SL 28 (1998) 210-31

Liturgy and Lms; The Appropriation of the 0 Personalization of Cult" in East-Slavic Orthodox Liturgiology, 1869-1996

by

Peter Gatadza*

The purpose of this article is twofold: to study the appropriation or, as we shall see, the relative lack of appropriation of the New Testament notion of personalization of cult in modem Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox liturgi­ology; and to analyze how, in the absence of this New Testament notion, liturgy and life are nonetheless conjoined in the writings of East-Slavic liturgists. The topic is particularly relevant within the former USSR, where churches that managed, in spite of repression, to maintain an intense liturgical life have now been allowed to transcend the confines of their church buildings to help rebuild their societies.

After briefly introducing the notion of "personalization" or, as it might also be called, "cxistentialization" of cult, and after characterizing East­Slavic Orthodox liturgical study during the last 130 years or so, I will survey chronologically this school's liturgical handbooks and related works, as well as the scholarly journals of the Tsarist empire's four theological academies: Bogoslovskii Vestnik of the Moscow Academy, Khristianskoe chtenie of the Saint Petersburg Academy, 1Tudy Kievskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii of the Kievan Academy, and Pravoslavnyi sobesednik of the Kazan Academy. In addition, the more important post-revolutionary journals, and works on liturgy will also be reviewed.

As we proceed three themes will emerge: 1) the need among East-Slavs for a bolstered theology of liturgy, and not just liturgical theology; 2) the need to bring Orthodox liturgiology into greater dialogue with biblical studies and

• Peter Galadza is assistant professor at the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Faculty of Theology, Saint Paul University, 223 Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. This is a revised version of a paper delivered to the Eastern Liturgies Study Group at the Sixteenth Congress of Societas Liturgica held in Turku, Finland, August 11- 16, 1997. The author thanks the staffs of the following libraries for their special services: lnstitut Saint-Serge, Paris; Widener Library, Harvard University; the New York Public Library; Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, New York; and the Bobolanum, Warsaw, Poland.

210

non-Orthodox liturgiology; and 3) the uniqueness of Alexander Schmemann and Alexander Men among theologians hailing from the Russian tradition. I would suggest that their prophetic distinctiveness, especially in rejuvenating the relationship between liturgy and life, is symbolized by the recent burning of their books by clergy in Ekaterinburg in Russia and the murder of Alex­ander Men in September, 1990, just as the outspoken scholar-priest was emerging as a nationwide herald of church reform, and three weeks before he was to be installed as rector of an independent Orthodox university in Moscow. 1

I. The Personalization of Cult: A Central New Testament Theme

Robert Taft has succinctly summarized the New Testament notion of per­sonalization of cult.2 Christ is the new Pasch and its lamb, the new circum­cision, God's temple, the fulfilment of Sabbath rest-the list goes on. All of the Old Testament's ritual categories have been existentialized; true worship is the self-giving of a person and the worship performed by Christians is to be an actualization in their lives of the sacrificial existence revealed by Christ. Taft refers to this as "a fundamental principle of New Testament theology"J that is "seminal for any theology of Christian worship."• He adds that the intimate relation of liturgy to everyday life is part of .. the essence of the New Testament message concerning the new cult."S

In view of the idea's centrality in the New Testament it is more than a matter of academic curiosity to inquire how it figures within any school of liturgi­ology. As hinted above, reftection on the New Testament passages that speak of the transfiguration of potentially extrinsic cult into radically existential self-offering appears only sporadically in East-Slavic liturgiology. More im­portantly, the implications of such passages for liturgical theology as a whole arc not developed. Before demonstrating and analyzing this, a brief charac­terization of this school of liturgy during the modern period is in order.

1 See Ceprell l>H'IJCOI, XpoHuKa Htpoc1<pumozo y6ui1cm10 (The chronicle of an unsolved murder), Mocxaa: Pyccxoe pe1C11aMHoe H3.ltateni.cTBo 1996. For more general studies of Alex­ander Men see Yves Hamant, Altxandtr Mtn: A Witntssfor Conttmporary .RJ.Usia, Torrance, CA: Oakwood Publications 199S; and the introduction to Elizabeth Robens and Ann Shukman, eds, Christianity for tht Twtnty-first Ctntury: Tht Prophttic Writings of Altxander Mtn, New York: Continuum 1996.

1 Roben Taft, Tht Liturgy of tht Hours in Eost and mst (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1986) 334-40.

3 Ibid., 334. ' Ibid., 33S. s Ibid.

211

II. The Context of liturgical Study Within the Russian Empire

In 1869 East-Slavic liturgiology received a mixed blessing with the enact­ment of a new academic constitution (ustav) for theological schools within the Russian Empire which called for the creation of chairs of .. 'ecclesiastical archaeology and liturgics."6 While this facilitated a more serious study of liturgy, it also curtailed its scope. Liturgiology remained preoccupied with antiquity and its ecclesio-cultural monuments to the detriment of liturgical theology. In 1911, the academic constitution was altered to provide for separate chairs of liturgy. No doubt, had the revolution not intervened, the alteration would have fostered a broadening of perspective.

In general, though, the opinions of pre-revolutionary Russian liturgists themselves was that their field was among the least developed. In 1886 Alexander Lcbedev wrote that liturgiology is the most forgotten discipline, the poorest of cousins within Russian theology. Alexei Dmitrievsky (the "Rus­sian Goar") also ref erred to it as "poor"; Almazov spoke of it as "extremely underdeveloped"; and as late as 1907-1908 Nikolai Pokrovsky declared it a still "new and young science.''' Nikolai Glubokovsky suggests that the ten­dency to dogmatize ritual practice-a problem persisting to the present­helped foster the narrow focus on rubrics, texts, and their history.•

Of course, anyone familiar with the situation in Western Christianity then will not be overly dismayed, though one should keep in mind that unlike their Roman Catholic or Protestant counterparts during this period, the Eastern­Slavs enjoyed an ostensibly rich liturgical life. Theological reflection on this vibrant life, however, was not commensurate with the latter intensity.

The Russian theological revival of the 1890s did not engulf liturgy. Its main fruits were in the field of philosophical theology (Soloviev, Florensky, Bul­gakov) and history, though the historical revival did engender the outstanding research of scholars like Dmitrievsky.9 Indicative of the less vibrant state of

6 For this history I follow H. H. rny601COllCKHll, PycCKQR 6olOC40*CKQJI HO)llCQ. ti! ucmo­

pu<1tCKOM paJ.umuu u 110.eil~M cocmo11Huu [Russian theological scholarship: its historical development and more recent situation] (Warsaw, 1928; republished Moscow H1,11.ann1.CTao lla11To-8naJU1MHpcnro l>paTCTBa 1992) 100-12; and Hl)'MeH HHHOICHTHll naanoa, 8"0e11ue

• ucmopUIO pyccKoi16ozocA<ncKoii MWC4U [An introduction to the history of Russian theolog· ical thouaht] (Mocna: Kpynuucoc Il•TpHapwec Ilo.1t1opi.c 1995) 118-29, 148.

