The Audible Recitation of the Secret Priestly Prayers of the Divine Liturgy from an Empirical Perspective

St. Basil the Great praying during the Holy Anaphora (source)

A guest article by Pan. Papadimitriou, PhD

“Having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret”, Mat. 6:5–6
“While the Secret prayer is being performed” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, 4th c.)
“The first [prayer] silently/secretly”, 19^th Canon, The Council of Laodicea (364 A.D.)

A characteristic feature of the Orthodox is their adherence to Tradition. The observance of Holy Tradition is an apostolic command: “Stand fast, and hold the traditions” (2 Thess. 2, 15). “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14, 40). In ministry within the Orthodox Church, each person does not simply act according to his own will; otherwise, in practice, he would be adopting a Protestant mentality. The Church is “following the Holy Fathers,” not following the personal opinions of each individual.

Why must the Tradition of the Church be observed? Holy Tradition is the secure path of the Church, the path of the Holy Fathers, the secure path of divine worship, prayer, repentance, purification, illumination, and deification.

The Tradition of the Divine Liturgy is as follows: the deacon proclaims aloud (eis epēkoon) the common prayers by way of exhortation, addressing the priest and the faithful; they, in response, pray secretly (inwardly, mentally) and individually—the priest with his own prayers, and the faithful with the silent Kyrie eleison (“Lord, have mercy”) or with their own prayers. The chanter responds aloud as the “guide” of the faithful in their prayerful responses to the deacon’s common prayer.

By the grace of God, all these prayers together ascend to God, not as separate prayers, but as one common and powerful prayer, as one common force. This means that even the smallest prayer of a spiritually negligent member of the faithful in church acquires greater boldness before God than when he prays alone at home—though home prayer must by no means be neglected—because he participates in the common prayer of the Church.

Let us not neglect prayer at home. Prayer at home strengthens our prayer in church, and prayer in church, in turn, strengthens our prayer at home. When repentance, forgiveness, guilelessness, love, and humility are also present, then our prayer acquires even greater power—always by the grace of God.

According to Ioannis Fountoulis, during his lifetime, the overwhelmingly predominant Tradition was the ancient Tradition of the prayers being recited secretly, silently, inwardly (not the modern innovation of their audible recitation): [1]

a) “A tradition extending over many centuries has, however, been formed concerning the secret reading of the prayers, and this today is the generally prevailing order throughout the entire Orthodox Church.”

b) “Quite early there prevailed the practice that the prayers of the Divine Liturgy be said secretly (μυστικῶς). Usually the priest said them at the time when the deacon was saying the synapte, in any case before the ekphonesis.”

c) “Secretly, as is well known, all the prayers of the Divine Liturgy are said today, except for the prayer Behind the Ambo [at the end].”

d) “Secretly are said the prayers which are addressed to God.” [Yet all prayers are addressed to God (!), not to men, but for men, for the world, etc.].

The audible recitation of the prayers in the Divine Liturgy was promoted in Greece mainly during approximately the last eighty years, and with particular intensity, publicity, and widespread diffusion after the repose of the late Archbishop Seraphim of Athens (+1998), by theologians, liturgists, and clergy (including Bishops) who were influenced by the preparatory developments leading up to the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), [2] and who in turn influenced numerous clergy and laypeople, who then influenced many others, down to the present day.

Unfortunately, in our time, many people, at every opportunity, whether appropriate or inappropriate, advocate the innovative practice of priests reciting their prayers aloud during the Divine Liturgy.

They say: “The priest should pray aloud, so that the faithful may hear him.”

Here we shall attempt to respond briefly to this argument, from an empirical point of view.

Response from the Perspective of Holy Tradition

There is no evidence in the Holy Tradition of the Church, with regard to the Divine Liturgy, that the priest recited the prayers audibly for the congregation to hear. On the contrary, their secret recitation is attested, either explicitly or implicitly. [3] Indeed, even the Hieratikon published by the Apostoliki Diakonia prior to 2002/2004 explicitly prescribed that the priestly prayers of the Divine Liturgy be recited secretly.

The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, moreover, issued not one but three (3) Synodal Encyclicals addressed to those innovators who persisted in disobedience: Prot. No. 499 / 16 February 1951, Prot. No. 1353 / 9 June 1956, and Prot. No. 1137 / 13 March 1974—to ears unwilling either to hear or to understand. [4]

The faithful heard the common prayers proclaimed by the deacon, just as the priests heard them; and, in response, both the priests and the people [5] prayed secretly, inwardly. Only the chanter responded aloud, serving, as it were, as a “guide” for the faithful in their prayerful responses to the deacon’s prayer.

Of the priestly prayers, the faithful heard only the “later” prayer behind the Ambo at the conclusion of the Liturgy. [6] This is also why it was recited aloud in the middle of the church—so that the faithful could hear it, in an age before microphones and loudspeakers—with the priest always facing east, standing before the ambo, which at that time was located in the centre of the church (or “behind the ambo,” opisthambonos, if the ambo is viewed from the direction of the sanctuary).

Likewise, the priests do not hear the secret prayers of the faithful, nor those of the monks in monasteries; nor does any Orthodox Christian pray in church audibly for the person standing beside him to hear. For this reason, when the deacon addresses the assembly, he does not say: “In peace, pray to the Lord, Father! And you, faithful people, listen to the Father as he prays aloud!” Neither does he say: “In peace, you faithful, pray to the Lord!”

What, then, does he proclaim? He proclaims: “In peace, let us pray to the Lord!”

To whom does the deacon address the words “let us pray”? Naturally, to the priest and to the faithful people. [7] [8] [9]

Response from the Perspective of the Faithful (and of Monastics in Monasteries)

The innovators argue that the faithful—and, by extension, the monks in monasteries—should hear the secret prayers of the priest.

Even if we set aside the innovative character of this position, they do not explain what, precisely, the faithful (and the monks) are expected to do while the priest is reading the secret priestly prayer aloud. Are they to listen actively (that is, to reflect upon it intellectually—or how exactly is “actively” to be defined?), passively, or to follow the priestly prayers by reading them from the latest modernist editions of the “Hieratikon for the Faithful”? If their attention wanders for a moment, and they fail to hear or read one, two, or ten sentences of the priest’s prayer—or even the entire prayer—what then becomes of their “participation”?

Can the faithful truly pray while listening to the secret prayers of the priest, or are the faithful transformed into reflective listeners, then perhaps merely hearers, and eventually into indifferent spectators? [10] Prayer is not the hearing, comprehension, or interpretation of prayers, nor is it a form of theatrical observation. The liturgical Holy Tradition of the Church does not require the faithful to be present as hearers or interpreters of the priestly prayers, nor as spectators of the priests, but rather to participate prayerfully in the common prayer of the Church. What is required is that the whole Church pray together, heeding and responding to the common prayers proclaimed by the deacon, while each person prays secretly and inwardly (“the prayers of the multitude” and “the prayers of the priests,” as St John Chrysostom says; see also St Porphyrios). [11]

What power this common prayer possesses! The secret prayers of the priest and of the faithful, are neither competing nor disconnected prayers, but one common ecclesial prayer which, by the grace of God, ascends to God.

