St Vladimir's '¡heological Quarterly 57:1 (2013) 6 7 -8 8

“A c t iv e Pa r t ic ip a t io n ” of the
Fa i t h f u l in B y z a n t in e Lit u r g y

Vassa Larin1

Introduction
This paper poses a very Roman-Catholic question in the context of
Orthodox liturgical practice: Does the Byzantine Rite traditionally
foster the “full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical
celebrations” of all the faithful? This issue, one of the primary
concerns of the 20th c. liturgical movement in the West, the Second
Vatican Council addressed as follows in its Liturgy Constitution,
Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should
be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in litur-
gical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of
the liturgy Such participation by the Christian people as “a
chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed
people” (1 Pet 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and obligation by
reason of their baptism. In the restoration and promotion of
the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the
people is the aim to be considered before all else, for it is the
primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are
to derive the true Christian spirit. Therefore, in all their apos-
tolic activity, pastors of souls should energetically set about
achieving it through the requisite pedagogy. (SC 14)2

1 This is a revised and expanded version o f a talk presented at the Orientale Lumen
Conference XVI: Ti)e Theology of the Laity, June 18-21, 2012, in Washington, D C .
An audio recording o f the original (unrevised) talk is available online: h ttp ://a n -
cientfaith.com /specials/orientale_lum en_xvi_conference/sr._dr._vassa_larin_or-
thodox.
2Vatican II, Sacrosanctum concilium, 4 Dec. 1963. A. Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council
II, vol. 1. The Conciliar a nd Postconciliar Documents (N orthport, NY, 20 045), 7 - 8.

67
68 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

Because of the attention devoted to “active participation” or

participatio actuosa by the Second Vatican Council, I have called it
“a very Roman-Catholic question.” But is this concern for the laity’s
participation in the liturgy not shared by the Byzantine tradition,
and, more specifically, by the O rthodox Church? One might think
not, observing some of the most common phenomena in the
present-day worship of most of the Slavic Orthodox Churches:
the almost complete absence of congregational singing , with the
people s responses replaced by a complicated, polyphonic repertoire
sung by church choirs,3 the central prayers delegated to the silent
recitation by the priest alone, the lack of understanding by many of
the faithful of the archaic liturgical language, and the general dearth
of catechetical instruction in the liturgy.
Indeed, if one cannot sing in the choir for whatever reason— e.g.,
for lack of a musical ear; and if one cannot assist in the sanctuary
for whatever reason—e.g., being female; the prospects for “active
participation” in the liturgy are rather bleak, even presuming
a minimalist understanding of the term “active participation.”
While I am aware of the broad spectrum of possible definitions
and practical realizations of this term,4 for our case in point—the
3 In Russian O rthodox churches, the only pieces sung by the congregation during the
Divine Liturgy, if any, are the Creed, the O u r Father, and the C o m m union H ym n
{“Telo Khristovo,” “Receive the Body o f C hrist”). Often, however, choir conductors
choose to sing complicated polyphonic compositions o f the latter two (O u r Father
and the C om m union Hymn), in which case the choir alone sings them w ithout the
congregation joining in.
4 In contemporary Rom an-Catholic thought, there are various notions as to what con-
stitutes “active participation,”—w hether it actually means doing som ething during
liturgy, or simply praying. See for example Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, D er Geist der
Liturgie. Eine E inführung (Freiburg, 2000), 148-52, where Ratzinger argues that
the “doing” {actio) of the Eucharist is the Eucharistic Prayer and not any other activ-
ity. For a different understanding o f “active participation,” see for example the docu-
ment of‫ ־‬the U S N C C B Bishops’ C om m ittee on the Liturgy, entitled “Environm ent
and Art in Catholic Worship,” originally designated as a com panion to the 1972
statement o f the Bishops’ Com m ittee on the Liturgy, “Music in Catholic Worship.”
W ithin its elaborate description o f the laity’s participation in the liturgy, this docu-
ment states that “it is desirable that persons representing the diversity o f ages, sexes,
ethnic and cultural groups in the congregation should be involved in planning and
ministering in the liturgies o f the community. Special competencies in music, public
“Active Participation‫ר‬of the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 69

present-day Russian Orthodox liturgy—I shall understand ‘active

participation” to mean in that minimal sense at the very least:
Comprehension of what is seen and heard; and vocal participation
in responses traditionally delegated to the people.
By “comprehension” I mean the natural human response to the
basic element of any Christian liturgical service: intelligibility. This
principle of intelligibility in public worship is articulated by the
Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 14:16: “In the church I would rather speak
five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words
in a tongue.”
W ith this minimal understanding of “active participation,” let
us imagine an intelligent but tone-deaf little girl growing up in
the Russian Orthodox Church today, not singing or saying any of
the responses, not able to assist in the sanctuary as the boys do,
not hearing the central liturgical prayers, not understanding the
hymnography and readings sung or read in Church Slavonic, not
instructed to recognize the liturgical symbolism—in short, not
capable of doing anything of what the Lord Himself commanded
with the explicit words, “Do this in remembrance of me!” (Lk
22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). For all possible means of “active participation,”
this little girl is not only tone-deaf, but simply deaf, dumb, and
blind. Note that aside from little girls, most of the congregation in
Russian Orthodox parishes neither sing in the choir nor assist in the
sanctuary, and thus find themselves in the little girls boat.
Is this present-day state of affairs traditional for the Byzantine
Rite? Yes, and no. That is to say, past generations of Byzantine
worshippers and celebrants had varying degrees of success and/or
failure at involving all the faithful in an audible and visible way in the
liturgical action of the Church. In what follows I shall back up this
claim with a sampling of historical and liturgical texts— a sampling
neither exhaustive nor systematic—that witnesses, paradoxically, to

