ka liturgiskom preporodu, by N. Balasov, trans. K. Koncarevic and K. Simic, 2 vols. (Novi Sad, 2007), vol.1, pp. 1-7, on p. 3. 19 Ibid., p. 3. 20 The title of Bishop Atanasijes article is revealing. It translates as: The Renewal of Liturgical Life and Not Change or Reform of the Liturgy (see n. 10). See the use of the word reform by Bishop Georgije (Djokic): Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 10. Though the word reform is employed in this article, we use it to designate concrete, visible changes in the way worship is conducted. In other words, reforms are a part of a larger movement, which in this case has as its aim the renewal of Christian life.
17

16

398

N. GLIBETIC

Committee can in fact come to a conclusion that a particular change in worship is desired. Such a change ought to be understood as a renewal [obnova] of the forgotten, missed or suppressed centuries-old practice of ecumenical Orthodoxy and not as a self-willed innovation.21 The aim of such a change would be to bring the faithful closer to the truth on which the entire Orthodox tradition rests. Despite its spontaneous quality, it is particular bishops who are at the center of the renewal, the majority of whom were educated in the Church Fathers as part of the broader Neo-Patristic movement. These include the retired Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), from the Bosnian eparchy of Zahumsko-Hercegovacka. Primarily a patristic scholar, Bishop Atanasije is also a noted liturgical theologian and historian of the liturgy. He is the most vocal defender of the liturgical movement and has published extensively on the subject.22 Another important figure is Bishop Irinej (Bulovic) of the Backa diocese and the dean of the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade.23 His diocese, located in one of the most multi-cultural regions of Serbia, has seen a number of liturgical initiatives, including the translation and celebration of the Divine Liturgy into the Roma Gypsy language. Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic) of the historical diocese of Zica also has an important role in this movement. His diocese is the seat of the first Serbian archeparchy, established by St Sava of the Nemanjic dynasty. Bishop Hrizostom is responsible for the writing and translation of important liturgical works and the publication of service books.24 Though not as outwardly vocal as Bishop Atanasije, Bishop Hrizostoms diocese has struggled with the most protest and dissidence.25 Another important figure is Amfilohije
A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18. Besides his already cited books and articles (see n. 7, 9, 10) consult: A. Jevtic, O Crkvi i Liturgii (Vrnjci, 2005); A. Jevtic, Osam Predavaa o Sveto Liturgii (Vrnjci, 2008). In English: A. Yevtich, Christ: The Alpha and Omega (Vrnjacka Banja, 2007). The same work is available in Greek: A. Jevtic, Xristv, J Xra tn Hntwn (Athens, 2007). 23 Consult: I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18). 24 H. Stolic, Boanstvena Liturgia Svetoga apostola akova (Belgrade, 1985); H. Stolic, O Hilandarskom Tipiku, Banatski Vesnik 58 (Vrsac, 1998) 1-2, pp. 11-13; Liturgia Apostolskih Ustanova, trans. and ed. H. Stolic (Kraljevo, 2004). Bishop Hrizostom has also initiated the publication of Menaia containing hymnographical texts for Serbian saints. For centuries and due to difficult historical circumstances, Serbia has been using Russian and Ukrainian Menaia. The Srbljak (in Serbrian: Srbak), a supplementary book containing offices for Serbian saints, filled the gap. 25 Liturgical reform was given as the reason for a hunger strike by three priests from the small town of Cacak. The priests insisted that they were moved to a different parish
21 22

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

399

(Radovic), the Metropolitan of Montenegro. He supports the liturgical movement and has replaced Patriarch Pavle during his long hospitalization.26 This list is by no means exhaustive and the movement extends to include other people with diverse vocations in the Church, including laity, clergy, monks, students and professors. One cannot talk about liturgical renewal in Serbia without mentioning the influence of the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The faculty was only in 2004 reintroduced into the University of Belgrade, following its exclusion by the Communists in 1952. At the faculty, the lectures on liturgics by Professor Nenad Milosevic are some of the most popular and controversial, and always fill the lecture hall.27 In addition to these lectures, Milosevic has introduced the celebration of the complete daily liturgical cycle in the university chapel, a practice that has for many become the center of student life. These celebrations,