7 Quoted in rny6olCOBCXHll, PycCKaA 6olOCAO«K4JI Ha)'ICQ, 100·1. ' Ibid., 101. ' For a summary and analysis of Dmitrievsky's contribution see 6opHc H. Coac, "Pyccicoll

foap Hero w1tona" [The Russian Goar and his school], Gozoc4<HC1'Ut Tpy0w 4 (1968) 39-84.

212

East-Slavic liturgiology is the fact that in his classic, Ways of Russian The­ology, Georges Florovsky devotes almost no attention to developments in this field,•0 while Nicolas Zemov in The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century" ignores it altogether.

After the Revolution liturgical theology will experience growth with the contributions of Nikolai Afanasiev, Kyprian Kern, and Alexander Schmemann. But in the case of Schmemann, whom one might consider the first seminal liturgical theologian of the Russian tradition, his genius owes as much to the influence of Daniclou, Bouyer, Jungmann, and Guardini, as it does to Ortho­dox sources.'2

Incidentally, if we devote significant attention to the pre-revolutionary situation, it is because of the era's unavoidable importance for the East-Slavs. As Jonathan Sutton has noted, there is an understandable nostalgia for pre-1917, 13 primarily because within the former USSR theological study was so curtailed. Not surprisingly, the majority of theological publishing there today consists of the reissuing of pre-revolutionary titles.

Ill. Liturgy and Ufe in Liturgical Handbooks and Theological Journals

Since the scriptural personalization of cult is treated only obliquely in most East-Slavic liturgiology, as we proceed chronologically through the more significant literature in the field I will note how Old and New Testament cultic material is dealt with and how the question of liturgy and life is discussed in the absence of the personalization theme. But keeping in mind the personali­zation theme is necessary all the same because the latter provides a particular approach to the question of liturgy's relation to life, as well as a kind of definition of Christian worship as a whole. Consequently, the relative absence of the theme must be observed not only to portray modem East-Slavic litur­gical theology accurately but also to help put in relief the other paradigms for the liturgy-lire dynamic found there. More will be said about this below.

'° Richard S. Haugh, ed., Cclkcted Works of Georges Florovsky 6 (Belmont, MA: BUchcr­vertriebsanstalt 1989) 149-SO, 36S.

11 London: DLT 1963. 12 See the introduaion to his Sacraments and Orthodoxy (New York: Herder & Herder 1965)

8. 13 Jonathan Sutton, 1>-oditions in New Freedom: Christianity and Higher Education in Rus·

sio and Ukraine 'JOday (Nottingham, England: Bramcote Press 1995) 71.

213

Three years after the reorganization of theological education in the Russian Empire, A. T. Buzov published the sixth edition of his The Common Services of the Orthodox Church1' (in the sense of .. communalj, a work typifying the worst in Orthodox liturgiology (and, incidentally, modeled on contempora­neous Western manuals). After an introduction in which he insists that his presentation is based inter alia on the Word of God, 15 Buzov immediately proceeds with a discussion of sacred places, things, and persons; a thoroughly cultic focus with no indication of the Christian cult's distinctiveness.

In 1875 Ivan Beliustin published the fifth edition of his On Church Services: Letters to an Orthodox [Christian]. 16 While the work nobly attempts a synthesis of theological-spiritual elements with liturgics and stresses con­scious participation in worship, 17 its strongly Tridentine spirit leads to an objectification of person (Christ) rather than a personalization of object.18

Christ appears as simply a better victim, not a prototype for authentic worship and sacrificial living. Emblematic of a narrowly cultic approach is Beliustin 's interpretation of Isaiah I: 12-16. God's rejection of Israel's worship because of its lack of concern for social justice is mutated into a divine condemnation of improper conduct during divine services!•9

1884 saw the publication of a revised edition of Ivan Dmitrevsky's Historical, Dogmatic and Mystical Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy. 20 While limited to the eucharist, the work contains one of the more comprehensive discussions of the New Testament's fulfilment of Old Testament cult in all of Russian liturgiology. Fourteen pages of the introduction (ix-xxii) are devoted to describing Old Testament sacrifices and their fulfilment in Christ. Dmitrevsky even suggests that the expectation of an eventual fulfilment in a Person was

1• 061l4tcm1eHHoe 6ozocAyJ1ceHue Dpa1ocJ1a1Hoi1 I.(epKlu, KpamKo uJAOXtHHOe n 11onpo·

can u om1eman, CT.·IleTep6ypr 1872. 1' Ibid., 2.

16 I. I. EieJJIOCTHHl>, 0 14ep1<0IHOM1> 6ozocAyxeHuu-nuci.Ma Kl> npa1ocAa11HoMy, CT.· IleTCp6ypn. )875.

17 Ibid., 13. 11 The Tridentine spirit is evident in Beliustin's stress on the propitiatory nature of the

eucharist, and the notion that it is a repetition of Golgotha: ibid., 15-20. " Ibid., 14. Incidentally, one would have expected better of Beliustin, who in 1858 gained

notoriety as the-initially anonymous-author of an expose of Russian rural clergy and the need for reform. See I. S. Belliustin [sic], Description of tht! Cltrgy in Rural Russia, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1985.

]I) HcmopulH!CKOt OOlMamU&lt!CKOt u mOUHcm1eHHoe UJMCHeHUt Ha lioxecmltHHYIO nu­myplUIO, CT.-IleTCp6ypn. 1884. At least one previous edition of the work must have appeared, as an introductory note states that Dmitrevsky died in 1829.

214

part of the unwritten tradition of the chosen people (xii-xiii). He then cites and comments upon twenty-three Old Testament passages (xxix-xxxvii) per­taining to nourishment and sacrifice as prefigurements of the eucharist. His appreciation for the personalization themes in Hebrews (xvii-xviii) also stands out in Russian liturgiology. Later in the work he briefly refers to the existen­tialization of incense-citing 2 Cor. 2: 15 (pp. 89-90) and the personalization of the altar, as found in Rev. 8:3. On two occasions he uses the expression, "the altar of the cross" (xv, xviii). Dmitrevsky's discussion of the term "liturgy" ably juxtaposes service in general with Christian worship (pp. 7-8). All in all, the work provides a solid basis on which to build a scriptural account of the liturgy's relation to life. But while the work displays a proper understanding of Christ's transfiguration of cult, it fails to elucidate how that transfiguration in turn revolutionizes the Church's understanding of her own cult.

A landmark in East-Slavic liturgiology was the publication of the first edition of Archimandrite (later Bishop) Gavryil's Handbook of Liturgics, subtitled The Study of Orthodox Worship, 21 approved as a textbook for Orthodox seminaries. The work is impressive for its breadth of historical material, concern for what we would call ritual anthropology, and compre­hensiveness as regards theological issues. To the present day the work has no Slavic-language equal except for Serb Orthodox Lazar Mirkovich's Pravo­slavna Liturgika. Along with Ivan Dmitrevsky's book, of all the liturgical textbooks reviewed here Gavryil's comes closest to appreciating the signifi­cance of the New Testament's transfigurative interpretation of cult. It spe­cifically elucidates the shadow metaphor of Hebrews 10: I and Col. 2: 16-17 and discusses the transformation of "lamb," "whole-burnt offering," and "pleasing fragrance"(pp. 37-42). Nonetheless, Gavryil's work, like Dmitrevsky's, falls short of an integrated and explicit enunciation of the implications of this transformation.