When, however, the listening—the recitation—becomes continuous, theologically and conceptually dense, and demanding of sustained attention, it hinders the inward prayer of the faithful and turns the believer into a listening observer. Yet the deacon said, “Let us pray to the Lord,” not “Pray, Father!” The faithful, too, must pray secretly and inwardly; and when the priest prays aloud, he makes that inward prayer more difficult, whether knowingly or unknowingly—especially when microphones are used.

It is for this reason that the great practitioner of prayer, the dispassionate and watchful Saint of our own times, St Joseph the Hesychast, called out to the hieromonk: “Do not shout, Father; say them quietly, just as it is written in the Hieratikon, that they are to be said secretly.” [12] [13]

The same difficulty caused by a priest praying aloud affects not only the faithful, but also concelebrating Presbyters who wish to pray together. In earlier practice, the Tradition of priestly Concelebration was that each priest (and each Bishop) would recite the secret priestly prayers privately, [14] just as each member of the faithful (and each monastic) prays privately, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord: “shut thy door and pray to thy Father.”

Yet, although all pray individually within the Church—priests and faithful alike—responding to the common prayers proclaimed by the deacon, nevertheless one prayer, one spiritual force, ascends to God!

“Let the whole body of the Church, with one accord, offer up the supplication with one voice, the priests being present and presenting the prayers of the common multitude,” Chrysostom [PG 56, 182]; cf. [PG 48, 725]. That is: “the supplication is offered by the multitude of the faithful, by the body of the Church, with one soul, in the presence of the priests, who offer to God the prayers of the congregation.” [15] This also explains the plural forms found in the priestly prayers, which the innovators misinterpret. The plural signifies that the priest also presents the prayers of the faithful; it does not signify that the secret priestly prayers must be made audible to the faithful. [16]

Even if the faithful person wishes, or attempts, to pray while listening to the priest’s secret prayer (where it is recited aloud), his mind is drawn away from his own prayer in order to follow and understand what he is hearing, insofar as he is able to do so and insofar as his theological and spiritual formation permits. Even if the faithful person holds before him the text of the secret priestly prayer, or reads it in a Modern Greek translation, [17] he may still fall into the same—and even greater—distractions: he tries to read, to listen, not to lose his place, to study, to reflect, to comprehend intellectually the theological meanings, to notice any possible errors on the part of the priest or in the text itself, or to assess whether the priest is reading correctly and conveying the meaning properly, while at the same time attempting to … pray. If he is also reading from a mobile phone, the situation is even worse. This, however, is not prayer, but at best auditory or intellectual following. In short, the innovators bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders.

What is prayer? “prayer is the ascent of the mind to God, or the asking of fitting things from God,” St John of Damascus [PG 94, 1089C–D, ch. 64]. [18] In the Divine Liturgy, such asking consists in the personal prayerful response directed to God in response to the common prayer proclaimed by the deacon (or in each person’s own private petitions); it does not consist in listening to the priest’s prayer. Likewise, the “ascent of the mind to God” [19] is the mind’s speaking to God, for “prayer is the mind’s speaking to God” (Evagrius/Nilus) [PG 79, 1168C, ch. 3]. There is, of course, also an ascent of the mind to God without verbal speaking. [20]

If, when speaking to a prime minister, a ruler, or someone whom we hold in high esteem, we naturally adopt an appropriate disposition, how much more should this be so in our speaking—our prayer—to God.

Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol says: “In essence, the Saints do not think; they pray. [21] That is, discursive thought is set aside, and prayer remains—prayer which is a question addressed to God and an answer received from God. Such are perfect humans beings, those who are in Christ.” [22]

The faithful person—and especially, as is often the case, the young person—does himself a disservice when he uses a modernist “Hieratikon for the faithful” during the Divine Liturgy. He remains present throughout the service, yet in practice, because of the distractions involved, it becomes difficult for him to pray truly.

By the grace of God, you will understand the Divine Liturgy more deeply and more correctly by participating in it through your secret prayer than by reading about it—although reading is, of course, also very beneficial, provided that the book contains no errors, but this should be done outside the service and outside the church. “prayer enlightens the human person. If a person prays, then he will receive assurance from God.” [23] It is also necessary, however, to cultivate virtue, so that prayer may have power [PG 61, 398].

Of course, the priestly exclamations, blessings, the exhortations that properly belong to the Tradition of the Church—not the modernist “all together”—the readings, the troparia, and so forth, which the Church’s Tradition has wisely incorporated into the order of the Divine Liturgy, and which serve as doxology and catechesis while at the same time, by the grace of God, spiritually strengthening the faithful for more attentive prayer, these are traditionally proclaimed aloud, not secretly.

Response from the Perspective of the Priests

The priest’s audible prayer during the Divine Liturgy is not only contrary to Tradition, [24]  and contrary to the canonical order, [25] nor does it merely distract the praying faithful from their secret (inward) prayer; it also distracts the priest himself. The “[audible] recitation of the prayers for the congregation to hear requires rhetorical projection, modulation of the voice, and often a pompous style and other ‘dramatic’ abilities—elements that stand in sharp contrast to the solemn and compunctious atmosphere required for the celebration of the Mysteries of the Church.” [26]

In this respect, the audible recitation of the secret priestly prayers may transform prayer into a concern with being heard, a rhetorical performance, or a liturgical presentation. The priest runs the risk of ceasing to be a praying celebrant and becoming instead a reader.

As a praying celebrant, however, he approaches “the throne of the grace of God with boldness, with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, speaking to God and conversing alone with Him” [PG 98, 429A].[27] We have already discussed priestly Concelebration in §B.

A characteristic rubric (instruction) found in the Euchologia states that the priest prays while bowed,[28] or, more specifically, that “the priest, inclining himself, prays,” naturally in secret. [29] This posture is, moreover, also depicted in iconography. This bowed posture of the praying priest, as a bodily expression of restraint and reverence, is not suited to the public delivery of speech before an audience, but rather to secret prayer addressed to God.

This also accords with the patristic interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, and especially of the Holy Anaphora, according to which the priest “alone to the Alone, he speaks mysteries to God, uttering them in mystery [secretly]” [30] and is “conversing alone with Him.” [31]

Thus, the priest who recites the secret priestly prayers of the Divine Liturgy aloud for the express purpose of making them heard by the people does an injustice first of all to himself; he also does an injustice to the faithful, depriving them of true prayer and making them, willingly or unwillingly, hearers of his secret prayers—something that would rightly be regarded as disorderly if the faithful or monastics themselves were to do the same by loudly voicing their own secret prayers. Most importantly, however, he does an injustice to the whole Church by diminishing the power of her prayer. The weakening of the Church’s prayer may be observed on the personal, ecclesiastical, social, national, and global levels.

At the same time, the audible recitation of the priestly prayers of the Divine Liturgy may conceal a form of clericalism. Clericalism does not consist in the secret prayer of the priests—the people also pray secretly—but, on the contrary, in their deliberate, often affected, and contrary-to-Tradition audible prayer, when it is performed for the purpose of drawing the congregation’s attention to the celebrant, with the result that the faithful are hindered from praying truly.

To God be the glory for all things.