because they refused to celebrate according to the new rite [novi obred]. See A. Arsenijevic, Svetosave naspram ekumenizma, Wawanske Novine (Cacak, 5 February 2008), pp. 6-7; N. R., Svejtenici prekinuli protest, Wawanski Glas (Cacak, 8. February 2008), p. 5; Saopjtee za avnost Eparhie iwke, Wawanski Glas (Cacak, 8. February 2008), p. 5; S. Markovic, Dokle tako, Vaje Preosvejtenstvo, Wawanske Novine (Cacak, 11 March 2008), pp. 10-11. In the small town of Duskovci, a group of people, protesting inside the church building during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, attempted to physically prohibit Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic) from leaving. See B. Kerkezovic, Istinom na la, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008), pp. 12-13; Regent Archpriests of the Eparchy of Zica, Saopjtee Arhiereskih namesnika Eparhie iwke, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008) p. 9; A. Jevtic, O pagubnim novotariama tzv. revnitea starog nawina sluea, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008), pp. 10-11. 26 See his homily delivered in the Patriarchate chapel (Belgrade) and quoted on the Official Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: O preovladavau sujtine nad formom u liturgiskom ivotu naje Crkve, 12. August 2008, Official Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: http://www.spc.rs/sr/arhiepiskop_amfilohije_o_preovladavanju_sustine_nad_formom_u_liturgijskom_zivotu_nase_crkve (accessed 25 January 2009). (Patriarch Pavle died on 15 November 2009; note of the editors.) 27 I provide here a partial bibliography of Milosevics works: N. Milosevic, J qea Exarista v kntro tv qeav latreav: J sndesiv tn mustjrwn met tv qeav Exaristav (Thessalonica, 2001); N. Milosevic, Rimska Liturgia, Bogoslove (Belgrade, 2002) 1, pp. 19-37; Posledovae tritekti ili tree-jestog wasa, Bogoslove (Belgrade, 2002) 2, pp. 69-89; Posledovae panihide, Bogoslove (Belgrade, 2003) 1-2, pp. 25-40; Sveta tana ispovesti i pokaaa, Beseda (Novi Sad, 2004) 6, pp. 111-118; Protoere Lazar Mirkovi kao liturgiwar, Srpska teologia u dvadesetom veku 1 (Belgrade, 2007), pp. 29-37; Episkop dr. Sava Vukovi kao liturgiwar, Srpska teologia u dvadesetom veku 2 (Belgrade, 2007), pp. 129-133; Evharistisko bogoslove Svetoga Ignatia Bogonosca na primeru tane braka, Vidoslov 42 (Tvrdos-Trebinje, 2007), pp. 109-114. I am grateful to Milan Jovanovic, graduate student at the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church, who provided me with these bibliographical references.

400

N. GLIBETIC

including frequent all-night vigils, allow students to go beyond mere scholarship and enjoy a living understanding of worship. Another key initiative put forth by Milosevic and inspired by his Greek mentor, Professor Ioannis Fountoulis, has been the weekly celebration of diverse liturgies found in history throughout the East, some of which are rarely or no longer celebrated by Christians today (an example is a reconstruction of the Divine Liturgy found in the Apostolic Constitutions). This initiative exposes Milosevics students to the dynamic pluralism found in liturgical practice and inspires a deeper reflection on the nature of Christian worship. Recently, and already celebrating in a spirit similar to the one existing at the Theological Faculty, a small chapel has been consecrated at the University of Belgrades student Residence Hall. One must also mention the seminary in Kragujevac. Considering that youth make up by far the largest percentage of practicing Orthodox Christians in Serbia, the influence of these educational institutions is quite significant.28 To the list we can also add specific monasteries, such as Zica, Kovilj and Gradac, along with parishes throughout the country, where the liturgical life has been visibly affected by the renewal. 3. Specific Reforms Having described in broad strokes some of the main characteristics of the liturgical movement, we now examine the specific reforms in worship which have already been implemented on the parish level. These reforms have been primarily restricted to the Divine Liturgy. Due to the spontaneous nature of the movement, they have not been introduced in a consistent manner but by partial implementation; various combinations of specific reforms are evident in actual practice. a. Holy Communion A central, visible change inspired by the liturgical movement is the frequent reception of holy communion. In his thirteenth-century partial translation of the Evergetis Typicon, from the Constantinopolitan monastery of the same name, St Sava, the first Serbian archbishop, upheld frequent communion as a Christian ideal.29 Over the centuries however,
Subotic, Povratak (see n. 14), pp. 28-29. Saint Sava, Hilandarski Tipik Svetoga Save, trans. L. Mirkovic (Belgrade, 1935).
28 29