Gavryil does, however, creatively situate liturgiology within theology, sug­gesting its implications for Christian existence by placing the discipline be­tween dogmatics and ethics as a "heart" uniting "mind" (symbolized by dogmatics) and "will" (symbolized by ethics) (p. 19). Elsewhere he writes that Christianity is grounded in faith statements, moral prescriptions, and divine worship. As the first two find expression in the third, liturgy incarnates the Christian enterprise (p. 20). Gavryil also states that the task of liturgics is to

21 PyKosoiJcmso no AumypluKe, UAU 11ayKa o npasocAasHoMr. 6ozocAy:J1ceHuu, Taepi. 1886.

215

illustrate how divine services express the reality of inner worship and manifest our ascent to communion with God. The work is replete with references to inner disposition and existential orientation (pp. 4-8, 14-17).

Three years after the publication of Gavryil's handbook, a simpler textbook for less advanced students, written in question-and-answer form, was pub­lished by archpriest Vasylii Mykhailovsky and, according to the title page, translated into German, Bulgarian, and Georgian.22 For our purposes the first four sentences are noteworthy. In response to the question, "What is divine service [or a divine service]," we read: "Divine service in general is worship of the divine or the pleasing of God through good thoughts, words, and actions." The next question reads: "What is an Orthodox ecclesial divine service?" The answer: "An Orthodox divine service is a communal divine service expressed in common prayers and sacred actions according to the order of the Orthodox Church, and [lead by] ordained persons." In its own simple way, the textbook captures much of the Christian approach to the relation between life and worship. Especially gratifying is that these defini­tions stand at the very beginning of the work, displacing narrowly cultic discussions to subsequent sections.

In 1895 Bishop Vissarion Nechaev published the fourth edition of his lnterpre1a1ion of the Divine liturgy According 10 the Order of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil the Great. The book is a serviceable sequential explanation at a popular-scholarly level. In an introductory chapter, Vissarion writes about Christ's celebration of what the bishop presumes was a Pass­over meal:

This was not only Christ's last celebration of the Passover; the meal also demonstrated that the Old Testament Passover as such had been abolished [sic]. The paschal lamb had prefigured Jesus Christ, slain from the world's foundation. The time had arrived for the slaying of the Divine Lamb on the altar of the cross and consequently of the abolition of the Old Testa­ment Passover rites. They were abolished properly speaking on the day of Christ's death on the cross. But the foundation for this had been laid the previous day when the eucharist was instituted, by which Christ had proleptically offered himself, had presented the image of his sufferings on the cross in anticipation."

22 Y11eHue o npa1ocA11IHOM& 6ozocAyxeHuu, CT.-IleTep6ypn. 1889. n EnHCKon BHccapHOH, ToAicOlaHue Ha /ioxecm1eHHy10 Rumypzu10 no 11UHy c1. HoaHHa

3Aamoycmazo u Cl. BacuAUll BeAUICQZO (CT.-IleTep6ypn.: H3,11.&HHC H. n. Ty30H 1895) 7-8.

216

In the entire book, this is the only extensive reftection on a personalization theme which, on the positive side, properly articulates the relationship be­tween "Holy Thursday" and "Good Friday," but mistakenly uses the lan­guage of "abolishment" to express "fulfilment" or "transfiguration."

In the same year, Epif anii Nesterovsky, professor of liturgy at the Kursk Seminary, published his handbook, Liturgics. or The Study of the Divine Services of the Orthodox Church. 2• More noteworthy than Nesterovsky's work, which, being based on some of the handbooks already mentioned, adds little to the discussion of New Testament theologies of worship, is a scathing review published in Bogoslovskii Vestnik. The reviewer, signed only "P. L.," insists that the task of liturgics is a modest one: to inculcate the knowledge necessary for appropriate attendance at and competent perfor­mance of divine services.2.S The review signals a narrowing of theological concerns in liturgics. The reviewer states that since seminarians are not ex­posed to a fuller range of theological questions until later in their program (while liturgics is already taught during the first two years of seminary), liturgics per force should be less theological in orientation.

Around the same time, archpriest G. S. Debolskii published The Concern of the Orthodox Church for the Salvation of the World Expressed in Her Divine Services Which Embrace the Entire Life of the Christian from Birth to Death, or, An Explanation of the Rites, Occasional Services, Sacraments and Worship of the Orthodox Church.26 In spite of the promising (and prolix) title, the work evidences a thoroughly instrumental (pp. 33, 71), and illustrative-pedagogical approach to liturgy (p. 46) tainted with extrinsicism and juridicism. For Debolskii, Christ inaugurates "the new leitourgia" pri­marily by establishing different ritual prescriptions (pp. 224-5).

In 1900, Bogoslovskii Vestnik published two articles by Sergius, Metro­politan of Moscow, entitled: "The Origins of Pastoral Ministry and Its Neces­sity," and "The Dignity of the Priesthood."27 Sergi!-ls cites passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning Christ's high priesthood but interprets

2' numyplUKa, UAU HayKa 0 6olOCAYX~HUU nptuOCAUHOU L{~pKtlU, 'lacn nepau: ( OOUlU), Kypcn 1895.

" boZOCAO•CKUU &cmHUKI> 6 (1897, Mapn.) 532. 26 Oone11eHue Opa•oc.ta•Hoii L{epK.u o cnauHuu Mupa. The work was reissued in Moscow

in 1994, even though its only redeeming quality is its references to the hi.story of East-Slavic liturgical practice. But even these require judicious use.

17 " fipoKcXOlk,llCHHe nacTHpcraro cnyllCCHH• Hero Hco6XO,llHMOCn," GozocA<HICICuii &cm·

HUI<& 9 (1900, Hrycn.) 507-49; ",U:OCTOHHCT80 CllllUCHCTH," (ibid., CCnT.) 49-53.

217

them in purely cultic terms and as the source of the presbyterate. Nowhere does he indicate an understanding of the epistle's original intent as regards cult.

At this point we should pause to illustrate a point made earlier concerning East-Slavic liturgiology's underdevelopment relative to other disciplines. Russian Orthodox theology has never been known for its contribution to biblical studies or moral theology, and yet from 1901 on we notice a self­reftectivcness and intra-disciplinary consciousness in these two fields that is entirely absent in East-Slavic liturgical study. From 1901to1908 Khristianskoe chtenie published a series of articles on the overall nature, task, and state of ethics and of biblical studies.28 To the very present, no such overview exists for the field of Russian Orthodox liturgy. 29

Returning to our primary concern, in 1903 Khristianskoe chtenie published a three-part article by Alexei Sokolov, .. On the Worship of the Heavenly Father in Spirit and Truth," with the subtitle, "Against the Sectarians and Rationalists"30 (the former would have referred to Free Church Christians). Archimandrite Gavryil's handbook of 1886 had already dealt, quite well, incidentally, with the objections of anti-ritualists, and Sokolov adroitly takes up the banner, employing solid biblical exegesis, patristic commentary, and ritual anthropology.JI He also insists inspiringly on the need for fully inte­grated worship-the permeation of expression with inner conviction. 32 How­ever, when it comes to a discussion of Christ and ritual, Sokolov reverts to a naive replacement theory, positing Christ as the founder of new rites.33 And again, one finds nothing of the personalization theme.