For futher reading:

Pan. Papadimitriou, “Let Us Pray to the Lord”: Neither “Pray Thou, Father” nor “Pray Ye, Faithful” (Secret prayers), [PDF], translated from the 3rd Greek edition, 15/5/2026.

Our liturgical articles [in Greek] (available in Ἀναλόγιον [32], and in Academia [33]).

NOTES

[1] Ioannis M. Fountoulis, Answers to Liturgical Questions, vol. V (2003), nos. 551–553, p. 201; vol. II (1994), no. 235, p. 229; vol. V (2003), nos. 551–553, p. 192; vol. V (2003), no. 558, p. 222.

[2] The Second Vatican Council took place between 1962 and 1965. It was, however, based upon the corresponding publications and movements of liturgists that had developed over many years beforehand within the Western-inspired so-called liturgical renewal. It was upon these publications of Western liturgists that Trembelas relied—and by which he was influenced—when he wrote, on p. 61 of his book The Roman Liturgical Movement and the Practice of the East (Athens, 1949):

“For the immediate and active participation of the people in the celebration of the Mysteries, and especially of the Divine Eucharist, and for the restoration of the unity (sic) between the altar and the people, the Roman Catholic liturgical movement advocated, as we have said, that the celebrant should turn toward the congregation during the Anaphora and should read the prayers of the Divine Liturgy in a voice audible to the people.”

The Second Vatican Council was cautious and highly diplomatic on the question of the Prayers—in order to avoid reactions from its own “traditionalists”—and simply condensed all the innovations that had appeared in the West up to that time into the diplomatic expression “active participation” of the people, leaving its “interpretation” to a later stage. Those who came afterwards “interpreted” “active participation” in the same manner as those who had interpreted it before the Second Vatican Council (cf. Trembelas), namely, as requiring the Prayers to be recited aloud. The same term and the same interpretation are also given by our own contemporary so-called liturgical reformers.

More precisely, the Second Vatican Council states verbatim in Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), under the heading “II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation”: “all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations.”

The Western-inspired liturgical mentality, and our own so-called liturgical reformers who follow it, understand the “active participation” of the people in the Liturgy as an auditory, intellectual, and theatrical participation. Hence the audible prayers; hence also the occasional anti-traditional celebration, even within Orthodoxy, of the Divine Liturgy, Memorial services, Holy Unction, the Blessing of Waters, and other services facing westward—that is, with the priest turned not eastward in prayer, but toward the people; hence also the practice of “everyone together,” and so forth.

Orthodox “active participation,” however, is pre-eminently “participation in prayer.” And prayer is secret, according to the word of the Lord (Matt. 6:5–6).

[3] Pan. Papadimitriou, While the Deacon Recites the Prayer, the priest Prays the Prayer, 30 October 2022.

[4] The fact that repeated and stringent Synodal interventions were deemed necessary indicates that the innovative practice was not an isolated or accidental phenomenon, but rather a persistent and organized liturgical deviation.

[5] “And let all the faithful pray for them secretly (in their minds, inwardly), saying: Lord, have mercy” [PG 1, 1076–1077]. The Holy Apostles: “while all the people stand and pray quietly” [PG 1, 737]. St Clement: “Let us therefore, having gathered together in concord in one place, cry out earnestly to Him in our conscience, as though from one mouth, that we may become partakers of His great and glorious promises” [PG 1, 277]. For further discussion, see our article on Canon XIX of the Council of Laodicea, especially notes 11 and 15, concerning prayer kata dianoian (“in the mind”, secretly).

[6] This Prayer was added to the Liturgy on account of certain inquisitive persons who active contended against not knowing what was taking place [St Germanos, Archbishop of Constantinople (640–740), PG 98, 452C], a type of persons that has never entirely disappeared from the life of the Church throughout the centuries. See also Presbyter G. Diamantopoulos, The Theological Basis for the Concealment of What Is Performed in the Sanctuary according to St Niketas Stethatos, paper presented at the conference of the Estia of Patristic Studies, In the Aftermath of Liturgical Renewal: Disturbances in Divine Worship, 11 June 2023.

[7] Pan. Papadimitriou, “Let Us Pray to the Lord”: Neither “Pray Thou, Father” nor “Pray Ye, Faithful” (Secret Prayers), [PDF], translated from the 3rd Greek edition, 15/5/2026.

[8] St John Chrysostom: “For the expression ‘Let us pray’ is addressed not only to the priests, but also to those who constitute the [faithful] people” [PG 61, 399].

[9] “The expression ‘let us pray,’ just like ‘let us stand aright,’ which we hear in the Church, is addressed not only to the priests, but also to the congregation, the people,” Panagiotis G. Stamou, John Chrysostom: Prayer — The All-Powerful Weapon of the Faithful, Athens 1988, p. 34.

[10] An anonymous priest wrote in a comment on a post on the Anastasios blog: “Whether the [aloud secret priestly] Prayers help toward an understanding of worship and the participation of the people is clearly shown by the manner in which Christians participate in the Mysteries of Baptism and Marriage, and in funerals, where they hear everything proclaimed aloud. No compunction, no sense of the sacred space.” (accessed 27 May 2026).

[11] See Sections §B and §C of the article: Let Us Pray to the Lord: Neither “Pray, Father” nor “You, the Faithful, Pray”, 3rd ed., 15 May 2026.

[12] Elder Ephraim of Philotheou, My Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Cave-Dweller (1897–1959), Monastery of St Anthony, Arizona, USA, 9th ed., 2019, p. 160.

[13] Pan. Papadimitriou, Contemporary (Saintly) Elders and the Secret Prayers, 8 February 2022; Orthodoxos Typos, 13–27 January 2023, nos. 2431–2433.

[14] Pan. Papadimitriou, priestly Concelebration — A Comparison of Rubrics, Hieratika, and Commentary, 21 December 2022.

[15] Panagiotis G. Stamou, John Chrysostom: Prayer — The All-Powerful Weapon of the Faithful, Athens, 1988, p. 31.

[16] In other words, according to the innovators’ interpretation, if the faithful pray, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on the priest,” or “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us,” must these prayers also be made audible to the priest and to the faithful standing nearby simply because they are expressed in the plural? Or, in the absence of a microphone for the faithful, should they approach the priest and whisper into his ear that they are now praying for him?

[17] The question of rendering the texts into Modern Greek is a separate matter. Even the [Greek] New Testament [in Greece] has not been translated in a single universally accepted form, and there are numerous Modern Greek versions of it—one by Zoe, another by Soter, another by Stavros, another by the Apostoliki Diakonia, and so forth. If one turns to published global English translations and paraphrases—now approaching some 900 in number—there is, even in English, still no single official Orthodox translation.

[18] See also: “Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God” (Evagrius/Nilus), [PG 79, 1173, ch. 35].

[19] “For the mind is the eye and the purest part of the soul” [PG 95, 144B]. “for just as the eye is to the body, so the mind is to the soul”, [PG 94, 924B].

[20] Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church, according to the Oral Teachings of Fr John Romanides, vol. I, 2nd ed., 2011, Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, p. 109.

[21] “Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thess. 5:17–18). Pray without ceasing, especially during the Church services.

[22] Homily on Prayer, 52:38 (First Series—lectures at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia).