reading, and any other skills and arts related to public worship should be sought,
respected and used in celebration” (§30). E nvironm ent a n d A r t in Catholic Wor-
ship. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy of the N ational Conference o f Catholic Bishops
(Washington, D C , 2005), 18.
70 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

both pastoral concern for and indifference to lay participation in

the liturgy. I shall also reflect on our “active participation” today,
paying special attention to the two demographic groups most often
marginalized by liturgical traditions—children and women.
By doing so, I do not pretend to offer a complete history of active
participation in the Byzantine Rite, nor shall I propose concrete
reforms in this area. My intention is rather less ambitious. It is to
address a very Orthodox question within the context of this Vatican
II Roman-Catholic issue, and that is: W hy should we care?

Today's Russian Orthodox Typikon

T h e a u th o rita tiv e b o o k o f litu rg ic a l re g u la tio n s o r Typikon, w h ic h
still o ffic ia lly r e g u l a t e s t h e l i t u r g i c a l life o f t h e R u s s i a n O r t h o d o x
C h u r c h , v e ry c le a rly e x p re sse s a c o n c e r n fo r th e p a rtic ip a tio n of
all t h e f a i t h f u l i n t h e l i t u r g y . T h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e , w h i c h I sh a ll
q u o t e a t l e n g t h , is f o u n d i n c h a p t e r 49 o f th e T y p ik o n , at th e e n d o f
th e first d a y o f L e n t, in a s e c tio n e n t i t l e d “ T h e C h u r c h O r d i n a n c e
on P ro s tra tio n s a n d P ra y e r” (O n 0KA0H e x h m o a h t b c i j e p K O B H o e
3aK 0H 0n0A 0>K eH H e) :

... When the deacon says, Let us all say, the phrase means noth-
ing other than this very thing—for all to pray together, not
only the choir (κΛΗρ), but all those found in the church. The
deacon further says: with our whole soul, and with our whole
mind, let us say. And what is it that we say ?Nothing other than
this common prayer: Lord, have mercy I The holy Chrysostom
writes [in his commentary on the Epistle] to the Corinthians
about this sacred prayer in the 18th instruction5: “For in the
penitential services there are prayers common to the priest
and to the people: and everyone pronounces one and the
same prayer, filled with mercy, and that is, Lord, have mercy!”
For this reason it is written in the Sluzhebniki (euchologies)
that “the people” pronounce this, or other (prayers) written
in the (appropriate) places. Now in the Holy Eastern Church
things are done not otherwise but as it is written. So where

5 The author oí‫ ־‬this passage in the Typikon is quoting St John Chrysostom s sermon In
2 Co?'bom. 18, 3 (PG 61:527, = C P G §4429), preached in Antioch.
“Active Participation' o f the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 71

it is written that “the people say ... ,” it follows that everyone

together, all those found in the church, say: either Lord, have
mercy I or Grant this‫ י‬Lord! or And with your spirit, or Our 0
Father. Even if this is not done in our churches, still, it should
be done. Because, as it was stated above, when the deacon
says, In peace let us pray to the Lord, or Let us all say, then it
is all who should reply: Lord, have mercy I If it were the choir
-alone that was being told to reply, it would not have been writ
-ten that “the people say.” Thus the holy and sacred Chrysos
tom further says in that same instruction: “During the very
awesome mysteries, the priest greets the people, Peace be with
you. And the people, in their turn, greet the priest, saying ,And
:with your spirit. This means nothing other than the following
that the thanksgiving is common, and it is not he alone who is
giving thanks, but all the people as well. First he accepts their
,voice, and then, after they have agreed that it is meet andjust
he begins the thanksgiving. And why are you surprised that at
some moments the people are pronouncing together with the
priests, when these holy hymns are being raised up together
with the very cherubim and the powers above?” All these
things have been said so that everyone would reflect upon
-the following instruction: that we should come to under
stand that we are all one body, differing from one another as
one body part from another, and so that we do not place all
matters upon the priests, but rather all be concerned about
the Church, as about one common body.6
This lengthy passage, composed in the mid-17th c. during the
pontificate of Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666) and integrated into
the Typikon since its 1682 Moscow edition,7 presents us with a
surprisingly modern “liturgical ecclesiology,” demanding that the
faithful realize their membership in the Church through active
liturgical participation.8 Note that for the Typikon this clearly
Typikon sies t’ustav (St Petersburg, 1904), f. 353v 6— 354 .
I. D. Mansvetov, Tserkovnyi Ustav (Tipik), ego obrazovanie i sud’ba v Grecheskoi i 7
Russkoi Tserkvi (Moscow , 1885 (, 336 .
For more on “liturgical ecclesiology” in 20 th 8‫־‬c. Russian-Orthodox theology see
Κ.-Ch. Felmy, Die D eutung der göttlichen Liturgie in der russischen Theologie. Wege
u nd Wandlungen russischer Liturgie-Auslegung (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 54 (
72 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