2' See for example A. A. 6pOH'.loin., "HpaeCTBeHHoe 6orocno1Me in. PoccMM Blt Te'leHMe XIX-ro CToneTH11" (Moral theology in Russia during the 19th century], XpucmuaHCKoe 'lmeHue 81 (1901) 65-94, SS3-99, 721-64, 858-905; Cl>. r. EneoHCKHil, "On'leCTBeHHblll TJ>Y.l{bl no H:iy'le­HHIO 6H6nHH Blt Te'ltHHe 11Topoil nonoaMHW XIX aen" (National (i.e., Russian and Imperial) works in biblical studies ofthe second half of the 19th century), XpucmuaHcKoe 'lmtHue 8 I (190 I) 633-60. .

29 However, an unpublished manuscript of undetermined lenith by Boris I. Sove, entitled "HCTopHA nHryprH'ICCKoil HayKH a PoccHM" (A history of liturgical study in Russia) is men­tioned in Nikolai Uspensky's biographical note on Sove in 6oloc1101c1eue mpyt}w 4 (1968) 37. Also, an article in Polish, in the journal of the Warsaw Orthodox Theological Faculty, lays the foundation for such an overview: S. Kirylowicz, "Przedmiot i zadanie Liturgiki, jako naulci" (The object and task of liturgics as a science), EAU/I 11 (1937) 144-201.

30 "O noKnoHeHHH OT'ly Mc6ecHoMy .QyxoMb H lkTOHoio-OpoTMn ceKTaHTOB'lt-pa1.1HoHa.nHCToalt," XpucmuaHcKoe 'lmeHue 83 (1903) 27-40, 161-78, 315-26.

JI Ibid., 315-26. 32 Ibid., 325-6. 33 Ibid., 322.

218

1904 saw the publication of a book entitled The Sense and Meaning of Orthodox-Christian Daily Services.~ A unique section on the relationship between the eucharist as sacrifice and the sacrifice of the cross nonetheless ignores the personalization theme, interpreting the whole question along scholastic lines.JS

The revolution of 1905 brought changes in the area of theology. Theolog­ical journals, less censored than before, carry articles calling for reforms in Orthodox worship. The enhancement of participation and the fostering of liturgy's links to everyday life are stressed. Nikolai Popov analyzes the atti­tude of pastors to contemporaneous social movements and calls for a radical rejection of the bureaucratic mind set in all areas of church life. 36 1906 secs the publication of V. N. Myshchyn's reflections on the reform of worship,37

and in 1907 Piotr Kremlevsky publishes "The Ancient Diaconate and its Rcestablishment."38 The piece is a scathing attack on the lack of social conscious­ness among Orthodox and a call for the deacon's return to ministries of justice and charity.

Three months before the October revolution of 1917, a priest by the name of Ilia Gumilevsky published "Reform or Creativity?: A Reflection on the Divine Services of the First Christians, " 39 in which he pleads for a liturgy that would unite worshippers with dynamic bonds of interpersonal sharing and concern.<IO He insists, somewhat romantically, that a eucharist celebrated according to the ethos described in Acts and other apostolic writings would lead to dramatic changes in the daily lives of Christians. •1 Nonetheless, in spite of Gumilevsky's interest in the scriptures and his concern to see worship as a leaven for existential change, he, like Popov, Myshchin, and Kremlevsky before him, nowhere draws inspiration from the New Testament image of a liturgos whose altar was his life.

lA E. I., CMWCA& u 1Ha'4eHue npat1ocAa8HO·xpucmuaHcKazo e:.:eoHe8HDlO 6ozocAyJ1CeHuR,

Moc1C1a 1904. 35 Ibid., 103-1 I. 36 "061' OTHOWCHHK nac-rwp• UepnH in. co1peMCHHWM1' o6uteCT&eHHWM1' .QllH)l(CHHllM1',"

bolOCA08CKUiJ BecmHUK& 14 (1905, ccnT.•,llCJ.'..) 778-815. )1 "K1' pe'°pMC 6orocn}'llCCHHll," bolOCA08CKuiJ &cmHUK& JS (1906) 199-204 . .lt w Jl.pc1HKA AHllCOHan H cro 103CTa1101neHKC (6naronopcHHc, xan 38,ll8'fa UcpnH),"

bOlOCA08CKUU &CITIHUIC1> 16 (1907, Mapn) 587-94. )9 "Pcit>opMa HllH nop'ICCTBO? (Pa3MWl11nCHHC HI.In> 6orocny•eHHCM1' nepBWX'b xpHC­

THIH1')," bolOCA08CKUU BecmHuK& 26 (1917, HIOH'b•HIOnHA) 54-74. 40 Ibid., S9. '

1 Ibid., 69-70.

219

During World War I, Mikhail Skaballanovich, the Kievan liturgist more renowned for his Tolkovyi 1)1pikon [The typicon explained], published the first six parts of a projected twelve-volume heortology,42 which for all its comprehensiveness and attention to scriptural material, does not take up the personalization of feasts.

Before turning to the post-revolutionary period we should note that the lack of attention to the New Testament idea of the personalization of cult should not be construed as a more general lack of interest in scriptural exegesis, and in particular in the Letter to the Hebrews. The period from 1890 to 1917 produced quite a number of detailed scriptural analyses, in­cluding several studies of that epistle.0 But again, liturgical connections simply were not made.

IV. The Post-Revolutionary Period

The post-revolutionary period witnesses a new vibrancy in liturgical writing, even if the output was less prolific than before 1917. No doubt the experience of war and deprivation inspired a desire for greater relevancy. The four centers of Russian emigre life during the 1920s (Prague, Berlin, Paris, Bel­grade) all made contributions to this output. In Prague an anonymous work, published under the supervision of Sergei Chetverikov, entitled The Divine Services of the Orthodox Church in her Hymnography and Rites, begins with a discussion of how worship serves as a school for Christian living and the importance of participation in heart and mind.44

In I 924 Nikolai Arseniev penned his first significant liturgical tract, "The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church."4, Through a reflection on an array of various Eastern, not just Byzantine, anaphoras, he elucidates the reality of a suffering and glorified Christ present now in worship, trans­figuring humanity and the cosmos. Arseniev draws attention to the ethical

•l M . Cra6aJIJUlHOIH'I, XpucmuaHCKUt npa30HUKU: BcecmopoHHee oc•tlJ.leHue KaxOIJw un 6eAUKun npa30HuKon co •ceM ezo 6ozocAy31CeHUtM&, K11ee~: ff3.11.a1111e *YPHaJla "Ilpono­ae.11.111111ec1e11A JlHCTon" 191S.

4) See for example Jl H. l>or.11.ame1C1CHA, *UocnaHKC CB. AnOCTona naana in. Eapenn." [The epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews], Tpyi:Jw Kue6cKoii Jiyxo6Hoii AKaOeMuu 46 (190!1) 32S-S9.