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

401

and especially during the Ottoman occupation, this practice fell into disuse. The contemporary liturgical movement encourages frequent communion, as is evident in churches affected by the movement.30 Reminding that the Church is first of all a liturgical or an eucharistic community [liturgiska ili evharistiska zaednica], Bishop Irinej (Bulovic) cites the Gospel of John to show the centrality of communion in the Christian life: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).31 In Bishop Irinejs words: participating in the Eucharist and receiving [priwejivati se] the Bread of life and the True drink means having eternal life in the present and living in joyful expectation of the future resurrection.32 Frequent communion is in contrast to common practices in the Serbian Orthodox Church, such as the faithful receiving only on Easter Sunday and Christmas, or clergy not allowing the faithful to receive outside the four major fasts. In churches affected by the renewal, communion always takes place at the time prescribed by the Sluzebnik, that is, following the communion of the clergy, and is never left for the end of the Divine Liturgy. The latter is an occasional practice in parishes throughout the country, especially during principal feasts. b. The Relationship Between Fasting and Communion Discussing different ways in which the relationship between fasting and communion is understood by the faithful, Patriarch Pavle writes: we must save ourselves from every extreme and every one-sidedness.33 The patriarch is referring to different practices evident in the Serbian Orthodox Church with regard to fasting in the preparation for holy communion. For example, in churches not affected by the renewal, it is common for a priest to question those approaching the chalice if they have prepared. This question refers to a week-long fast on water [na vodi], that is, a week-long abstinence from any animal product and oil prior to communion. The practice seems to have become widespread in

30 In some monasteries, such as Zica and Gradac, the Divine Liturgy is celebrated every morning unless otherwise prescribed by the Typicon. 31 The New Jerusalem Bible: Pocket Edition (New York, 1990). 32 I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18), pp. 1-2. 33 Patriarch Pavle, O postu i priwejivau, Pravoslave 953 (Belgrade, 1 December 2006), pp. 2-3, on p. 3.

402

N. GLIBETIC

the eighteenth century, though this has yet to be studied in a systematic way.34 For now, we can hypothesize that the practice developed in order to enable those who attended the Liturgy infrequently to approach the sacrament by preparing in such a way. While exceptions are made due to illness or similar circumstances, the week-long fast is today considered a mandatory step in the preparation for holy communion by many Serbian faithful, even by those in church regularly. They defend the practice as a necessary ascetic dimension of church life.35 According to those involved in the liturgical movement, the weeklong fast betrays the canons of the Orthodox Church, such as those of the Quinisext council, which forbid fasting on Saturdays and Sundays.36 In parishes affected by the renewal, liturgically active faithful keep the regular fasts all the while receiving communion at every Divine Liturgy. Both fasting and communion may be occasionally restricted by the spiritual father or the parish priest, when a theologically sound reason presents itself.37 In Metropolitan Amfilohijes words: who am I to deny the Lord to the one who fasts every Wednesday and Friday and all four annual fasts, who lives in the spirit of repentance and according to a Christian life?.38 c. Marriage and Baptism Celebrated Within the Context of the Divine Liturgy Insisting that marriage and baptism are not private but communal acts which involve the entire ecclesial body, when possible, churches affected by the liturgical movement celebrate both sacraments within the context of the Divine Liturgy. Their effort has not gone without criticism. Describing the two sacraments as a private family matter, Bishop Georgije (Djokic) asserts that their celebration within the context of the Divine Liturgy disrupts the communal prayer of the faithful.39 His criticism seems to be motivated by an unfortunate pastoral reality: because
34 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko i svetotainsko bogoslove u Karlovawko Mitropolii XVIII. veka (Ph.D. diss., University of Belgrade, 2007), pp. 162-163. 35 For example: V. Dimitrijevic, Hleb nebeski (see n. 12), pp. 29-33//54-56. 36 A. Jevtic, Liturgiski mir i edinstvo u najo Crkvi, Pravoslave 973 (Belgrade, 1 October 2007), pp. 6-8, on p. 8; Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 1, p. 23. 37 Patriarch Pavle, O postu (see n. 33), p. 3. Though Bishop Georgije (Djokic) is critical of the liturgical movement, on this subject he agrees: Tradicionalno (see n. 10), pp. 15-16. 38 A. Radovic, O preovladavau (see n. 26). 39 G. Djokic, Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 16.

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

403

many faithful do not personally know those being baptized or married, they do not experience the celebration of these sacraments within the Divine Liturgy as belonging to the entire ecclesial Body. d. The Use of Holy Doors We mentioned the debates over the use of holy doors in the introduction of this article, when describing the act issued by Bishop Jovan (Mladenovic), in which he instructs the clergy of his diocese to keep the holy doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy. This seems to be the general practice in churches affected by the liturgical movement. Metropolitan Amfilohije (Radojevic), in a homily delivered at the Patriarchate chapel, states: do not the closed doors and the silent reading of [liturgical] prayers keep the lay faithful from an essential understanding of the Holy Liturgy? If the curtain was torn in the Jewish temple at the moment of Christs death, who are we to put it up again?.40 Contrary to the liturgical books of his day, the twentieth-century Serbian theologian, Justin Popovic, spiritual father to many of the bishops involved in the contemporary renewal, does not mention the use of holy doors in his 1978 translation of the Divine Liturgy into Serbian, except at communion.41 It was probably his intention to reduce rubrical instructions in Serbian liturgical books, because it is clear from video footage and photographs that he used the holy doors. Rubrics concerning the doors are listed in the 2001 Church Slavonic Moscow Sluzebnik, used in parishes throughout the country, whereas the 2007 Sluzebnik in Serbian does not mention them.42 In churches unaffected by the renewal, doors and curtains are both employed in non-pontifical celebrations of the Divine Liturgy. e. The Prothesis Rite and the Particles for the Holy Angels In churches affected by the renewal, the practice of taking out particles for the Holy Angels in the prothesis rite has been restored. Justin Popovic re-introduced the same in his translation, indicating the practice in older Slavic liturgical books and arguing that it ought to be used