means audible or vocal participation, and that the 17th c. author of

this passage already laments the absence of such participation in the
Russian Orthodoxy of his time.
The author points out that the Slavonic liturgical books designate
specific responses and prayers to “the people” (a i o a h c ). Indeed, the
earliest extant Slavonic Sluzhebnik or Eucharistic euchology, the
early-13th-c. Sluzhebnik Varlaama Khutynskogo, or Moscow Syn.
604 (303J, indicates “the people” as the ones chanting certain parts
of the Eucharistic celebration, including the “Come let us worship!”
( n p u H A H T e Π 0 Κ Λ 0 Η Η Μ 0 1 ) at the M inor Introit or “Little” (= Lesser)
Entrance (f. 12v), the Creed (f. 13v), and “Blessed is he who comes
in the name of Lord” at the bringing out of the chalice for Holy
Communion (f. 18v). Unfortunately this codex, intended for the
celebrating priest or bishop, provides no information as to who said
the anaphoral responses. But other 1 4 - 17th c. Slavonic liturgical
mss expressly assign the anaphoral responses to “the people,”9 along
with other hymns and prayers of the Divine Liturgy, such as the
Trisagion, the O ur Father, the “One is holy,” and “Let our mouths be
filled with your praise.” The Tolkovaia Sluzhba, a popular medieval
Slavonic commentary on the Divine Liturgy, also speaks several
times of “the people” chanting the anaphoral responses and other
parts of the Liturgy.10
But regardless of what we read in the liturgical texts, by the
mid-17 th c. when the above-cited passage of the Russian Typ ikon
was authored, the mention of “the people” in these liturgical sources
is an archaism; a remnant of a long-since abandoned tradition of
congregational singing or reciting of certain parts of the celebration
according to the “sung service” or asmatike akolouthia of the

(Berlin-New York, 1984), 4 2 5 -3 2 .

9 See for example the early-l4th c .]aroslavl’M uzei-Zapovednik 15472 (1328-1336),
f. 31 r ; the 14 t h / 15th C. R G A D A Syn. Typ. 41, f. 27-3 0 v ; the 15th and 17th c. Ser-
bian hierarchal euchology, Serbian N ational Library 3 7 4 , f. 37v-38; the b e g . 1 7 ‫־‬t h c.
G IM K hlud. 116, f. 49v.
10 I consulted a 16th c. anthology (Sbornik) containing the Tolkovaia Sluzhba, G IM
Syn. 368 (206), fL 103v-105v (anaphoral responses), f. 107r (O ur Father), and £
109v (O ne is holy).
“Active Participation”o f the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 73

cathedral rite similar to the one practiced in the Great Church of

Constantinople. In this rite canonical singers or groups of singers
intoned particular verses and refrains, and the people followed the
lead of the singers.
It was previously thought that when Rus’ was baptized toward
the end of the first millennium, it was some form of this “sung
service” that was adopted by both parishes and monasteries of the
newly-baptized Kievan Church.11 However, a recent study by the
Russian liturgiologist Michael Zheltov shows that the manuscript
evidence points to a rather different picture. According to Zheltov,
it was actually a very monasticized, Studite-type rite that one finds
in the earliest manuscript witnesses to the cathedral liturgy of early
Rus,’ with but a few elements of the “asmatike akolouthia.”12 Still,
secular churches in early Rus’ did practice congregational singing,
as shown in a thorough study by Melita Mudri-Zubacz in Logos,13
and as still evidenced by the repeated mention of “the people” in
the earliest Slavonic liturgical manuscripts. These sources witness
to various forms of vocal congregational participation: the singing
of troparia or short, easily remembered refrains; the chanting of the
endings of hymns whose incipit was intoned by a soloist or deacon;
the antiphonal or responsorial singing of psalms.14
Thus by the end of the first millennium Byzantium did have a
tradition of vibrant, congregational participation according to the
“sung service” practiced in the cathedrals. Although the Russians did
not adopt this cathedral rite, early Rus’ did once have congregational
singing as reflected in the service-books. Eventually Russian
parochial practice allowed the choir (usually called “ λ η κ ‫׳‬β ” ) to take
over all the singing, so that by the 17th c. “vocal congregational
11 See for example M. Lisitsyn, PervonachaVnyi slaviano-russkii Tipikon: Istoriko-
arkbeologicheskoe issledovanie (St Petersburg, 1911), 3 -1 6 0 . Cf. Zheltov, “Chiny
vecherni i utreni,” 468 (see next note).
12 I thank Fr Michael Zheltov for drawing my attention to his recent study: M. Zheltov,
“Chiny vecherni i utreni v drevnerusskikh sluzhebnikakh Studiiskoi epokhi,” Bogo-
510Vskie Trudy 4 3 - 4 4 (2012): 4 4 3 -7 0 , esp. 466 and 4 6 8 -6 9 .
13 M. Mudri-Zubacz, “Congregational Singing in the Rus’ Liturgical Traditions: An
Evaluation of Its History,” Logos 4 6 / 3 - 4 (2005): 1-68, esp. 17-47.
14 Ibid., 17-47.
74 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

participation has become virtually nonexistent.”15 This means that

at this time even the seemingly most “congregational” parts of
the Divine Liturgy, such as the Creed and the Lords Prayer, were
chanted by the choir.
It should be mentioned that 17th c. parochial church choirs
consisted entirely of males (men and boys), so the delegation of all
the singing to “the choir” meant a complete exclusion of women
from vocal participation in the liturgy. It was only much later, at the
end of the 19th c., that women began to be included in cathedral
and parish choirs. The famous conductor and composer of church
music, Alexander Andreevich Arkhangelskii (1846-1924), was
the first to include female singers, visible to all, in his St Petersburg
choir in 1880.16