'° bolOCllJ31CtHUt npa60CAtUHOiJ 1'tpKlltl • tzO ntCHOntHURX& U 06p11oan, J-4. '5 "TaMHCTllO EaxapHCTHH n *"'"" UepnK" in npo6MMW PJCCKDlO peAUlU03HIJW C03-

HQHUR: C6opHux- cmamtii [Problems of Russian religious consciousness: A collcction of anicles], Berlin: YMCA Press 1924.

220

dimensions of liturgy when he scores the magical approach to sacraments and notes how these "are inextricably bound up with moral growth ... with the person's moral life." The gist of his article is communicated in his own summary:

The cucharist is truly the Church's central nerve. Here one experiences the presence of the glorified Lord, surrounded by companies of angels; here is commemorated and mystically manifested his death . . . here one's environment is illuminated and the faithful arc borne aloft into another, higher, realm of being standing in fear and trembling, here the human person is divinizcd . • . here one is invited to praise the Lord, and intercession is made before the throne of glory for all creation. And finally, here in the mystery of the eucharist in a particularly powerful way is mystically revealed and actualized that all-encompassing unity of the Church's body, which through the God-man unites in a bond of love those far and near, and that which is Above with that which is Below.

The whole article breathes a similar dynamism and concern for transforma­tion, but the personalization theme remains untapped.

In 1927 Arseniev published "Concerning the Liturgy and the Mystery of the Eucharist. " 46 The piece begins with a solid reflection on the incarnational foundation of Christianity and the way in which worship actualizes this incarnationalism throughout the ages. In a chapter entitled "The Sense of the Liturgy" Arseniev proclaims: "Liturgy isn't archaeology, but rather the expres­sion of a living life [zhivoi zhizm], the life of the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church."47 Later he states: "Christ died for all, so that those who live would not live for themselves, but for the One who died and rose for them." "This," exclaims Arseniev, "is the life of the Church, and it is the liturgy and the eucharist that are the expression of this life."41

Around the same time a certain archimandrite Afanasii writing in Paris on the liturgy's mysticism, reflects on Christ's kenosis, in particular his temp­tations, and says: "From that moment divine life begins in a human body, (from that moment) begins the sacred life, the liturgy, and it is Christ himself who celebrates it. For [this worship] is his life, inseparable from [the reality of) his life."49 The archimandrite goes on to reflect on the significance of the

46 0 Aumypzuu u mauHcm8e &xapucmuu. Paris: YMCA Press 1927. 41 Ibid., 39 . .. Ibid., 42. ., MucmuKa AUmypwu, 8.

221

"lamb" during the Byzantine prothesis rite but without making any existen­tial connection. Thus we see a common tendency to move from Old Testa­ment cultic realities to New Testament ones without any reflection on the intermediate stage in which the former have been personalized.

In 1928, Schmemann's mentor, Archimandrite Kyprian Kern, working in Belgrade, produced a work entitled Lilies of Prayer: A Collection of Articles on Liturgical Theology. 50 While the essays do not touch on issues germane to our topic, it would seem that this is the first time the term "liturgical theology" is used by a Russian Orthodox author.

Among emigre periodicals, Nicholas Berdyaev's journal, Put: carried several noteworthy pieces on worship. In 1932 Sergei Bulgakov, not known for his liturgical acumen in spite of his genius, submitted "The Holy Grail: An Attempt at a Dogmatic Exegesis of John 19:34"" [ .. One of the soldiers pierced His side and immediately there poured forth blood and water"]. Bulgakov develops the notion that this blood and water remain with humanity sacra­mentally as the pledge of the abiding of Christ's humanity in the midst of the human race, salvation consisting, in part, in the immersion of our humanity in Christ's. s2

V. The Post-World War II Period

By the mid- l 940s Prague and Belgrade have ceased being centers of Rus­sian religious thought, and the Soviet Union, where theological output was curtailed after the revolution, will not see the establishment of a scholarly theological journal until 1959, when the Moscow Academy's Bogoslovskie Trudy begins publication. Consequently, Paris' Institut Saint-Serge alone holds the baton for more than a decade, doing so quite impressively.

Before we turn to the works of theologians at Saint-Serge, an article in the 1955 volume of Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, a popular publication res­urrected after World War II, deserves comment. The piece by K. Konstanti­nov, entitled "The Orthodox Divine Service in the Life of a Christian, " 53

begins somewhat originally, by noting the significance of various deesis-type

'° Kpwtw MOAumt1t!HHMe-C6opHUK& cmameii no 11umyp2u11ecK0My 602ocAot1u10, 6c11rp~: opaTCTBO flpcn. Ccpa4>HM& CapOllCICal'O 1928.

" wc1111n.dl rpaani.-Onwn. AOrMaTH'ICCKOll 3J(JeTC3W lo. XIX: 34," Uymt. (1932, no. 32) 3-42.

Sl Ibid., 30-5. S) " IlpaBOCJlaBHOC 6orocnyllCCHHC 11 llCHJHH xpHCTH8HHHa, " )/(ypHOA M OCKOtlCKOU flampu·

apxuu (l9SS , no. 6) 40.

222

icons for Christian living. This "standing in the presence of God," "walking before the face of the Divine" is of the essence of authentic spirituality, and manifests itself in Orthodox liturgy's ethos, whose goal, as the author writes, is to make of life per se a constant act of communion. Anyone familiar with Byzantine worship realizes how central is this "dynamic passivity., of expectant posture, and how rarely its significance is analyzed. Later, after developing standard Orthodox themes of earth-heaven unity, eternity in the present, and the ascetical context of worship, Konstantinov writes: "For those who have cultivated within themselves an attitude conducive to experiencing each feast as an event of their inner spiritual life, all of life becomes a divine service, and that which we customarily call a divine service becomes only a more pro­nounced manifestation and culmination of this inner activity." Unfortunately, he ends the piece shortly thereafter without developing this theme.

Several other articles pertaining to liturgical theology appearing in the Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii during this period do not speak to our concerns.~

We now turn to the output at Saint-Serge. In 1947, Kyprian Kern, having moved to Paris, published his Evkharistia.55 While an impressive piece of synthesis and historical elaboration, the personalization theme is absent. Probably as a result of the work's historical focus, "liturgy and life" as a whole is generally ignored, though Kern lays the groundwork for such a discussion in his brief reflection on Jogike latreia (p. 235).

However, in 1950 Saint-Serge's rector, Bishop Kassian Bezobrazov, who had trained in history but became a biblicist with an interest in liturgy, published his Christ and the First Generation of Christians,S6 originally a series of lectures delivered in 1935-36. There, in a chapter entitled "The Theological Problem of [the Epistle to the] Hebrews, "57 Kassian draws at­tention to the personalization of cult by noting that with the demise of the Jerusalem temple, Christ's Body, which Kassian discusses as an historical, ecclesial, sacramental, and eschatological reality, takes the place of the now defunct temple. Kassian 's added emphasis on the eschatological dimension

54 n. IlapHllCICHll, "IlpaaocnaaHoe 6orocnY*tHHe," )l(ypHaA Moac<HCKOU llampuapxuu (19S2, no. 3) 64-9; K. KoHTaHTHHOB, "Ilpaaocnaauoc 6orocnY*tHtte a llCH3HH xpKCTH&HHHa: Ha'lano lltpicoauoro ro.na," ibid. (19SS, no. 8) 41-7.