A. Radovic, O preovladavau (see n. 26). J. Popovic, Boanstvene Liturgie (Belgrade, 1978), pp. 72//130. 42 Holy Archiepiscopal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Sluebnik (Belgrade, 2007).
40 41

404

N. GLIBETIC

because it brings to light the cosmic dimension of Christian worship.43 Bishop Atanasije shows that this practice fell into disuse in Serbia with the introduction of Russian liturgical books in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.44 f. Censing Insisting on the importance for the faithful to hear biblical readings, those involved in the renewal encourage censing during the Alleluia and not during the Epistle reading.45 g. Liturgical Homily Seeking to restore the traditional order of the Divine Liturgy, in churches affected by the renewal, the liturgical homily, when delivered, is always done after the reading of the gospel. This is contrary to the common practice of leaving the homily for the end of the Divine Liturgy. The latter is justified by those opposed to the reforms on pastoral grounds. For example, though Bishop Georgije (Djokic) does indicate that the homily was traditionally delivered after the gospel reading, he argues that for the sake of those arriving late to the Divine Liturgy it is best that it be left for the end.46 h. Litanies In some though not all churches affected by the renewal, the litany for the catechumens and the dismissal that follows are no longer said. i. The Reading of Liturgical Prayers in an Audible Voice In churches where liturgical reforms have been implemented, the general practice is to pronounce liturgical prayers in an audible voice. A common exception is the so-called Nemo dignus prayer, considered to be a personal prayer of the celebrant. One of the effects of this reform is
J. Popovic, Boanstvene (see n. 41), pp. 230-231. A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 3, pp. 375//379. Also consult: V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 225-226. 45 The same is encouraged by those opposed to the renewal: G. (Djokic), Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 12. 46 Ibid., p. 12.
43 44

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

405

the return to only saying It is right and proper at the opening dialogue of the anaphora, without the words to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity one in essence and undivided. Those involved in the liturgical movement argue that the audible recitation of liturgical prayers helps reveal the Eucharist as a sacrifice offered by the entire assembly. In Bishop Irinejs words, the faithful ought to be the royal priesthood and concelebrants, instead of mere passive observers.47 By pronouncing liturgical prayers aloud, it is thought that the occasional tendency toward clericalism evident among both laity and clergy in the Serbian Orthodox Church could at least partly be overcome.48 Opponents of the practice hold that the silent reading of prayers can reveal the liturgy of the Church as a communal act which does involve the entire assembly. Bishop Georgije (Djokic) argues that praying the anaphora in an audible voice actually impedes the active participation of the lay faithful because it turns them into passive listeners.49 It is preferable, he concludes, that the faithful participate in the Eucharistic offering by means of personal prayer or singing, while the celebrant silently reads these essentially private prayers of the clergy.50 Similarly, Father Dusan Kolundzic argues that the reading of liturgical prayers in an audible voice does not solve the problem of clericalism. For him, only through catechetical instruction can the faithful develop an authentic understanding of their role in the Divine Liturgy.51 j. Troparia of the Third Hour In churches effected by the renewal, troparia of the Third Hour are no longer said within the context of the Divine Liturgy. This is because they are seen as unnecessary fortifications of the epiclesis, interpolated into the Divine Liturgy for polemical reasons. However, even prior to the contemporary liturgical movement, there was a growing awareness of this problem. For example, in his 1942 translation of the Divine Liturgy into modern Serbian, Bishop Irinej (Dobic) shows a more critical

I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18), p. 2. S. Dobic, O Sveto Liturgii i witau liturgiskih molitava na glas, Pravoslave 981 (Belgrade, 1 February 2008) pp. 6-9, on p. 9. See the reply of D. Kolundzic, O witau liturgiskih molitava na glas, Pravoslave 984 (Belgrade, 15 March 2008), pp. 16-17. 49 G. Djokic, Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 14. 50 Ibid., pp. 14-15. 51 D. Kolundzic, O witau (see n. 48), p. 17.
47 48