[23] Homily on Prayer, 52:29 (First Series—lectures at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia).

[24] Ioannis Fountoulis: “A tradition regarding the secret recitation of the Prayers has, however, been established for centuries, and today this is the generally prevailing order throughout the entire Orthodox Church.”

[25] Pan. Papadimitriou, Canon XIX of the Council of Laodicea (364) and the Recitation of the Liturgical Prayers, 3 April 2022.

[26] Protopresbyter Alexandros K. Karapanagopoulos, The Divine Liturgy (Introduction – Text – Interpretation), Athens, 1975, p. 12.

[27] Pan. Papadimitriou, The invisible of the Altar (hidden Sanctuary) …, chs. 53, 65, p. 242.

[28] In earlier times, the people too bowed deeply at the reading of the Gospel and at the “Your own of Your own” (Ta Sa ek ton Son).

[29] Pan. Papadimitriou, While the Deacon Recites the Prayer, the priest Prays the Prayer, 30 October 2022.

[30] [PG 98, 429A]. The invisible of the Altar (hidden Sanctuary) …, chs 53, 65, p. 242.

[31] In earlier times, the curtains of the sacred Ciborium over the Holy Altar were closed, with the priest praying within during the Holy Anaphora. See The invisible of the Altar (hidden Sanctuary) …, chs. 11.2, p. 117.

[32] analogion.gr/typikon/liturgy-articles.

[33] independent.academia.edu/ΠΔΠ/Liturgical.

An Icon of the Prophet Elijah

In the liturgical Calendar of the Byzantine Rite, and in the two Carmelite Orders, July 20th is the feast of the Prophet Elijah. The Eastern tradition keeps almost all of the Prophets as Saints, and honors them as such in the liturgy. Veneration of Saints of the Old Testament is hardly known to the West, however, and where it is observed in the Latin rites, it arose under Eastern influence. The Carmelites, who came into existence as an Order in the Holy Land, honor Elijah as their founder, and keep his day as one of their patronal feasts, along with that of his disciple Elisha, on June 14th.

Here is a very beautiful icon of Elijah in the desert, with six episodes of his life in the bands above and below the central panel. This was painted in Bulgaria in the first quarter of the 18th century by an unknown artist; the western influence on the style is quite obvious.

In the central band, Elijah looks toward the crow that brings him food after he, in obedience to the Lord, has gone out to live in the desert. (3 Kings 17, 6) On the banderole in his hand are written in Greek the words of 3 Kings 19, 10, “Great hath been my zeal for the Lord almighty; for the sons of Israel have abandoned Thy covenant, they have dug down Thy altars.” The first part of this is often used as a motto among the Carmelites.

In the upper band, Elijah speaks with the widow of Sarephta (3 Kings 17, 8-15), raises the son of another woman from the dead (17-24), and contends with the prophets of Baal. (18, 19-40)

In the lower band, he is comforted by the angel in the desert as he rests under the juniper tree (3 Kings 19, 1-8), parts the Jordan with his cloak, and is taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. (4 Kings 2, 1-12) All of these episodes except the fourth one are read at Vespers of the prophet’s feast in the Byzantine Rite.

The Troparion of the Prophet Elijah The angel in the flesh, and foundation of the prophets, the second forerunner of the coming of Christ, the glorious Elijah sent down from on high grace upon Elisha to dispel infirmities and to cleanse lepers; wherefore, he poureth forth healings upon those who honor him.

The Kontakion O prophet, foreseer of the mighty works of our God, Elijah of great renown, who by thy voice didst restrain the raining clouds, entreat for us Him who alone is the Lover of mankind.

St Basil the Great on the Value of Tradition

St Basil the Great died on January 1st, 379, after serving the Church as bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia for about 8½ years. The structure of the Byzantine Rite permits the joining of two feasts much more readily than the Roman Rite does, and so it keeps his feast on the day of his death together with that of the Circumcision. In the West, his feast was hardly kept at all before the later 15th century; once it began to spread, the date most commonly chosen for it was that of his episcopal consecration, June 14th, since his death day was already occupied. This choice was then consolidated by the Tridentine Reform, which raised him to what was then the highest of three grades of feast, together with three other Easterners, Ss Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom, and granted them all the title of Doctor of the Church.

An icon of St Basil the great, 1764, by the Greek painter Spyridon Romas (1730-86). Image from Wikimedia Commons by Sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0. 

Some years ago, I happened across this very interesting passage from his treatise on the Holy Spirit, which is well worth considering. (chapter 27)

“Of the beliefs and practices, whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined, which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay – no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.

For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? (This means the ritual of signing the catechumens with the sign of the cross on their foreheads before baptism.) What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized.

On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism, from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents.”

This translation is taken from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, published between 1886 and 1900, as a companion to the earlier Ante-Nicene Fathers series (1867-73), both originally put out by T&T Clark, which still exists as an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing. The founder, Thomas Clark, was a member of a break-away Presbyterian sect called the Free Church of Scotland, and the two series were conceived as a response to a similar series begun in 1836 by the founders of the Oxford Movement, The Library of the Fathers, which was seen as too sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. (Given that one of the founders and most active contributors to the latter, St John Henry Newman, ended his days as a Roman Catholic cardinal and religious, this view was, from a Presbyterian point of view, perfectly reasonable.) The anti-Catholic tenor of the notes in both of Clark’s series is very pronounced, but personally, I find it almost touching to read their fierce defense of points of doctrine which the majority of the churches born at the Reformation would not touch with a barge pole today.

The authors of the series recognized (how could they not?) how damning this passage is to the logical contradiction that is sola Scriptura, and certainly deserve credit for their honesty in noting that the slippery Erasmus tried to remove it as inauthentic, but that this cannot be justified. They therefore introduced certain other passages of St Basil in the same note, which purportedly show that he “is, however, strong on the supremacy of Holy Scripture.” But even if such passages did prove what they imagined they proved, and that St Basil therefore essentially contradicted himself, what this really proves is what the Roman Catholic Church has always taught, namely, that since the Fathers themselves do not agree on every point, it is necessary that there be an authority which can pronounce definitively on the meaning and value of what they say.

Ss Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzus

Today is the feast of St Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria and Doctor of the Church, the foremost champion of the true Faith during the great crisis caused by the heretic Arius in the 4th century. May 2nd is universally recognized to be the day of his death; there is a particular fittingness to celebrating him on this date, one week after the feast of St Mark the Evangelist, the founder of the See of Alexandria, as a sign of continuity between the Gospel and Nicene orthodoxy. The Roman Rite shares this arrangement with the Coptic calendar and the Byzantine, although in the latter, today is noted as the feast of the translation of Athanasius’ relics; his principal feast, which he shares with another Patriarch of Alexandria and Doctor, St Cyril, is on January 18th. Likewise, the western Church keeps the feast of St Gregory of Nazianzus on May 9th, a week after Athanasius, as a sign that he inherited his mantle as the greatest theological writer in the controversies over the Trinity and Incarnation. His feast is also kept one week after Athanasius’ in the Byzantine Rite, on January 25th.

Ss Athanasius and Cyril, from the Menologion of Basil II, 985 AD: public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.