SS uxapucmuR-H3'1> 'lmeHUi1"" llpa•ocnallHOM'I> 60ZOCA06CKOM'I> HHcmumyme'"' llapu­xe, IlapHin: YMCA Press 1947.

" Xpucmoc u nep11oe xpucmuaHc1<oe noKoAeHue, napHi1c: YMCA Press 1950. " Ibid., 268-72.

223

of the heavenly tent (mentioned by the author of Hebrews) as the "place" of Christ's sacrifice, forms the foundation for a reflection on the actualization of Christ's act throughout time. Earlier I mentioned the need for East-Slavic liturgiology to dialogue more with biblical studies. In his introduction, Bezo­brazov avers to this when he writes that Orthodox theology students were frequently introduced to dogmatics, liturgics, etc., without adequate exposure to their scriptural roots. His work serves as a welcome corrective.

1951 saw the publication of a seminal piece by Nicholas Afanasiev in the new Paris journal, Pravoslavnaia mys/'. There the author attacks the scho­lastic bifurcation of sacramentology into .. dogmatics" and "liturgics," and questions the septinarium, with a view to emphasizing the sacramentality of the Church's entire life. Also related to the question of liturgy and life is Afanasiev's insistence that each sacrament manifests three moments: 1) the revelation of God's will in the assembly's ascent to accomplish the mystery (sviashchennodestvie) , 2) the actual celebration of the sacrament, and finally 3) the witnessing of the Church (within the world) to that which has been effected within her during the celebration. This last aspect is, of course, very central to our theme.

One year later Afanasiev also published his noted tract on the eucharist, The Table of the Lord. sa But while the work is replete with biblical quotations it does not take up the personalization theme, focusing rather on the problem of the eucharist and ecclesial unity.

In 1953 Boris Bobrinsky made a contribution to the existentialization of liturgical theology by properly elucidating the nature of the "Last Supper." Instead of the tendency in so much of East-Slavic liturgiology (a tendency grounded, alas, in Byzantine liturgical texts) to isolate the "institution of the eucharist" from the reality of Good Friday, Bobrinsky notes how the actions at that meal point to the existential drama of the following day.s9 The article is also noteworthy for its insistence that the paschal mystery is the foundation of every liturgical service (p. 257). Today these two concepts are axiomatic but in Bobrinsky's day they were hardly so among Eastern Christians. Bobrinsky also cites Hebrews 7:26-7 as part of a brief reflection on Christ's priesthood and the purity and all-sufficiency of his sacrifice (pp. 254-5).

~B ipantJQ I'ocnoiJHll, napKlK 1952. 59 6. :&o.npKKCICKA, .. MonKTH K 6orocnyiiceHKe I JKKJKK npaaocnaaHoll UepnH" [Prayer

and worship in the life of the Orthodox Church] in npa1oc..a6Ut 1 .xu1Hu {Orthodoxy in life], pe.11. C. Bepxoacicoil (H1>10-Ropic: HJ.llaTeni.cno HM. lfexoaa 1953) 261-2.

224

. ,

This brings us to 1957, the year Alexander Schmemann published what would later become the first chapter of his Introduction to Liturgical The­ology. The article, found in 1Serlrovnyi Vestnik and entitled .. On the Task and Method of Liturgical Theology," states that "the Orthodox Church finds herself in the midst of a liturgical crisis, a crisis which consists first of all in the mistaken concept of the function and place of worship in the Church. "60

Schmemann continues: "The Church as such has come to be understood as a function of worship, existing for the performance of services understood in a cultic sense." He then notes: "Christ never established a cultic society."61 Though Schmemann does not explicitly adduce the New Testament sources for his assertion, the substance of New Testament liturgical theology is quite obvious. (Schmemann's real masterpiece, Sacraments and Orthodoxy: For the Life of the World, will not be discussed here because it was originally written in English for a North American readership.)

In 1964 a Parisian Russian Orthodox publisher issued a typescript version of Kyprian Kern's conspectus of lectures delivered in 1945 at Saint-Serge, entitled Liturgics: Hymnography and Heortology. 62 Kem suggests three pos­sible approaches to liturgiology: a) the historico-archaeological, b) the ritual­ordinal, and c) the theological. For Kern the third consists of an analysis of the reality of service and worship, reflection on sacramental participation in Christ's redeeming work, and a cultivation of the didactic aspect of liturgy. According to Kern, when liturgics commits itself to this last dimension-the tapping of worship for theology, it overcomes the narrow "ritualogical" approach found in Orthodox schools, and becomes a theological discipline on a par with systematics and historical theology. Very telling is Kern's concluding remark that liturgics in this case stands in a particularly close relationship with patristics. Kern does not emphasize liturgics' ties to scrip­tural studies, and not surprisingly his heortology bears something of the "ritualogical" flavor he himself scored.

Turning back to the East-Slavic homelands, with one exception (discussed below), the noteworthy liturgical output of Moscow's new journal Bogo­slovskie Trudy was not in the area of liturgical theology. (It would be inter­esting to learn whether the Soviet censors curtailed work in this field.) Instead liturgical history dominates, with Nikolai Uspensky continuing the work begun before the revolution by Alexei Dmitrievsky. However, among the

60 A. WMeMalfl., "0 '.18,lla'lt H MtTOP.C JhrryprH'ICCkaro :Sorocno11H11," l.ltpKo.Hwu &cm­HUKr> (Mafl-Jltka6p .. 1957) I 16.

61 Ibid., 117. 61 JlumypwKa: lUMHOlpa¢u11 u :JOpmOAOWR, IlapHllC: "BO.Ill 1'CHllU" 1964.

225

pieces in Bogoslovskie Trudy that do treat of liturgical theology, several deserve comment. The first is a rare piece of theology by Uspensky. In "God's Saving and Sanctifying Actions Accomplished through the Holy Spirit in Divine Services and Sacraments, "63 Uspensky suggests that worship might be defined as "a turning in solidarity to God of multitudes of people of pure heart embraced by a unity of thought soaring towards God" (p. 196). He continues in a similar "cult-transcending" vein when he writes:

The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles was the moment of the Church's origin and with it of the first Christian liturgy, for at that moment the apostles were •baptized with the Holy Spirit'. Consequently, the Church made her appearance to the world through a divine service graced by the Holy Spirit. This is a very important condition which is also a fundamental criterion for defining the Church herself. The Church exists wherever there is (a) divine service graced by the Holy Spirit, and without the latter there is no Church (p. 197).

Uspensky then links the apostles' preaching and their hearers' repentance to baptism and eucharist in such a way that the latter are fundamentally exis­tentialized.