406

N. GLIBETIC

assessment of the Serbian liturgical practice by indicating that these troparia are not said in the Greek Church.52 Some years later, Justin Popovic in his translation placed these troparia in brackets, reasoning that while it is not up to us at this time to omit them, it is also not up to us to include them without indicating their more recent introduction into the Liturgy.53 Today, Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic) argues that the use of these troparia within the Divine Liturgy is not witnessed in Serbian liturgical manuscripts and early printed books and is also not authentic to Orthodox liturgical theology.54 For these reasons, he concludes, the troparia should be removed from both the Chrysostom and the Basil anaphoras. Other practices seen as isolating one section of the anaphora as having particular consecratory power, have also been abandoned by those involved in the reforms. Some examples of these practices include the lay faithful kneeling during the Words of Institution and/or during the epiclesis, the ringing of small bells during the anaphora or the priestly gesture of blessing the holy gifts during the Words of Institution. However, these gestures were not universally present even before the reforms. With all these reforms and various reactions to them, we can generally observe two tendencies being revealed in the Serbian Orthodox Church today. On the one side and the word side is here used reluctantly, for it is never helpful to speak about sides when describing the Church there are those who want liturgical reforms brought about because they see the reforms as authentic to Orthodox worship and theology. On the other side, there are those, such as Bishop Georgije (Djokic) and Bishop Jefrem (Milutinovic), who describe the reforms as betraying the established Serbian Orthodox tradition. Both hold that they are abiding by the Holy Assemblys wish to celebrate in line with the spirit and centuries-old tradition of Serbian Orthodox Church.55 How can this discrepancy be explained?

52 Nedea Svete Pedesetnice: prazniwne slube, trans. Bishop Irinej Ciric (Ujvidek, 1942), p. 320. 53 J. Popovic, Boanstvene (see n. 41), p. 229. 54 A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 2, pp. 134-148//360-373. Consult also Serbian manuscript evidence: V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 226-228. 55 J. Milutinovic, Narujavae (see n. 10), pp. 6-7; A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18.

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

407

4. Metropolitanate of Karlovci According to Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), the most vocal supporter of the liturgical movement, what his critics consider to be the established liturgical tradition in Serbia is a more recent development in Serbian worship, which came about between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries.56 This development, which was originally limited to the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, gradually became standard Serbian practice. Unfortunately, the changes in worship introduced at Karlovci, though explainable given the historical context in which they developed, have, according to Bishop Atanasije, led Serbian worship away from a liturgy that most authentically expresses the Orthodox faith. The transformation that he and others involved in the contemporary liturgical movement in Serbia are referring to will occupy us for remainder of this article. For without understanding this historical context, the liturgical renewal taking place in Serbia today cannot be understood.57 The history of the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, located in northern Serbia in the region today known as Vojvodina, is intimately connected to the large exodus of Serbs fleeing Ottoman rule following the AustroTurkish war.58 Though this migration began as early as the fourteenth century, it was in 1690 that Patriarch Arsenije III (Carnojevic, 16741706) led 40,000 people over the Danube River and into the AustroHungarian Empire. By that time, a significant number of Serbs were already living in that empire and this ethnic continuity allowed the refugees to adapt more easily to their new surroundings.59 However, the circumstances in which Serbs found themselves also brought new challenges. For the first time, the Serbian people were confronted with the ideas and prejudices of enlightenment rationalism and with the polemics of post-reformation Europe.60 Deprived of their
56 A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), pp. 19-22; A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 3, pp. 382-384. Consult also Bishop Atanasijes important article: A. Jevtic, Razvo bogoslova kod Srba, Teolojki Pogledi XVI (Belgrade, 1982) 3-4, pp. 81-104. 57 For a general study of Serbian Church history consult Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, 3 vols. (Munich, 1966). For a general history of Serbia, consult the well-known work: K. Juricek, Istoria Srba, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Belgrade, 1952). 58 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), vol. 1, pp. 373-374; V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 7. 59 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 7. For a general study on Serbs in Vojvodina prior to the 1690 migration, consult R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot u Vovodini:1. do Velike Seobe od 1690. god. (Novi Sad, 1939). 60 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 7-12.