St Athanasius was always known to the western Church from his Life of St Anthony, which was translated into Latin close to the time of death in 373; St Augustine mentions it in the Confessions. However, many of his most important theological works were not known to the West until the 15th century; in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas, for example, St John Chrysostom is mentioned about 20 times more often. His feast does occur in western liturgical books of the pre-Tridentine period, but almost exclusively in France and Spain, and almost never before the later decades of the 15th century; it does not appear to have been kept at all in Rome.

Much the same holds true for St Gregory of Nazianzus. He was known to the West from the mentions of him in the writings of his student, St Jerome, e.g. in the well-known treatise On Virginity against Jovinian, and the book On Illustrious Men, in which he calls him “a most eloquent man.” But again, very little of his writing was translated into Latin, and he is mentioned by St Thomas even less often than St Athanasius. Before the Tridentine reform, his feast was kept almost nowhere outside Spain, and even there, only from the very beginning of the 16th century.

In 1568, when Pope St Pius V, fulfilling a request of the Council of Trent, published a revision of the Roman Breviary, both Saints were included not just as bishops and confessors, but also as Doctors of the Church, and at the highest of three grades of feasts. The same titles and rank were also given to Ss Basil the Great and John Chrysostom; among these four, only Chrysostom had been widely celebrated with a feast thitherto. Up to that point, the title “Doctor”, and the use of the liturgical texts associated with it, had been formally granted to only four Saints whose writings were always particularly influential in the West, Ss Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome.

In the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was greatly concerned to assert that its traditional doctrines were those held “always, everywhere and by all”, and not medieval corruptions, as the early Protestants often claimed. The pairing of four Eastern Doctors with the traditional four Western Doctors therefore asserted the universality of those teachings which were held by Rome and defended by the Council of Trent, and also held by the Eastern churches. The inclusion of St Thomas Aquinas among them then asserted the continuity in teaching between the patristic and medieval Church, also frequently denied by the Protestants. Three of these new Eastern Doctors also have special connections to Rome and the papacy. During the second of his five exiles, St Athanasius was a guest of Pope St Julius I, who defended him against the Arian heretics; relics of Ss John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus were saved from the iconoclasts in the 8th century and brought to Rome, later to be placed in St Peter’s Basilica.

The Gregorian Chapel in St Peter’s Basilica, built by Pope Gregory XIII to house the relics of his namesake of Nazianzus, which he translated here from the Roman church of Santa Maria in Campo Marzo in 1580.

Furthermore, these same Fathers are witnesses not just to Catholic teachings that the early Protestants rejected, but to others like the Trinity and Incarnation, which they not only accepted, but considered necessary for salvation. This was of course one of the strongest points in the Catholic Church’s favor during the controversies of the 16th century: if one accepts Athanasius, for example, as a witness to the doctrine of the Trinity, on what grounds does one reject him when he says, “So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ”? If one accepts Basil’s defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, on what grounds does one reject his teaching that “It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted”? And more broadly, once the Fathers have been admitted as witnesses to the Christian Faith at all, one has in effect admitted a tradition, by which the teachings of some Christians in antiquity are recognized to be true, and those of others false, a further undermining of the original logical impossibility known as sola Scriptura.

There is an aspect of St Gregory of Nazianus’ career in particular which is less well known than his role as a theologian, and which should perhaps be better known today.

For most of the half century after the death of Constantine in 337, the Roman Emperors were supporters of Arianism, rather than of the orthodox faith. It should therefore not surprise anyone that the see of the imperial capital was dominated for most of that period by Arian bishops. However, with the death in 378 of the Emperor Valens, an enthusiastic persecutor of the orthodox, and the accession of Theodosius I, the tide began to turn strongly against the Arians. St Gregory, having retired some years earlier from a bishopric which he had been practically forced into, was then living a quiet and contemplative life in a monastery near Seleucia on the southern coast of Asia Minor, over 400 miles away from the capital. A number of Catholic bishops, anxious to reestablish the true faith in Constantinople, suggested that he come to the city, not as its bishop, but as a missionary; as with his earlier bishopric, he was prevailed upon to take up this new role only with the greatest reluctance.

The consecration of St Gregory of Nazianzus as a bishop, depicted in a manuscript of his writings copied out in Constantinople between 879 and 883. (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Grec 510, f. 452r)

Gregory was accepted by almost none of the city’s clergy, and had access to none of its many churches; as Butler’s Lives of the Saints puts it, he was a bishop in Constantinople, but not the bishop of Constantinople. He therefore opened a small chapel attached to the house of a relative, which he called “Anastasis – the Resurrection”, a sign that it would become the place from which the true faith would rise again. His preaching, and especially the series of sermons on the Trinity, was in fact incredibly effective; more and more people were attracted by his eloquence, and his flock began to grow.

This brought with it many difficulties, of course, including persecution from the Arians and other heretics, which more than once came to physical violence, as well as calumnies and insults. At the Easter vigil during his first year in the city, the Arians broke into his church; Gregory himself was wounded, and another bishop present was killed. But among his many disciples, he would soon come to number not only St Jerome, but also Evagrius of Pontus, who would himself become one of the most influential theologians of the era.

The following year, Theodosius, newly baptized by an orthodox bishop, issued the Edict of Thessalonica, recognizing as the true faith “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria.” Towards the end of the year, on arriving in Constantinople, he expelled the Arian bishop for refusing to embrace the Nicene confession of faith, and set Gregory in his place. It may seem that this victory was short-lived; within a few months, in the midst of every sort of intrigue and new acts of violence, Gregory obtained the emperor’s permission to resign his see and return to Nazianzus. But in point of fact, it did not matter. At the very moment when it seemed that heresy had triumphed in one of the most important and influential sees of Christendom, the true faith was reborn from a single place, and largely through the work of single man. Nor was this the first or last time such an event happened in the life of the Church. Let it therefore be an object lesson to us, never to despair over the sorry condition in which the Church finds itself in a particular time and place, including our own.

Eastern Music for Good Friday

Today is Good Friday on the Julian calendar, and so here are two interesting pieces of music for the day, one Byzantine and one Coptic, brought to my attention by the YouTube suggestion algorithm.

The first is a chant for the Ninth Hour in the Byzantine Rite when it is sung as part of the Good Friday service known as the Royal Hours; I have previously described this service in full. The channel which posted it includes a link to an album by the Chronos Ensemble, which describes it as an older kind of Slavonic polyphony from the 16th to 18th centuries, i.e., predating the very strong influence which Austrian and Italian music would later come to exercise on liturgical music in the Russian empire. The fellow who runs this channel, Evgeny Skurat, a member of the ensemble, posts a great deal of older music from both the Greek and Slavonic traditions, much of it with cleverly designed computer generated images of churches as the background. I have to confess that for me personally, a lot of this is really not to my taste, but I find this piece very beautiful indeed.

- Today, He that hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon the tree. (thrice)
- The king of angels is arrayed with a crown of thorns.
- He that girdeth heaven with clouds is girt with purple in mockery.
- He that freed Adam in the Jordan received a slap.
- The Bridegroom of the Church is fixed with nails.
- The Son of the Virgin is pierced with a lance.
- We adore Thy sufferings, o Christ. (thrice)
- Show us also Thy glorious Resurrection.