The Earliest Witnesses to Christian Liturgy

Before we proceed to reflect further on the liturgical situation in the
present-day Russian Church, let us briefly consider more ancient
Christian witnesses to the laity’s participation in liturgy. It is beyond
any doubt that the earliest Christians included congregational
participation in their liturgical gatherings. In addition to the New
Testament, several other texts from the first two centuries witness to
congregational liturgical participation of different kinds. To name
just a few examples, we see congregational singing mentioned in the
letter of Pliny the Younger from the beginning of the 2nd c.,17 and
possibly in the earlier First Epistle of Clement from the end of the
1st c.18 In ca. AD 150 the First Apology of Justin Martyr mentions

15 Ibid., 35.
16 I. A. Gardner, Bogosluzhebnoepenie Russkoi Pmvoslavnoi Tserkvi II (Jordanville, NY:
1977), 446.
17 In a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan ( a d 9 8 -1 1 7 ), dated ca. a d 111-113,
Plinius the Younger reports that the Christians would “congregate and sing a song
together with one another to Christ as to a god ...” (conuenire carmenque Christo
quasi deo dicere secum inuicem). W. Rordorf, Sabbat u n d Sonntag in der A lten Kirche
II (Zürich, 1972), 7 9 -8 0 .
18 It is contested whether the following two verses in the first epistle o f Clement, Bish-
op of Rome, usually dated a d 96, refer to the congregational singing o f the Sanctus
in a liturgical context: “For the scripture saith, Ten thousands o ften thousands stood
“Active Participation‫ ״‬of the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 75

the common prayer of the people at the end o f the Liturgy o f the
Word, and their “Amen” concluding the Eucharistic Prayer. 19
-In the New Testament itself the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corin
thians, “W hen you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a
revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation ... For you can all prophesy
one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged ...” (1 Cor
O f course, when Paul said that “all may prophesy,” he .)31 ,14:26
may not exactly have meant everyone, since just a few verses later
he famously added, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women
should keep silence (σιγάτωσ&ν) in the churches ... For it is shameful
for a woman to speak (kakeIv) in church” (1 Cor I4:34a ‫־‬-35b). Regard
less of what exactly Paul meant with this passage, it shows us that
female participation in liturgy was considered problematic long before
.women were excluded from singing in the medieval Russian Church
Scriptural scholars have long grappled with the textological and
-logical problematics of that passage in 1 Corinthians, which appar
ently contradicts this earlier verse in the same epistle, “... every woman
who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her
-head” (1 Cor 11:5).20 But we shall leave that discussion to the scrip
tural scholars. For the purposes of our liturgical observations, suffice
it to say that this Pauline passage is simply ignored in the Russian
Orthodox Church today, where since the late-19th c. women do
not “keep silence” but sing, read, and indeed “speak” (λάλειν) during
.liturgy—as do men

,by H im , a nd thousands of thousands ministered unto H im : a n d they cried aloud, Holy

holy ‫ י‬holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is fu ll o f H is glory. A nd let us ourselves
then, being gathered together in concord with intentness o f heart, cry unto H im as
-from one m outh earnestly that we may be made partakers o f His great and glori
ous promises” (1 Clem 34, 6 -7 ). See text and comm entary in H. E. Lona, D er erste
C/w/f ‫«׳‬.ï/;r/£‫׳‬/’) Kom m entar zu cien Apostolischen Vätern 2) (G öttingen , 1998 (, 350 ,
3 75-77.
Justin, Apol. 1, 65 and 67. L. W. Barnard (trans.), S t Justin M artyr the First and 19
Second Apologies (Ancient Christian Writers 56) (New York-Mahwah, N J , 1997 (,
7 0-71.
For the various hypotheses o f New-Testament scholars regarding 1 C or 14, 34fF, see 20
-F. Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 7) (G öttingen
Z ürich , 1994 (, 1 9 9 -2 0 1 .
76 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

Note in this context that another passage from 1 Corinthians is

also ignored by the Russian Orthodox, and that is, “if a man has
long hair, it is a disgrace to him” (1 Cor 11:14), for it is common
tor Russian Orthodox clergymen to wear their hair long. Both
Pauline passages are disregarded—by both women and clergymen
alike—because the cultural concepts of what constitutes “shameful”
or “disgraceful” behavior for both men and women have changed
since the times of St Paul. Thus we can dispense with the notion,
still common among the O rthodox faithful, that all usages and
statements from the Church’s past are normative for her present,
because obviously they are not. This observation could be useful
for present-day reflections on what might constitute proper “active
participation” today.

The “Saying” o f the Anaphoral Responses in Post-Byzantine

Greek Practice
In the mid-17 th c. period contemporaneous with the above-cited
passage of the Russian-Orthodox Typikon, when in Muscovy ¿2// the
people no longer pronounced the liturgical responses traditionally
delegated to them, Greek-Orthodox liturgy was more successful
with regard to “active participation.” As witnesses to 17th c. Greek
liturgical celebrations testify, the entire congregation vocalized
the “Kyrie eleisons” of the litanies, the “Amens” after Ekphoneseis,
and all the anaphoral responses during the central part of the
Eucharist, by “saying rather than singing these parts of the Divine
Liturgy. That is to say, to ensure the participation of the laity, the
vocalization of these parts of the celebration was simplified as much
as possible, reduced to either chanting “recto tono” or even to
simply saying the responses by the entire congregation. Other, more
musically complex parts of the liturgy like the three Antiphons, the
Cherubikon, the Axion Estin, were sung by the choir(s).
One witness to such a mid-17th c. Greek-Orthodox celebration
is a Muscovite pilgrim to Jerusalem, the monk Arsenii Sukhanov
(t 1668). Arsenii spent seven months between October 1651 and
April 1652 in the Holy City, observing the liturgy of the Anastasis-
“Active Participation of the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy
' 77