408

N. GLIBETIC

political and with the cancellation of the Serbian patriarchate in 1766 religious autonomy, they felt the need to defend their identity.61 This task was made especially difficult living in a heavily Catholic empire and confronting explicit pressure toward union with Rome.62 All these circumstances resulted in what is sometimes described as a process of Russification of Serbian Church and culture.63 Realizing that the preservation of their spiritual identity demanded higher education, Serbs turned to Russia for help.64 Because even basic conditions for education, such as good schools, adequately trained teachers and books, were lacking, Orthodox Russia, sharing a similar language and alphabet with Serbs, was seen as an ideal ally.65 Soon, promising students were sent north, especially to Kiev, to study theology at the well-known Kievan Academy.66 By the eighteenth century this trend would result in the systematization of Serbian education and the opening of the first Slavonic-Latin schools.67 In 1727, Metropolitan Mojsije (Petrovic) opened a new primary school [osnovna jkola] and the Russian Maxim Suvorov, sent by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, became its first teacher.68 Six years later, Metropolitan Vikentije Jovanovic opened a High School [sreda jkola, or gimnazia] leaving another Russian, Emmanuel Kozacinski, in charge.69 The primary schools opened during this period taught the Slavonic alphabet along with fundamentals such as arithmetic, grammar and simple spiritual works.70 In the High Schools, students were taught theology from the so-called SlavonicLatin manuals and catecheses, brought to Serbia from the east.71 Russian works, including liturgical books, were imported and already

A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 97-98. Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), vol. 1, pp. 414-429. 63 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 198. 64 Ibid., pp. 8//197-200. For a general historical discussion on Serbian-Russian relations, consult Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), pp. 402-414. 65 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 198; A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), p. 100. 66 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 412. 67 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 201-211. For an overview of education at Karlovci, see R. Grujic, Srpske jkole u Beogradskokarlovawko mitropolii (Belgrade, 1908). 68 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 412; R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot (see n. 59), pp. 31-41. 69 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 201. 70 Ibid., p. 201; R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot (see n.. 59), pp. 82-90. 71 V. Vukasinovic extensively discusses the history, contents and use of catecheses: Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 50-91.
61 62

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

409

by the middle of the eighteenth century a relatively short amount of time the Russian version of Church Slavonic, today simply known as Church Slavonic, had replaced the previously used Serbian recension in worship.72 The wide-spread introduction of Russian liturgical books, such as the Minej, Trebnik and Sluzebnik, meant also the introduction of liturgical elements specific to Russia, such as feasts commemorating Russian saints, or peculiarities in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy previously unused in Serbia.73 A parallel process of Russification was evident also on the level of general culture, where Russian literature, art and music quickly began to dominate.

5. Contemporary Renewal Movement Until recently, most historians described the above-mentioned period in the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church in positive terms. The socalled process of Russification was seen as the only way Serbia would be able to overcome pressures toward union with Rome.74 Russian presence at Karlovci was seen as inspiring a new intellectual dynamism in a culture severely weakened by the Ottoman conquest and by the exile into a foreign empire. However, in the twentieth century and especially during the Communist era, the Serbian theological community initiated what would become a widespread theological awakening. This awakening led to a critical re-examination of the changes brought about at Karlovci and has resulted in the contemporary liturgical movement. Like well-known Neo-patristic theologians in both East and West, Serbian theologians gradually became disillusioned with the manualist tradition that had been introduced at

72 Ksenija Koncarevic, Lingvistiwki komentar in Balajov, Na putu (see n. 21), vol.1, pp. 259-285. Consult also J. Milanovic, Bogoslubeni ezik Srpske Crkve: savremeno stae i perspektive, Logos (Belgrade, 2006), pp. 189-208. For a discussion on the use of the vernacular in Serbian Orthodox worship, see R. Bajic, Bogoslybeni ezik u Srpsko pravoslavno crkvi: projlost, savremeno stae, perspektive (Belgrade, 2007). 73 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 215-240. A well-known work dealing with the history of Serbian literature including liturgical works is by D. Bogdanovic, Istoria srpske kievnosti (Belgrade, 1980). 74 For example, see: Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 415. Vukasinovic challenges this assumption: Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 3. He cites the following work: I. Tarnanidou, T problmata tv mjtroplewv karlobkwn kat tn ij ana ka Jovan Rajic 1726-1801 (Thessalonica, 1972), p. 170.

410

N. GLIBETIC

Karlovci. It was notably Bishop Nikolaj (Velimirovic. 1880-1956), and especially Archimandrite Justin Popovic (1894-1979), who turned to the Church Fathers in search of a more authentic expression of Orthodox theology75. In an article published in Pravoslave, Sava Dobic writes:
The two of them [Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic] have started a general spiritual-ecclesial renewal, whose fruits we are reaping today and which is crowned by the liturgical renewal. Their work demands that we not discontinue this renewal.76