The second piece comes from the Twelfth Hour on Good Friday in the Coptic Rite, a tradition about which I know almost nothing. According to a video which I stumbled across (included below), which is based on an article published 14 years ago in First Things, this chant consists of a single Psalm verse, 44, 7, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness.” But these eight words (in Coptic) can be drawn out, in the very particular style of Egyptian liturgical chants, to over 20 minutes. This is also not much to my personal music taste, but one can only admire the intensity of devotion that would produce such a thing. Here is a somewhat more restrained version that clocks in at a bit over 15 minutes.

An explanation of the chant from a Coptic Church channel, reproducing the aforementioned article from First Things.

The Orthoflex Patriarch of Alexandria

I am sure that many of our readers have seen this photo or others like it, which show the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria Theodore II incensing Pope Leo XIV. (Purely by coincidence, the current Coptic Pope is called Tawadros, which is Coptic for Theodore, and is also the second of his name.) This was taken during a liturgy celebrated yesterday in the church of St George in the Phanar, the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, during the Holy Father’s Apostolic visit to the New Rome, as part of the 17th centenary celebrations of the First Council of Nicaea. And yesterday was the feast of the Apostle St Andrew, who is honored as the founder of the see of Byzantium.

Note that His Beatitude is wearing a triple tiara almost identical to that which was traditionally worn by the Roman Popes, until it was cast off by Paul VI in one of those very modern and counter-productive gestures of which he was so inexplicably fond. A lot of memes have already come out of this, of which my favorite has the Pope saying, “Wait, was I supposed to bring mine too?”

Of course, I am not seriously suggesting that the Patriarch was deliberately flexing on the Pope by wearing his triregnum; it is just a normal part of his regalia, and has been for centuries. But at the same time, I cannot help but think of Pope St John Paul II’s oft-repeated words that “the Church must breathe with her two lungs”, i.e. the Eastern and Western churches, because one of the things the Roman Catholic Church desperately needs to relearn from the East is not to be ashamed of its own patrimony and traditions, but to embrace and cherish them once again. Εἰς πολλὰ ἔτη, Δέσποται!

The complete liturgy can be watched via the YouTube channel of Vatican Media.

Pictures from Mt Athos, Part 1: The Monastery of Simonos Petra

A friend of mine recently visited the monastic republic of Mount Athos, and very kindly agreed to share some of his pictures of the visit with us on NLM, for which we are very grateful. There are enough pictures that they will be spread out over several posts. We begin with the area where pilgrims arrive by ferry, and are welcomed, followed by the monastery of Simonos Petra (Simon’s Rock), founded in the 13th century on a large rocky outcrop by St Simon the Athonite, who lived in a nearby cave. The monastery as we see it today results from a rebuilding in the 19th century, after the complex was destroyed by a terrible fire. Simonos Petra ranks 13th in seniority amongst the twenty main monasteries on Athos, and is noted for its expertise in Byzantine chant. We are particularly lucky to get to see the interiors of some of the churches in this fashion, and of course, the views of the peninsula itself are just magnificent.

The ascent to the main plaza of the monastery complex.

The katholikon, or main church of the monastery...

Continue Reading this Article. . .

An Icon of the Prophet Elijah

In the liturgical Calendar of the Byzantine Rite, and in the two Carmelite Orders, July 20th is the feast of the Prophet Elijah. The Eastern tradition keeps almost all of the Prophets as Saints, and honors them as such in the liturgy. Veneration of Saints of the Old Testament is hardly known to the West, however, and where it is observed in the Latin rites, it arose under Eastern influence. The Carmelites, who came into existence as an Order in the Holy Land, honor Elijah as their founder, and keep his day as one of their patronal feasts, along with that of his disciple Elisha, on June 14th.

Here is an extraordinary icon of the Ascension of the Prophet Elijah, from the collection of the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens.

Painted by Theodore Poulakis in the second half of the 17th century, this icon comes from a church dedicated to St Elijah in Ano Korakiana on the island of Corfu; it was badly damaged after being stolen from the church and cut into pieces, but remains an impressive piece of work, and an interesting example of Western artistic influence on Byzantine sacred art. The central band is based on an engraving by Flemish artist Jan Wierix (see below); according to the Museum’s website, Flemish engravings were widely used as inspirations for icons in the Ionian islands from the 17th century on. It shows the Ascension of Elijah, with Elisha below his chariot receiving his mantle; on the left, Elisha shows the mantle to the “sons of the prophets” who had accompanied them to the Jordan, but not crossed over with them. (4 Kings 2)

The engraving by Jan Wierix, from the website of the British Museum.

In the lower right of the central band, the patron who commissioned the work, a priest and monk named Sophronios Faskomelosis, identified by the inscription in front of him, kneels in prayer; on the opposite side is the city of Jerusalem. In the other bands are shown other episodes from the life of Elijah; at the upper left are three episodes from 3 Kings 17, where he first appears in the Bible, conversing with the widow at Sarephta, receiving food from a raven, and raising the widow’s son from the dead. In the lower band, the prophet defeats and slaughters the prophets of the idol Baal (chapter 18), and destroys the soldiers of the wicked King Ahab sent to apprehend him. All of the episodes depicted in this icon are traditionally read at Vespers of the Prophet Elijah in the Byzantine Rite. The artist’s signature is given at the lower left.

The Troparion of the Prophet Elijah The angel in the flesh, and foundation of the prophets, the second forerunner of the coming of Christ, the glorious Elijah sent down from on high grace upon Elisha to dispel infirmities and to cleanse lepers; wherefore, he poureth forth healings upon those who honor him.

The Kontakion O prophet, foreseer of the mighty works of our God, Elijah of great renown, who by thy voice didst restrain the raining clouds, entreat for us Him who alone is the Lover of mankind.

The Antiquity and Universality of Fore-Lent (Part 4)

This is the fourth and final part of Henri de Villiers’ examination of the various forms and traditions of the pre-Lenten period. Click the following links to read part 1, part 2 and part 3. The original French version was published in 2014 on the website of the Schola Sainte-Cécile.

Fore-Lent and Meditation on Human Frailty

Having demonstrated the antiquity and universality of Fore-Lent in the various rites, we conclude by highlighting some of the themes commonly used in this period in the liturgies of both East and West.

The reading of Genesis: meditation on the fall of Man and the need for Redemption

Adam was deprived of the delights of Paradise by the bitterness of the fruit; his gluttony made him reject the commandment of the Lord; he was condemned to work the earth from which he was formed; by the sweat of his brow was he obliged to earn the bread he ate. Let us look to temperance, lest we, like him, be made to weep before the gate of Paradise; but rather, let us struggle to enter therein. (Kathisma at Matins of Cheesefare Sunday, also known as the Sunday of the Expulsion from Paradise.)

A 16th century icon showing the Holy Trinity, the expulsion from Paradise, and monks contemplating the mortality of man as they preside over a burial.