The papers of a theological dialogue on the eucharist between represen­tatives of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Finnish Lutheran Church held in Zagorsk in 1971 provide another source of reflection on liturgy and life. In .. The Eucharist as the New Testamental Sacrificial Offering, " 114 a bishop Mikhail of Astrakhan presents a concise summary of the personalization theme-at least as regards sacrifice-noting how revolutionary in their age were the Old Testament texts that spiritualized sacrifice (p. 167), and how it is Christ's life that constitutes his sacrifice, a sacrifice, which being unique, obviates all other sacrifices except the Christian's sacrifice of self grounded in the Savior's. Mikhail writes: "Ontologically, the basis for our sacrificial offering of self is the sacrifice brought by God's love" (p. 168). Throughout, the bishop correctly interprets the relevant passages in Hebrews and Ephe­sians (5:2). One cannot help but wonder whether the encounter with Luther­ans compelled the bishop of Astrakhan to familiarize himself with the best in contemporary scriptural exegesis.

63 MCnacaJOll.lHe K oc1.11inaiomHe JJ.eiicTBHll 5olKHH '!epeJ CaJ1Toro Jfyxa B 6orocnylKeHHH H TBllHCTBIX," bolOCAO•CKUt Tpyow s (1970) 196-204.

"' MHxaM, enHCJCon AcrpaxaHcJOdt H EHoTaeBCICHA, MEaxapHCTHll JaJC H08oJaaeTxoe llCep­TaonpHHOWeHHe," ibid. 11 (1973) 164-73.

226

But if bishop Mikhail distinguishes himself thus, his colleague in the dialogue, a professor V. D. Sarychev, does just the opposite by arguing, for example, that Christ's words over the bread and wine do not point to the events of Good Friday, but are what one might call "self-referent," the "Last Supper" being a cultic event unto itself. Sarychev even adduces quotations from Chrysostom to buttress his argument. 6s

This brings us to 1977, the year Bogoslovskie Ti-udy posthumously pub­lished what is certainly one of the most sophisticated, if albeit at times idiosyncratic, pieces of modern Russian liturgical analysis, Pavel Florensky's lectures on cult. 66 Delivered in Moscow between 1918 and 1922, the lectures brilliantly examine the anthropological, metaphysical, and gnoseological dimen­sions of Orthodox liturgy, demonstrating how worship serves as a pre-condition for the salvific appropriation of knowledge, time, and space. Eastern Chris­tian worship binds interiority and exteriority to restore God's image in hu­mans, to manifest humanity's theandric vocation. Florenslcy's all-encompassing panentheism grounds a cosmic sacramentalism intended in turn to undergird the liturgy's divinizing potential. However, the personalization theme remains unexamined. In fact, Florensky's-quite captivating, and otherwise legitimate -stress on Orthodox liturgy's "otherwordliness" is so pronounced that it almost precludes the possibility of such reflection; the transcendent focus seems to inhibit an appreciation for the radically existential roots of cult, though, of course, in principle one should be able to maintain the two emphases in dynamic tension.

During this same period, the less sophisticated Ukrainian equivalent of the Zhurna/ Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, Kiev's Pravoslavnyi Visnyk, published two short pieces that bear seeds of reflection on our theme. In the first we find a reference to Golgotha as the inauguration of the new Christian liturgy.67 And in the second, John 4:21-4 and Hebrews 10:1 serve to stimulate a discussion of the authentic nature of ritual, and its relation to both the Christ-event and daily life. 68

In 1977, Bishop Veniamin Milov, working in Western Europe, published an interesting experiment entitled, Readings in liturgical Theology.69 The

6' B. ,ll. Capw'IC11, "O EaxapKCTHH," ibid. 11 (1973) 174, 180. 66 C11111lleHHHK na11en ~nopeHcKHll, "H3 6orocnOBCKOro Hacne,llHll, .. ibid. 17 ( 1977) 85-248. 67 IlpoTOHtpcll loaHH CopoirHH, "C111Te nKci.Mo Hoaoro 3aaKT}' npo 6orOCJ1yllCKHH1 a

anOCT011i.cuoMy aKUH" [The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament regarding divine services in the apostolic age], npallOCAQIHUU BuCHUK (no. 3, 1975) 22.

61 IlpoToKtpcll HKiro11all HoaocaJl, "OokJloHiHHll 6oro11H H o6p.llJ1K," ibid. (no. 7, 1979) 25-8.

69 BcHHaMHH en. (MKJJoa), 'lmeHuR no 11umypzu4'ecK0111y 6ozocA011U10, 6ptOCCe111.: ff3.11.a­TCJJ1tCTBO ")f(H3HI> c 6oroM" 1977.

227

entire 344-page work is a systematic theology based on liturgical texts and experiences. Thus chapter l is a triadology, chapter 2 an angelology, chapter 3 a christology, etc., all culled from Byzantine hymnography. As the per­sonalization theme rarely appears in these liturgical texts, not surprisingly Veniamin devotes no attention to the question, though at one point he refers to Golgotha as Christ's krestnoe sviashchennodeistvie, 70 which might be translated as the "sacred ministration (liturgy) of the cross." Nonetheless, one well-known liturgical text docs exist that could have provided the basis for comprehensive reflection on the personalization of cult. The Chrysostom and Basil formularies contain a presbyteral prayer pronounced before the Great Entrance, in which Christ is ref erred to as "the one who off crs and the one who is offered."71 But neither Veniamin, nor for that matter any of the other commentators on the Byzantine eucharist cited thus far, develop the impli­cations of this phrase for liturgical theology as a whole.

Returning to Bogoslovskie 7rudy, the previously-mentioned bishop Mikhail of Atrakhan in a paper entitled "The Holy Eucharist and Transformation and Transfiguration of the World by Grace"12 sets up (and then forgets) a curious dichotomy between a sacramental "transformation" of"this worldly" realities, on the one hand, and a sacramental transfiguration "of the world bearing eschatological consequences" on the other (p. 90). In spite of the promising title, among the very few insights related to the liturgy-Hf e theme is Mikhail's insistence that cucharistic koinonia be grounded in day-to-day sharing (p. 98), and that "God potentially was transforming [npeo6pa30BaJ1 (imperfect tense)] the world by the service performed by the God-man," and "God now dynamically transforms the world and draws his Church into the saving ministry whose goal is the final great transfiguration" (p. I 02). This quotation, so pregnant with possibilities, constitutes the very last sentence of Mikhail's article and so remains stillborn. Another article on the cucharist by the same author73 refers to the eph 'hapax quality of Christ's sacrifice and the spiritualization of sacrifice in Hosea 6, Isaiah l, and Psalm 49, without, however, developing these themes.

In 1977-78, Fr Dmitri Dudko, the bete noire of Soviet political and reli­gious officialdom, delivered a series of homilies published in the West in 1988

10 Ibid., 38. 71 F. E. Brightman, Uturgies Eastern and Htstem (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1896) 378. 72 ":&narOAaTHOC npeo6paJOHHHC-npeo6puceHHC MMpa H CUTU EBxapMCTHll" bolO•

CA~CKUe Tpy~w 21-(1980) 9().102. 73 "'lcpicoai. H EnapHCTHll a npaaocnUHOM conoCTaa.rteHHH" (The Church and the cucha­

rist in Orthodox juxtaposition], ibid. 25 ( 1984) I S4-(;().

228

under the title, The Liturgy in the Russian I.And. 74 The very first words set the tone for the entire 267-page work:

What is the Liturgy? It is certainly not a theatrical production in which various "scenes" are acted out. Liturgy is life itself. It is not even some­thing that is served [celebrated); it is rather something that is taken to heart as a fundamental experience. To be at the Liturgy means to par­ticipate in the divine essence; but one should not be at the Liturgy if one has not prepared for it with one's entire life (p. 5).