cathedral and recording his detailed observations in his “Pilgrims

Diary” or Proskinitarii}1Sukhanov repeatedly notes that the entire
congregation in the Anastasis “says” the responses of the litanies
(“Lord have mercy,” “To You, o Lord,” etc.), as well as the “Amen”
after all the Ekphoneseis of the priest (s) or bishop(s):
The archdeacon or the deacon says the Synapte, and the people
say [1ΌΒ0ρ>ιτ] : Lord have mercy—nowhere do they sing it, ever
[a He ποιοτ HHrAe hhkoah] ... W hen the deacon says: Let us
commend to Christ God, the people all say Si Kirie. Then the
Ekphonesis is said by the p rie st..., and the people: Amen}1
Sukhanov describes the central part of the Eucharist, celebrated
by the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, as follows:
W hen the deacon says: Let us stand well, the choirs and all
present say: Mercy ofpeace, sacrifice and praise, but never sing
it in song [a neHHeM hhkoah He ποιοτ] ... Then the patriarch:
Let us give thanks to the Lord, and the people: It is worthy and
just. But they never sing it [a He ποιοτ hhkoah], not even with
the patriarch present ... W hen the patriarch pronounces The
victorious hymn, the choirs say: Holy, holy, holy, etc, but they
don’t sing anything, even up to the It is worthy. W hen it is
the service o f Basil, however, then the Holy, holy, holy and the
t w o - f o l d a r e sung... The right choir in the church sings:
Axion estin P
Arsenii Sukhanov observes several other responses said, not sung,
by all the people, such as “The Father, the Son ...” preceding the
Creed (XII.197);24 “One is holy” after the Elevation (XVII.249);25
and several instances of “And to your spirit” (XIII.195, XVI.234,
XVII.2 4 1).26The Creed and the O ur Father, however, are said aloud
21 For more on Arsenii Sukhanov and his Proskinitarii see V. Larin, The B yzantine Hier-
archal D ivine Liturgy in Arsenij Suxanov’s Proskinitarij (Orientalia Christiana Ana-
lecta 286) (Rome, 201 [henceforth Larin, Byzantine Hierarchal\.
22 Larin, B yzantine Hierarchal, 8 7 -8 8 (Arsenii Sukhanov’s description o f the Hierar-
chal Liturgy or A H D L VI. 52, 5 4 -55).
23 Ibid., 115, 117 (A H D L X I V .2 0 6 - 11,224).
24 Ibid., 113.
25 Ibid., 120.
26 Ibid., 113 and 119.
78 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

by only one designated member of the congregation, described by

Sukhanov as “a person of consequence” ( k t o H a n a A h H O H n e A O B e ic ) ,
while the rest of the congregation recites these quietly ( moahkom
Γ0Β0ρ*τ, XIII.205, XVI.239).27
Thus in mid-17th c. Jerusalem the congregation clearly played
its vocal part in the Eucharist, a part made accessible to all—singers
and non-singers alike—by virtue of its simple, recto tono execution.
At the same time, two choirs also retained their liturgical roles by
singing certain hymns and thus providing the musical element of
the celebration. Note that it is the central part of the Eucharist, the
responses of the Anaphora, that is almost always delegated to the
people. The exception to this rule in the case of the Divine Liturgy
of St Basil (“the service of Basil”) is evidently necessitated by its
length. The Anaphora of St Basil, significantly longer than the more
frequently celebrated Anaphora of St John Chrysostom, called for
a more drawn-out execution of the “people’s” responses to “cover”
musically the silence while the celebrant recited the Eucharistic
Prayer silently in the sanctuary.
A Greek musical manuscript of the late 17th/ early 18th c.,
Jerusalem Gr. 578, also witnesses to a remarkably simple, almost
monotone vocalization of the anaphoral responses, as well as “One
is Holy” (Εις άγιος). The following excerpt from this manuscripts
modern-day transcription, made by Alexander Lingas,28 gives us an
idea of just how simple and accessible this vocalization could be for
any congregation (see opposite page).

The Earlier Cathedral Rites o f Jerusalem an d Constantinople

Thus far we have concentrated on vocal forms of lay participation
in the liturgy. O f course, as Taft noted while describing the active
participation of the Byzantines in past centuries,
... the ways of popular participation in the liturgy were as
myriad then as they are today—seeing, listening, singing,

27 Ibid., 114 and 119.

28 I thank Alexander Lingas for drawing my attention to Jerusalem Gr. 578 and kindly
sending me a photocopy of‫ ־‬his transcription.
“Active Participation”o f the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 79
80 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