The Byzantine hymns of the Sunday that immediately precedes the first day of Lent, which coincides with the Latin Quinquagesima, are dedicated to the Creation and the sin of Adam and Eve, and contrast the gluttony of our first father with Our Lord’s forty day fast in the desert. In fact, we frequently find readings from the book of Genesis at the beginning of Lent itself, or within the three-week period of Fore-Lent. In the Roman Rite, Genesis is begun at Matins of Septuagesima Sunday; both the Ambrosian and Byzantine Rites have a series of readings from Genesis and Proverbs at Vespers through most of the Lenten season.

The remembrance of death and the last things.

Meditation on the fall of Adam is naturally accompanied by further consideration of the frailty of man, his death, and the necessity of penance before Final Judgment. This is stated very eloquently in the Introit of the Roman Mass of Septuagesima.

Circumdederunt me * gémitus mortis, dolóres inférni circumdedérunt me: et in tribulatióne mea invocávi Dóminum, et exáudivit de templo sancto suo vocem meam.
The groans of death surrounded me: and pains of hell surrounded me; in my tribulation I called upon the Lord, and He heard my voice from his holy temple.

The Media vita is another text often sung during Septuagesima in the Roman Rite. This antiphon, which seems to date back to the 8th century, was later transformed into a responsory, and in many Uses integrated into the liturgy of Lent. In the Middle Ages, this dramatic text was often sung on the battle field to encourage the enthusiasm of the troops.

R. In the midst of life, we are in death; whom shall we seek to help us, but Thee, o Lord, who for our sins art justly wroth? * Holy God, holy mighty one, holy and merciful Savior, hand us not over to bitter death. V. Cast us not away in the time of our old age, when our strength shall fail, forsake us not, o Lord. Holy God, holy mighty one etc.

In a similar vein, the Byzantine Rite reads the Gospel of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25, 31-46) on the preceding Sunday, to call the faithful to think of the Last Things.

Prayer for the Dead

Just as the liturgy of Fore-Lent reminds us of our mortal condition fallen though sin, this period has also become in many liturgical traditions a privileged time to pray for the dead.

In the Armenian Rite, the Thursday of Quinquagesima (the last before the beginning of Lent) is dedicated to the commemoration of all the faithful departed. The same holds true for the Saturday before the Sunday of the Last Judgment in the Byzantine Rite; this is attested in the Typikon of the Great Church in the 9th or 10th century, the most important document describing the arrangement of services at Hagia Sophia. The Assyro-Chaldean rite has a similar observance on the Friday of the second week before Lent.

Among the Maronites, the three Sundays of Fore-Lent are dedicated to the commemoration of the dead, the first to deceased priests, the second to the “just and righteous”, the last to all the faithful departed. The arrangement of the season among the Syrian Jacobites is undoubtedly the more primitive: the fast of the Ninevites from Monday to Friday of Septuagesima week, the Sunday of prayer for deceased priests on Sexagesima, and for all the faithful departed on Quinquagesima.

Conclusions

The creators of the reformed Missal of Paul VI inexplicably suppressed the season of Septuagesima, an ancient element of the Roman Rite, without regard for its antiquity and its universality, and even though it is preserved in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and in many Lutheran churches. These articles have sought to highlight and explain the following points:

1. In all liturgical traditions, Lent is preceded by a penitential period, originally the fast of the Ninevites in the third week before Lent, and the week immediately preceding it (Cheesefare / Quinquagesima / the fast of Heraclius). The most ancient witnesses to this period are from the fourth century: St Gregory the Illuminator, St Ephraem, Egeria’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia have two fasts, the Mozarabic Rite has only Quinquagesima, the Assyro-Chaldeans have only the Rogations of the Ninivites. Starting at the beginning of the 6th century, Fore-Lent is developed and extended to a full three-week period before Lent in the Roman, Ambrosian, Byzantine, Armenian, Syro-Jacobite and Maronite rites.

2. This time is observed as a progressive entry into Lent, allowing for a gradual approach to, and spiritual preparation for, the ascetic exercises of that season. This aspect is explained by Protopresyter Alexander Schmemann in his description of the Sundays of Fore-Lent.

“Three weeks before Great Lent officially begins, we enter a period of preparation. It is a constant characteristic of our liturgical tradition that each major liturgical event – Christmas, Easter, Lent, etc., is announced and prepared for far in advance. Aware of our lack of concentration, the ‘materialist’ condition of our life, the Church draws our attention to the important aspects of the event that approaches, She invites us to meditate upon its various ‘dimensions’; therefore, before we can begin to keep the Great Lent, we are given the theological basis for it.” (The Liturgical Structure of Lent)

3. Meditation on the Fall of Man and the Last Things, and consequently, the common institution of prayers for the faithful departed, are an important recurring element in the various rites.

The Antiquity and Universality of Fore-Lent (Part 3)

We continue with part 3 of Henri de Villiers’ examination of the various forms and traditions of the pre-Lenten period. Click the following links to read part 1 and part 2.

Synthesis of the fast of the Ninevites and Meatfare Week – the extension of Fore-Lent to three weeks.

We have seen that in the sixth century, the custom of preceding Lent by a week of abstinence from meat is well established in both East and West. The 24th canon of a council held at Orléans in 511 prescribes its observance, indicating that it was already spreading before that date in Merovingian France. Certain churches in the East added the fast of the Ninevites in the 3rd week before Lent. It was therefore natural to join these two periods together and extend Fore-Lent to three full weeks.

It is possible that in the East this liturgical “bridge” between Lent and the fast of Nineveh was first built in Armenia. The Armenian Fore-Lent is called Aratchavor, and comprises three weeks, the first of which, is called Barekendam, “the last day of fat.” The first week is quite strict, consecrated to the fasts of the Ninevites, instituted by St Gregory the Illuminator in the 4th century. The second and third week are less penitential, and the fast is kept only on the Wednesdays and Fridays.

The Cathedral of the Holy Cross, an Armenian church of the early 10th century built on Aghtamar island in Lake Van, now in the state of Turkey.

At Rome, Quinquagesima Sunday came to be preceded by two other Sundays, Sexagesima and Septuagesima, over the course of the 6th century. The old Gelasian Sacramentary (Vat. Reg. 316) and the Epistle book of Victor of Capua, dated to 546, attest the presence of Sexagesima in this period. The stations of the three Sundays were fixed by Popes Pelagius I (556-61) and John III (561-74) at the basilicas of St Lawrence Outside-the-Walls, St Paul and St Peter. We have homilies delivered by St Gregory the Great for all three of them. The oldest known Roman lectionary, known as the lectionary of Würzburg, was copied out in the first half of the 7th century for use in France, and largely corresponds to the arrangement of the old Gelasian Sacramentary; it also attests that the three Sundays were already established by that point.

St Gregory the Great, represented in the Sacramentary of Charles the Bald, (869-70). Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Latin 1141 

Fore-Lent also exists in the Ambrosian tradition, in which the three Sundays have the same names as in the Roman Rite. The Alleluia is not suppressed in this season, but rather, since the Borromean reform, on the First Sunday of Lent; before that, on the first Monday. The liturgical texts are quite different from those of the Roman Rite, which would likely not be the case if the season were not very ancient at Milan, rather than a mere Roman import. We may cite here the transitorium (the equivalent of the Roman Communio) of the Mass of Septuagesima, which proclaims the program of the season.