Besides writing numerous books, including theological, historical and poetical works, Nikolaj Velimirovic was the spiritual leader of an earlier existing Serbian renewal movement, the so-called Bogomoljci [Bogomoci], meaning the God-Beseechers.77 An indirect relationship could possibly be established between this lay movement and the contemporary liturgical movement, though we leave this task for another time.78 For now it suffices to say that the writings of Bishop Nikolaj continue to inspire Serbian theology, and in this way also the liturgical movement.79 Justin Popovic is more directly related. In his theological writings, we see a clear return to the Fathers, and a strong influence of Neo-patristic authors.80 His search for a more authentic theological expression also inspired him to introduce concrete liturgical reforms. These include translating the liturgies into modern Serbian, re-introducing particles for the holy angels in the prothesis, placing Third Hour troparia in brackets,
75 Bishop Atanasije mentions others who have contributed to the overall renewal, such as Radoslav Grujic, Lazar Mirkovic and Dragi Anastasijevic. He also indicates the theologians connected with the following Serbian periodicals: Bogoslovski glasnik, Hrijanski ivot, Hrijansko delo, Bogoslove, Glasnik Patriarjie, Hrijanska misao, Svetosave. See A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), p. 102. 76 S. Dovic, O Sveto Liturgii (see n. 48), p. 9. 77 For a study on the Bogomoljci movement and Nikolaj Velimirovic, see D. Subotic, Episkop Nikola i Pravoslavni Bogomoawki Pokret (Belgrade, 1996). Bishop Nikolaj also wrote a book on the Bogomoljci: Divan: nauka o wudesima (Munich, 1953). 78 For some initial discussions on the influence of Bogomoljci on Serbian worship, see D. Kapisazovic, Pevae bogomoawkih pesama u hramovima Vesnik 392 (Belgrade, 15 October 1965) p. 3; S. Ratkovic, Pevae bogomoawkih pesama u hramovima, Vesnik 395-6 (Belgrade, 1-15 December 1965), pp. 3-4; D. Kapisazovic, Odgovor, Vesnik 397 (Belgrade, 1 January 1966), p. 8; A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 3, p. 382. 79 A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 102-103. 80 An English bibliography of Father Justins works is available in Wovek bogowoveka Hrista: spomenica 110-godijici blaenog prestavea Prepodobnog Oca ustina Novog eliskog, ed. A. Jevtic (Belgrade, 2004), pp. 352-382.

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

411

and insisting that it is people and not choirs who ought to sing liturgical responses.81 Both his theological writings and his liturgical initiatives influenced the current liturgical movement. This is especially evident when one takes into account that Justin Popovic was the spiritual father to the most active bishops involved in the renewal, such as Irinej (Bulovic) and Atanasije (Jevtic). When reading the writings of Father Justins disciples, one often encounters the concept of pseudomorphosis [psevdomorfoza], used to describe the developments at the Metropolitanate of Karlovci we examined earlier.82 According to these authors, the theological-liturgical life at Karlovci during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries underwent a process similar to the pseudomorphosis described by Georges Florovsky, a father of the Neo-patristic movement in the East.83 Generally speaking, what is meant by the use of this word in the Serbian context is the visible transformation of Serbian theology, worship and popular liturgical piety. This transformation came about especially through the introduction of Russian theological and liturgical books, heavily influenced by Moghilan Kiev and the theology of the Manualist School.84 For example, referring to those opposed to the liturgical movement, Jevtic writes:
For some of them, the centuries-old tradition is in fact the Karlovci practice, introduced a few centuries ago, not witnessed in our manuscripts and first printed Sluzabnici but appearing through [those books] brought from Kiev, Lvov, Vilnius and Moscow, or in those reprinted at Karlovci85

81 J. Popovic, epilogue to Boanstvene (see n. 43), p. 232. I hope to soon publish an English translation of this text, important as it is for the study of twentieth-century worship in the Serbian Orthodox Church. 82 For example: A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 98-101; A. Jevtic, Epilogue to Veliki post by A. Schmemann, trans. J. Olbina (Vrnjacka Banja, 1999), pp. 164-174, on pp. 164-165; A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), pp. 19-22; V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 61. Bishop Irinej (Bulovic) alludes to this process: Introduction (see n. 21), pp. 1-7. Consult also S. Dobic, O Sveto (see n. 48), pp. 7-8. 83 See G. Florovsky, Westliche Einflsse in der russischen Theologie, ProcsVerbaux du Premier Congrs de Thologie Orthodoxe Athnes, ed. H. S. Alivisatos (Athens, 1939), pp. 212-232; G. Florovsky, Collected Works, 4 vols. (Belmont, Mass., 1975), pp. 157-182. 84 Theological books introduced during this period, the so-called confessions of faith [ispovedaa vere] and similar works, are described in: V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 56-61. 85 A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 19.