praying, receiving the sacraments, marching in processions,

venerating the relics and icons; smelling the incense, the
perfumed myron and other holy oils; contemplating the unfold-
ing of the mysteries and standing in awe at the wonder of it all.
The “Byzantines also” Taft continues, “ ... spent a fair amount of time
misbehaving during church services, which is why their exasperated
preachers were always upbraiding them.”29
O ur earliest concise description of Jerusalem liturgy, the 4th c.
diary or letters of the pilgrim Egeria ( a d 381 -384), presents us with
several examples of such varied forms of lay participation. Aside
from taking part in the stational processions (involving the singing
of certain refrains, holding candles, and walking for miles) zealous
laypeople, both men and women, would take part in the weekday
vigils in the Anastasis-rotunda, immediately surrounding the Holy
Sepulchre: “All the doors of the Anastasis are opened before cock-
crow each day,” writes Egeria,
and the monazontes etparthenae, as they call them here, come
in, and also lay men and women, at least those who are will-
ing to wake at such an early hour. From then until daybreak
they join in singing the refrains to the hymns, psalms, and
antiphons. (24, I)30
This is a rare example of a common liturgical effort shared by
monastics and laity together. Even more anomalous is the mention
of laywomen in the context of liturgy, though the anomaly is
not entirely surprising in the context of the cathedral liturgy of
Jerusalem. As a popular destination of pilgrimage, the Anastasis-
cathedral was a sui generis liturgical case not typical for urban
cathedrals of the time.
Also remarkable is the special note Egeria makes of the
participation of children and even infants in the Palm-Sunday
procession:
29 R. F. Taft, Through TJjeir Own Eyes. Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It (Berkeley, 2006),
30.
30 G. Röwekamp (ed.), Egeria Itinerarium Reisebericht (Fontes Christiani 20) (Freiburg,
1995), 224. English translation adapted from J. W ilkinson, Egerias Travels (Warmin-
ster, 2002), 142-43.
“Active Participation”o f the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 81

... the bishop and all the people rise from their places, and start
oft on foot down from the summit of the Mount of Olives.
All the people go before him with psalms and antiphons, all
the time repeating, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord. And all the children, and also those too young to
walk, who are carried holding on to their parents’ necks, carry
branches—some palm and some olive. And thus the bishop is
accompanied in just the way the Lord was. (31, 3)31
The children mentioned here are evidently re-p resenting liturgically
the children mentioned in the Gospel account of the Lord’s entrance
into Jerusalem:
But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful
things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple,
“Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant; and they
said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus
said to them, “Yes; have you never read, O u t of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise’?” (Mt
2 1 :15- 16)
This is also a pastorally creative way to involve children in the liturgy,
by inserting them into the events of salvation history as those events
are anamnetically re-presented through the liturgical action.
Another cathedral rite from a later period, the 10th C. “Typikon
of the Great Church” in Constantinople, also involves children,
more specifically, orphan-boys (01 ορφανοί). During the stational
liturgy on December 18, for example, when the procession reaches
the narthex of the Chalkoprateia church and the singing of the
troparion ceases, the orphans enter the church singing “Lift up your
gates” (LXX Ps 23:7). After that, the singers take over and the rest of
the Divine Liturgy is celebrated. O ther processions, on December
24 and July 9, also involve orphans.32
Regarding the role of laywomen in the cathedral liturgy, it should
be kept in mind that aside from rare exceptions, “in Byzantine
Christianity as elsewhere, women were systematically ranked after
31 I am following Röwekamps interpretation o f this passage, ibid., 2 6 0-61.
32 J. Mateos (ed.), Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise, vol. I (Orientalia Christiana Analecta
165) (Rome, 1962), 139, 144, and 334.
82 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

men.”33 Thus any evidence of pastoral attempts to involve laywomen

in the liturgy of the secular Byzantine churches pales in comparison
to the constant effort to segregate and even hide the female
members of the congregation during liturgy. This topic, including
the special areas designated to women in Byzantine cathedrals and
the introduction of curtains to hide them, has been thoroughly
researched by Robert Taft and need not be repeated here.34
I shall, however, parenthetically mention that liturgical sources
from the cathedrals of both Jerusalem and Constantinople testify
to a group of women called “myrophoroi” (the Myrrhbearers),
who apparently had special liturgical obligations. Since these
“myrophoroi” were evidently female monastics,35 it should be noted
that they are no exception to the policy of segregating ¿gwomen
from the liturgical action in church.
In the so-called “Typikon of the Anastasis” in Jerusalem, or
CodexJerusalem Patriarchate Hagios Stauros 43 (= HS 43, copied in
a d 1122),36 the “myrophoroi” make their first appearance on Holy
Saturday, when they have several obligations at the Holy Sepulchre,
including cleaning and preparing the lamps of the tomb, incensing
and anointing the tomb, processing with the clergy carrying
triskellia (small portable bookstands). After the patriarch exits the
tomb and says, “Χαίρετε, Χριστός άνέστη,” these women fall at his
feet, then rise and incense him and, after wishing him Many Years
(πολυχρονίζουσαι αυτόν), go back “to where they are accustomed
to stand.”37 It is obvious that these women are named after, and

33 CL R. F. Taft, “W omen at C hurch in Byzantium: W here, W h e n — and W h y ? ”

Dum barton Oaks Papers 52 (1998): 2 7 -8 7 , here 28.
34 Ibid.
35 According to Dmitrievskii, the “m yrophoroi” o f the Anastasis in Jerusalem were
appointed from among the “parthenae” who were m entioned by Egeria as partid -
pants in all-night vigils, while the “m yrophoroi” o f Constantinople were possibly
inhabitants o f a convent near Hagia Eirene. A. Dmitrievskii, Bogosluzhenie strastnoi i
paskhalnoi sedmits vo sv. Ierusalime I X - X v. (Kazan, 1894), 4 0 4 -0 5 .
36 For more on the dating o f HS 43 see G. Bertonière, The Historical Development o f the
Easter Vigil a nd Related Services in the Greek Church (Orientalia Christiana Analecta
193) (Rome, 1972) [henceforth Bertonière, Easter Vigil\, 12-18.
37 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (ed.), ΆνάλεκταΊεροσολυμιτικής Σταχυολογίας II (St Pe-
“Active Participation o f the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy
’ 83

imitating, the women who rushed to Christ’s tomb carrying myrrh

on the morning of His resurrection.
The evidence for the “myrophoroi” in Constantinople is far less
explicit, limited to the testimony of the Russian Orthodox pilgrim
Anthony of Novgorod, who visited Constantinople in A D 1200.
In his description of Hagia Sophia, Anthony mentions in passing
that “the myrrhbearers sing” not far from the skeuophylakion or
sacristy of the Great Church.38 It is difficult to make anything of this
isolated witness, since the skeuophylakion was a separate building
outside Hagia Sophia. So it is possible, as Dmitrievskii suggested,
that Anthony is referring to a convent near the Great Church,
where nuns “sang” their services, but also had certain duties in the
city’s Great Church similar to those done by the “myrophoroi” of
Jerusalem’s Anastasis.39