Convertímini * omnes simul ad Deum mundo corde, et ánimo, in oratióne, jejúniis et vigíliis multis: fúndite preces vestras cum lácrymis, ut deleátis chirógrapha peccatórum vestrórum, priusquam vobis repentínus superveniat intéritus, ántequam vos profundum mortis absórbeat, et cum Creátor noster advénerit, parátos nos inveniat.

Be ye all together converted to God, with pure heart and mind, in prayer, fasting and many vigils; pour forth your prayers with tears, that you may cancel the decree of your sins, before there come upon ye sudden destruction, before the depths of death swallow ye up; and so, when our Creator cometh, may He find us ready.

In this period, the Byzantine Rite reads a series of Gospels which prepare the people for the penance of Lent: the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 19, 10-14), the Prodigal Son (Luke 15, 11-32), the Last Judgment (Matthew 25, 31-46), and Christ’s words on fasting from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6, 14-21.) The organization of the three weeks is attested in the Typikon of the Great Church, of the 9th-10th century; the lack of liturgical documents older than this does not permit us to speak more precisely about the origins of the arrangement. It must be noted that in the first week, following the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee, the Byzantines completely suppressed all fasting, even the regular weekly fast on Wednesday and Friday, as a result of certain controversies in the Middle Ages, to distinguish their own practice from that of the Armenians in the same week.

Only a few rites, those isolated from the rest of the Christian word by the advance of Islam, did not developed the three-week period of Fore-Lent. The Mozarabic Rite has remained in the primitive stage before the beginning of the 6th century with a single week of preparation for Lent. The Sunday of this week is called “ante carnes tollendas – before the meat is taken away”, indicating that meat was removed from the diet, but not milk products or other non-vegetarian foods. Egypt and Ethiopia have both the fast of Nineveh and the fast of Heraclius, but have never joined them into a single Fore-Lent. However, among the Ethiopians, the Sunday corresponding to the Latin Sexagesima, although counted with the liturgical season after Epiphany, is fixed in relationship to the following Sunday, called “the Sunday of the Bridegroom”, in which antiphons are taken from the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matthew 25, 1-13). This marks end the period in which marriages are permitted. The Assyro-Chaldeans have held to keeping the Rogations of the Ninevites, and do not have an equivalent to Quinquagesima.

The Antiquity and Universality of Fore-Lent (Part 2)

We continue with part 2 of Henri de Villiers’ examination of the various forms and traditions of the pre-Lenten period. Click here to read part 1.

Quinquagesima Week, the fast of Heraclius, Cheesefare Week

In both East and West, the week immediately before Lent took on a penitential character very early, beginning at first with abstinence from meat. We must remember that the early Church followed a strictly vegetarian diet for all of Lent. For the week immediately preceding Lent (the Latin Quinquagesima, Tyrophagia in the Byzantine Rite), although meat is removed from the diet, milk products, eggs and other animal products may still be consumed.

To better understand the origins of this week, we must also consider that Lent lasts for seven weeks in the East, and for six in the West. In the East, where there is no fast on either Saturday (except for Holy Saturday) or Sunday, this makes for a Lent of 36 fast-days. In the West, where the fast is kept also on Saturday, but never on Sunday, this gave the same number of days, following the Roman custom before the time of St Gregory the Great. To compensate for the missing days and to make the symbolic number of 40, the number of days of Christ’s fast in the desert, the Christians chose to anticipate the official beginning of Lent by a week. This was also done in consideration of the possible occurrence of feasts that displace the fast, principally the Annunciation.

The removal of meat from the diet in the week before Lent is attested early in the West. Quinquagesima Sunday is called in the ancient Latin books “Dominica ad carnes tollendas” or “levandas” (whence the term Carnival), indicating that one began to take away meat right after the Sunday, passing to the strict vegetarian diet only in the following week. The first week of Lent is then called “in capite jejunii – at the beginning of the fast.” Before the time of St Gregory, the Roman Lent began on the Monday after the First Sunday, the custom still followed by the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites. St Gregory set the fast to begin on the Wednesday of Quinquagesima, to make a complete period of 40 days. (To this very day, the Roman Rite retains the Office of Quinquagesima week even after Ash Wednesday, and the proper rubrics of Lent begin only with First Vespers of the First Sunday.)

The institution of Quinquagesima week is attributed by the Liber Pontificalis to the eighth Pope St Telesphorus (125 to 136–138). This attribution may be purely legendary, but since the notice of Telesphorus was written under Pope St Hormisdas (514-523), we can infer that this custom was already of immemorial use at the time, if it could plausibly be attributed to such an early predecessor. The so-called Leonine Sacramentary contains a Mass for Quinquagesima, the text of which seems to have been written in the reign of Pope Vigilius, ca. 538 A.D.

In the East, we can follow the same early indications of the establishment of Cheesefare Week (Tyrophagia). The pilgrim Egeria (Itinerarium 27, 1) reports that an eighth week of penance was kept at Jerusalem in the 4th century. Between the 5th and 6th centuries, the Georgian lectionaries, which are based on the Jerusalem liturgy of this period, bear witness to the existence of special readings for the two weeks before Lent.

In the 6th century, St Dorotheus of Gaza attests that the institution of a penitential week before Lent was already considered ancient in his time: “These are the Fathers who later agreed to add another week, both to train in advance and to urge on those who will give themselves over to the work of fasting, and to honor these fasts with the number of the Holy Forty Days which Our Lord Himself passed in fasting.” (Spiritual Works, 15, 159)

The custom of a week of ascetic practice before Lent, already attested before the 6th century (St Severus of Antioch counts it in his description of Lent), was sanctioned by official decision in the 7th century, in the reign of the Emperor Heraclius (610-41). The origin of his fast is uncertain. Most authors connect it with the events of the war which took place between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Sassanid Empire from 602 to 628, during which the Jewish population of Palestine rebelled against the Christians and the power of Constantinople, and allied with the Persian troops. This led to the fall of Jerusalem to the Persians, the loss of the relics of the True Cross, and the massacre of 90,000 Christians. By the time Jerusalem was reconquered by the Byzantine armies, and Heraclius entered the city in triumph in 629, all the Christian churches, including the Holy Sepulcher, were in ruins. The Emperor ordered a massacre of the rebel Jewish forces, despite a previous promise of amnesty. In penance for this act of perjury, the Patriarch of Jerusalem instituted a week of fasting before the beginning of Great Lent.

This arrangement was at first supposed to last for only 70 years, but endures to this day with this name among the Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia. Alongside this more common explanation, another is generally neglected, namely, that Heraclius prescribed to his troops a week of abstinence from meat, and the reduction in the use of milk products, during the sixth year of his wars against the Persian, to implore God for victory. It is also possible that both explanations are true, and more than probable that they merely ratified a custom already widespread. In the following century, St John Damascene attests that Lent is preceded by a preparatory week. (cf. On the Holy Fast, 5).
The institution of a week of mitigated fasting before Great Lent, which was done very early in both East and West, has two virtues, one symbolic and the other practical. On the one hand, this week of semi-fasting was perceived as a way of fulfilling the sum of forty days; on the other, the transition to the strictly vegetarian diet was made easier by a gradual progression.