412

N. GLIBETIC

Even though we may attribute the adoption of this predominantly late Scholastic theology86 to historical circumstances, Jevtic indicates that Neo-patristic theologians, such as Justin Popovic, have already exposed this theology as an inadequate expression of the Christian ethos, both eastern and western. It follows that this theology, and the liturgical reforms implemented under its influence, should be abandoned. However, those involved in the contemporary liturgical movement do not seek reforms simply to rid the Serbian liturgy of Russian or Roman Catholic influences that came about at Karlovci. Neither do they seek to return Serbian worship to an imagined, idealized liturgy as once celebrated by the Fathers.87 Rather, the re-discovery of a theology centered on the liturgical dimension of ecclesia has prompted an evaluation of established Serbian liturgical practices, which in turn inspired concrete reforms in worship. For example, in his epilogue to the Serbian translation of Father Schmemanns The Great Lent, Jevtic agrees with Schmemanns criticism of the Scholastic tradition. However, he reminds that Manualist theology, and its adoption by the Orthodox, is an expression of a more profound crisis, and one repeatedly witnessed in Christian history; that is, it is a crisis of faith.88 The solution, therefore, is not simply to abandon practices in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy because they have come about in more recent centuries, and in this case, also under foreign influence. The implemented reforms, and the theology from which they derive, instead seek a more authentic epiphany of the Christian life of faith in Christ. Although patristic theology is a sure test of profound and authentic theological expression, the Fathers are not limited to a particular historical epoch. One can speak of twentiethcentury Fathers, for example Popovic and Velimirovic. It is Christ who
86 We specify late Scholastic so as not to disregard the entire Scholastic philosophical-theological tradition, but to refer to a particular development within this tradition, and one that has been heavily criticized by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike. This specification is our own. 87 We write this partly in response to the following important essay, which criticizes the use of the concept of pseudomorphosis by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike: Dorothea Wendebourg, Pseudomorphosis: Ein theologisches Urteil als Axiom der kirchen- und theologiegeschichtlichen Forschung, in The Christian East: Its Institutions and its Thought. A Critical Reflection, ed. Robert F. Taft, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 251 (1996), pp. 565-589. In English: Pseudomorphosis: A Theological Judgment as an Axiom for Research in the History of Church and Theology, trans. Alexandra Riebe, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43 (1997) 321-342. I am indebted to Sister Vassa Larin and Father Robert Taft who showed me this article and inspired a more critical evaluation of this concept. 88 A. Jevtic, Epilogue (see n. 82), pp. 165-166.

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

413

is the true source of theological reflection and of the Churchs liturgy, and He promised to be with His Church in every epoch.

Conclusion Although we have examined some of its main characteristics, introduced the persons most intimately involved, listed concrete reforms being implemented, and described the broader historical context, our study of the current liturgical movement in Serbia has only touched the surface. Not only would we have to follow up with a more systematic, historical examination of Serbian worship, but more importantly, we would have to seek a deeper understanding of the theology on which this movement rests. Alexander Schmemann rightly notes that the Churchs leitourgia is the full and adequate epiphany of that in which the church believes.89 The deepening in faith and in theological understanding that has accompanied the Serbian Church in recent decades has begun to manifest also in the liturgical life of the Church. Given the especially difficult political and social circumstances in recent Serbian history, it is remarkable, or perhaps only natural, that a search for Orthodox faith and its genuine expression in worship should arise. This search was especially inspired by the Neo-Patristic movement, and in particular by the writings of Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic. However, spiritual renewal is never an easy task, and resistance, iskujee, is always encountered. There are radical differences among the Serbian faithful on the level of education, exposure to other cultures and liturgical traditions, in theological understanding and in the experience of ecclesia and it is here, more than anywhere else, that we find our explanation for the criticism the movement has received. Here we also discover an explanation for the divergences in liturgical practice evident in the Serbian Church today. In the words of Emilianos Timiadis, worship too bears the seal of history, that of the pilgrimage of the chosen and redeemed people struggling to remain loyal to their Savior and to participate in His glory.90 Historical tensions have a way of showing their face in the liturgy of the Church. At the same time, liturgical divergences

89 A. Schmemann, Liturgical Theology, Theology of Liturgy, and Liturgical Reform, Saint Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 13 (1969) 217-224, on p. 218. 90 E. Timiadios, The Renewal of Orthodox Worship, Studia Liturgica 6 (1969) 95-115, on p. 95.

414

N. GLIBETIC

ought not to be feared, for diversity in liturgical practice has always been present in the life of the Church. The Serbian liturgical movement is a new movement, one still predominantly acting on an intuition, albeit one rooted in vigilant theological reflection. Though this intuition has judged particular historical developments in Serbian worship critically, more detailed historical analysis has yet to substantiate these assumptions. While a distanced evaluation of the fine points must still stand the test of time, the current situation should be seen as expression of hope. This is because it reveals our liturgy as indeed living, and us, pilgrims, as struggling to remain true to our Lord.