Dudko repeatedly scores the theatrical mind set,7s and passionately pro­motes the coinherence of worship and life.76 Among the more memorable quotations are the following:

The Liturgy does not take place only within the Church. Church is where the Liturgy is concluded, for it begins in the thick and thin of life. If you serve God with your life, then the Liturgy will be truly divine (p. 160). Liturgical prayer is real only when it is born of suffering; the Liturgy is suffering for people. And this attitude is possible only once one has decided to be ready for anything ... . Only suffering, whether one's own or someone else's, can open one's eyes to salvation, can resurrect the soul. "Thine own of thine own, we offer You in all and for all." To be ready to suffer for everyone and everything-this is what saves. "We sing of You, we bless You, we give You thanks, and we pray to You, our God." And blessing God in the midst of suffering-here again is salvation (p. 250). The Liturgy, if I might be allowed to express myself thus, is a poem about suffering, but without a despairing epilogue. The epilogue of the Liturgy is Christ's resurrection from the dead. We see suffering-and then immediately- resurrection (p. 260).

Suspicions regarding Soviet censorship find grounding in the fact that Alexander Men's delightful book, Orthodox Worship: [Sacramental] Mys­tery, Word, and Image, 77 had to be published in Brussels. Reissued finally in

1• Rumypwlf Ha Pycc1<ou :kMM: 'lmeHu11 o 6.uuoOamHOM ippcm« Xpucm(H{)M, Hi.to-

Ropx: KoMHTCT Pycc1Coll IlpaaocnaaHoll Mono.QellCH 3arpaHH"ell 1988. ' 5 Ibid., 20, 21, 79, 97, 176, 203, 24S, 2S6. 76 Ibid., 20, 43, 78, 93, 160, 187, 188, 195, 201, 202, 212, 227-9, 244, 249-SO, 256, 260-1, 263. n DpoToHepell AneiccaHJlp MeHi., Dpa•ocAa8HOt 6olOCAy:J1CeHue: TauHcm•o. c11oso u

o6pa3, Mocna: Hl.ltllJIH• KHH•HOA peAUIUIK Cnoao/Slovo 1991.

229

Moscow in 1991, the work's introduction provides the most concise contem­porary discussion in Russian of liturgy's relation to life. To begin with, Men quotes at length from the section of Schmemann's lnrroduction to Liturgical 'Theology cited above. He notes that the term "divine service" could in fact be used to describe a plethora of other activities undertaken by the Church. Men also discusses the problem of pagan and unreformed pharisaic approaches to cult and their perdurance among Christians.

After Alexander Men, several very talented theologians have taken up liturgical issues in books published during the present period of democracy. An excellent apologetic for structured Christian worship can be found in chapter 5 of Andrei K.uraev's 1995 book 'ITadition, Rite, and Dogma," which was intended as an introduction to theology for post-Soviet students (K.uraev is the dean of philosophy and theology at the new Orthodox university in Moscow). Unfortunately, in spite of the book's other outstanding qualities, there is no discussion of the problem of liturgy and life.

Another similarly solid if less profound work is Ilarion Alfeev's 'The Mys­tery of Faith19 published in Moscow in 1996. In two chapters on worship he propounds the essential idea that the Church develops or originates not from dogmatic formulae or scripture, but from worship. However, he avoids taking the next step and asserting that Christian worship itself emanates from exis­tential experience, that of a new kind of high priest.

The present period of religious freedom is not without its darker side. The thousands of academics who, until recently, taught "scientific atheism" are, in the post-Soviet socialism, entitled to jobs in the same area in which they worked before. "Scientific atheism" no longer being in vogue requires that they now teach religious studies! In 1994 one such professor, Alexander Buganov, published a reconstituted version of Sergei Vasilevich Bulgakov's pre-revolutionary handbook of liturgical practice, the Nasto/'naia kniga, in which Orthodox worship is now espoused solely as a bearer of Russian culture, patriotism, and national destiny.so This is not the most auspicious way to relate liturgy to life (even if it may be lucrative in the post-Soviet climate of social upheaval).

71 .IlHHOH AHJJ.pcll Kypac1, 7jlaouqu.11, OOlMOm, 06p.110: AnoAotemu11ecKue 011epKu, Mocna­KnHH: Hl,11aTeJ1i.cno 6paTCTBl C111THTcn• THXOHa 1995.

79 Hcpo11toHaX HnapHOH (Antcc1). TauHcm•o upw: &e0e11ue • npo•ocMH11oe OolMO­mu'lecKoe 6owcAo~t. Mocna-KnHH: HJ.ttlTcn&cno 5p1Tcr1a CHTHTCJla THxoHa 1996.

'° C. B. 6ynra1eoa, Opo11ocAa•ue: RpaJHUKu u nocmw, 6ozocAy::t«:eHut, mpe6w UJ "Hacrom.­Holt KHHrH Jl.llll c111u.teHHo-uep1eo1Ho-<:JJ)'llCHTcncA," Mocna: CoapeMtHHHJC 1994.

230

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion let me state that in all of my research I chose to continue searching for the personalization theme in East-Slavic liturgical theology (even after realizing that there is no consistent thread of developed reflection along these lines there) only because I firmly believe that the more general theme of liturgy and life is simply insufficient for explaining the significance and distinctiveness of Christian worship.81 Stating that liturgy should be related to life is a truism, which, because of its generality, is all too amenable to manipulation.

The New Testament paradigm for imaging the relationship between the two relativizes liturgy so that it can never be espoused as an end in itself,12 and, more precisely, so that it can never become the motive for moral compromise. During the Soviet period some church leaders argued that conscious, compre­hensive, and consistent collaboration with an oppressive regime could be justified in the interests of guaranteeing access to cultic objects, places, and events. Dmitri Dudko, who regularly attacked such compromise,•3 was not published in the Soviet Union.

I have no doubt that in spite of the various crises now facing the former USSR, East-Slavic liturgical theology is on its way to experiencing a period of intense growth, 114 a growth that will be well served by efforts to pull together the loose ends of reflection on how the New Testament relates liturgy to life.

11 I also remained intent on finding whatever I could on the theme because I needed materials for my students at the Lviv Theological Academy in Ukraine.

12 1 would not, however, go as far as those who suggest that liturgy has no absolute value. Instead, I would assign lituri)' the status accorded an icon vis-a-vis its prototype in traditional Eastern Christian theology. In other words, if one accepts the notion that liturgy is an icon of Christian reality (in the fullest sense of the term "icon;, then one safeguards warship's status as an effectual communicator or bearer of the gospel's substance, while, at the same time, ensuring that worship-like the icon-always points beyond itself.

13 See his Rumypzu11 Ha PyccKoii 3eMAe, 160, 174, 195 . .. An indication of this is the work of liturgists like Yurii Ruban. Sec his study of the feast

of the Encounter ("Candlemasj: JO. Py6aH, CumeH11e I'ocnoOHe. CT.·IlCTCp6ypr: H3Aa­Tent.erao "Hoax" 1994.

231