M odern-Day Examples o f Active Participation

The above-cited examples involving children in the cathedral rites of
Jerusalem and Constantinople remind me of a more recent effort by
a 20th c. Russian bishop, St John of Shanghai, to involve little girls
in the liturgy. During the vigil of the feast of the Presentation of the
Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple on November 21, St John
had two rows of little girls, holding candles, accompany the icon
of the feast in a procession from the ambo before the iconostasis
down to the middle of the nave, as the icon was brought out of the
sanctuary at the singing of the Polyeleos (LXX Ps 135 as solemnly
intoned at festive Matins).40
This practice was clearly a mimetic re-presentation of the festal
event, the three-year-old Virgin Mary being accompanied to the

tersburg, 1894), 1-254, here 179, 189, and 191. Cf. Bertonière, Easter Vigil, 50, note
108.
38 H. M. Loparev (ed.), Knigapalom nik. Skazanie mest sviatykh vo Tsaregrade A ntoniia
Arkbiepiskopa Novgorodskogo v 1200 go du (Pravoslavnyi Palestinskii Sbornik 51 =
17.3) (St Petersburg, 1899), text 2-9."
39 Dmitrievskii, Bogosluzhenie, 405.
40 P. Perekrestov (ed.), Svia titel Ioann Shankhaiskii i San-Frantsisskii (Moscow, 2008),
5 8 2 .1 thank Fr Peter Perekrestov for this reference.
84 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

temple by maidens, as described in the apocryphal Protoevangelium

o f James:
And the child [Mary] became three years old, and Ioakim
said: Call for the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled,
and let them take every one a lamp, and let them be burn-
ing, that the child turn not backward and her heart be taken
captive away from the temple of the Lord. And they did so
until they were gone up into the temple of the Lord. (VII, 2)41
Noteworthy is the fact that the procession St John introduced
included the demographic that usually has the least prospects of
doing anything in Orthodox liturgy: little girls. N ot entirely unlike
the state of affairs in previous centuries, Russian O rthodox liturgy
today still makes it pastorally challenging to find a liturgical place
for this demographic, and St John was apparently aware of this.
I incidentally remember being six years old and in search of such
a liturgical place for myself at my hometown parish outside New
York City, where my father is the priest. It was at this time that
my mother sewed a beautiful gold sticharion or server s vestment
for my little three-year-old brother, and he proudly became an
altar boy along with many other boys in our parish. O f course, the
many altar boys in Russian Orthodox parishes are not altar boys
because of any practical need for their “assistance” in the sanctuary.
Rather, becoming an altar boy accomplishes the daunting task
confronting Russian Orthodox parents of small children: it gives
the boys something to do in church. In some parishes I have seen
parents occupy their children with crayons and coloring-books
during liturgy, an option that somehow never entered the minds of
the parents in my hometown-parish.
At this time my two older sisters already sang in the church choir,
but I was still too small to be of any use there. The last thing I wanted
to do in church was stand with my mother, that was for sure. She
was very strict about proper behavior in church, so sitting was almost
always forbidden, as was turning my head to look to the back of the
church, or— God forbid—turning my back to the sanctuary, talking,
41 M. R. James (ed. & tr.), Jije Apocryphal N ew Testament (Oxford, 1953s), 4 1 -4 2 .
‘Active Participation of the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy
’ 85

or going outside to play with other children who were allowed to do

so because their parents wereju stfa r more cool, I thought.
So I learned to ring the church bells—or rather, the church bell,
which had to be rung at specific moments of the liturgy, signalized
to me by an altar boy who would stand at the bottom of the stairs
below the belfry, with one ear in the church. I also learned to assist
the man in charge of selling the candles and prosphora or small
eucharistic breads, so I would happily stand in the back of the
church near the candle-stand, where my mother couldn’t see me.
My responsibilities included wrapping each bread individually in
one white Kleenex, because that’s how they were sold at our parish.
I also stacked the candle-stand with new candles from the supply
room in the cellar of the church whenever we ran out.
There was one more liturgical activity for little girls, organized
by the parish sisterhood. It was the institution of “candle-
extinguishers,” or “candle-girls” (cBeHKOAyniai), two girls dressed
in a special uniform who would stand in the front of the church
during the liturgy, and make sure to blow out the candles that had
burnt down and become too small. The special uniform designed
for us was a light-blue dress, white apron, white head-cover that tied
in the back, and white socks and shoes. After this uniform had been
made for me, I would wear it to church on the Sundays that I had
“candle-duty.” Because there were many young girls in the parish
and only two had “candle duty” each Sunday, my turn would come
up once every three months or so.
Note that these activities were not directly instructive regarding
the meaning of the Eucharist itself, nor do I remember receiving any
substantial instruction on the meaning of our liturgical texts and
rites. I attended the catechism classes {Zakon Bozhii— God’s Law)
in our parish school as did all my siblings, but liturgical instruction
was limited to learning the narrative and dates (according to the Old
Calendar) of the twelve major feasts, and also the lives of several
popular saints. I also remember that we were required to learn certain
prayers in Church Slavonic (Heavenly King, Trisagion, O ur Father,
the Creed, and certain troparia or hymns of major feasts) by heart.
86 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

W hen I got older, I began singing in the choir, and by my early

teens had even become the choir director. This responsibility
involved learning how to conduct using proper hand-motions and
eye-contact; how to use a tuning fork and to “give the tone” for
the various melodies of each of the Eight Tones and for musical
compositions—skills I was taught in several brief lessons from
the older, retiring choir director of our parish. I became very busy
organizing choir rehearsals, often re-writing musical arrangements
by hand, photocopying new pieces, and taking painstaking efforts
during services to keep my amateur choir-members together and
ensure that every piece “worked.” Concerning the complicated order
of the services (i.e., the prescriptions of the Typ ikon), I relied on
the know-how of our parish expert on the topic or ustavschik. This
experienced old man was in charge of the reading at our services,
and pointed me in the right direction before and during the services.
During those years of conducting a parish choir, I was almost
entirely occupied with the technical and musical side of liturgy, and
often consumed by the stress of performing on the greater feasts.
This stress seemed an inevitable result o f the demanding repertoire.
In the twenty-five years that I have conducted both monastic and
secular choirs since then, first as a laywoman and later as a monastic,
I have been grateful to have “something to do” during liturgy— and
something very important at that. However, I have come to question
the quality of this type of participation, when it is limited to the
activities described above. More specifically I question whether
the demands of our musical tradition facilitate our fulfillment of
Christs command to Do this in remembrance o f H im , or whether
indeed our musical efforts have successfully obscured this objective.
Conclusions
Regardless of how we choose to evaluate the reviewed evidence,
the examples of the laity’s “active participation” or lack thereof in
Byzantine liturgy, past and present, confront us with an undeniable
fact: there was in the past, and is still in the present, a real need felt
by the laity to do something during liturgy. Hence the efforts to meet
this need, be it with crayons and coloring-books, or something else.
‘Active Participation”of the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy 87

The past does not present us with ideal solutions to the problem of
“active participation,” though it can be instructive on several levels.
First and foremost, a knowledge of the past exposes us to different
ways of doing liturgy, relativizing our present-day perception of
allegedly unchangeable traditions. Thus in the words of Gary Macy,
“History should always free us from the tyranny of the present,
perhaps all the more so when that present claims to be eternal,”42
opening up to us the possibility of change where it is needed.
The past might also heal our present-day complacency with the
state of our liturgy. As far as I have been able to observe, today we
as Orthodox are usually quite happy and even proud of our highly-
conservative liturgical tradition, and nowadays one never hears talk
of the “eucharistic crisis” to which Fr Alexander Schmemann called
attention almost thirty years ago.43
Unfortunately, we do not have statistical data from all the
Orthodox Churches to support my observation of “liturgical
complacency,” but the few reliable data at our disposal do seem to
point in this direction. In a recent study conducted by Alexei D.
KrindatschofParishioners and Realities o f Orthodox Parish Life in the
USA ,44 limited to the parishes of the Greek O rthodox Archdiocese
and the Orthodox Church in America, an overwhelming majority
(91%) of all respondents stated that “the aspect of their parish
they M O ST valued” was “Liturgy, sharing in Eucharist.”45 At the
same time, there was some, if not very strong, concern expressed
about congregational participation in the liturgy. W hen asked,
“W hat is needed for your parish to strengthen and grow?,” most
respondents opted for the reply, “More money” (57% felt this
would be “helpful,” 34% felt this was “very urgent,” and only 9%
42 G. Macy, “Impasse Passé: Conjugating a Tense Past,” in J. Y. Tan (ed.), The Catho-
lie Theological Society o f America. Proceedings of the Sixty fo u rth A n n u a l Convention,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 4 - 7 , 2009, Vol. 64 (Cincinnati, 2009), 1-20, here 9.
43 A. Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: 1987),
9- 10.
44 A. Krindatsch, Tfje Orthodox Church Today (Berkeley, CA , 2008), accessed online on
December 12, 2012, at http://w w w .orthodoxinstitute.org/orthodoxchurchtoday.
html.
45 Ibid., 22.
88 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

was “satisfied”). Only 13% of respondents felt that “More active

congregational participation in liturgy” was “very urgent” for
their parish to strengthen and grow, while 44% felt this would be
“helpful,” and 43% were “satisfied” with the level of congregational
liturgical participation.46 One of the least popular replies to this
question, “W hat is most needed for your parish to strengthen and
to grow?,” was: “More innovative approach to liturgical life.” To
this 58% said “We are satisfied with this,” 34% said “This would be
helpful,” and only 8% declared “This is very urgent for us.”
It would perhaps be more surprising if we as Orthodox considered
any liturgical change a matter of urgency: after all, we have not
experienced any substantial reforms in this area for centuries. Be
that as it may, I believe we have compiled enough evidence from the
past and present to arrive at two conclusions:
1. That lay participation is indeed a problem, as evidenced by
repeated efforts on the parental and parochial levels to address
it. This conclusion is particularly important if conventional
wisdom is correct in claiming that the first step to solving our
problem is admitting that we have one\
2. That this problem is a matter o f importance, since it affects most
members of the Orthodox Church, i.e., the laity.
It is my hope that both these conclusions are also sufficient answers
to the question posed at the beginning of this paper, and that was:
Why should we care?

46 Ibid., 35.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.