Melkite Greek Catholic Church

About

 

Letter on the Liturgy
Of His Beatitude, Patriarch Gregorios III,
Of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem
For the Melkite Greek Catholic Church

 

To all of you, dear brothers and sisters,
Your Graces the bishops,
Superiors General, Mothers General,
priests, deacons, monks, nuns
and all the sons and daughters
of our Melkite Greek Catholic parishes
in Arab countries, countries of emigration
and throughout the world.

 

APPENDICES

 

 

I- Preface to the Ecclesiastical Typikon of Cyril Rezk, Catholic Publishing House of the Jesuit Fathers, Beirut 1911, p. 3

“When I saw that the Typikon of our Church had just been nearly destroyed under the influence of many destructive elements as happens very often in such cases if things are not carefully followed up, I felt the need, with a great deal of effort to gather the different significant elements of this book, so that I could really give a very important service to my mother Church, which has a right to that, and I put every possible effort into that and again, I had a further stimulus from my Patriarch Gregorios II in the letter that he sent to me, when I was Patriarchal Vicar in Jerusalem. I taught liturgy and researched liturgical rites in the Seminary of St. Anna in Jerusalem.”

 

II- The speech of Maximos IV, among the documents of the Second Vatican Council concerning the Divine Liturgy.

(See The Melkite Greek Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council, in Arabic and French, Lutfi Laham 1992, p. 112)
“1. The Reform of the Divine Liturgy in our Greek Catholic Church: we ought, for several reasons, to leave aside developing our rites in an independent way without a previous agreement with the Orthodox branches which are facing us, to avoid creating new differences with our brethren. We cannot make a liturgical renewal, without an agreement with them.
“2. Eucharistic concelebration: we believe that all clergy participating in the liturgy should wear their full liturgical vestments and participate in an intimate way in the liturgical work presided over by the chief celebrant alone. Despite the new custom among certain non-Byzantine Easterners, it is not necessary for all the concelebrants to say all the prayers of consecration together. Liturgical concelebration is not a synchronised sum of various, different individual celebrations, but is a common work, in which each one has a role.”

 

III- Patriarchal Decree of Maximos IV on liturgical renewal, page 4 (published Harissa, Lebanon 1956): “We have found it our pastoral duty to indicate in this publication the precise principles that should be respected and on which things must be based in this liturgical renewal, in the spiritual renewal that we seek. We draw attention especially to the mistakes that we introduce into the celebration of the Holy Mysteries and that spoil the liturgical renewal and reform.

“The third foundation is that the liturgy represents ecclesiastical order, instituted by the high authority of the Church, which takes care of it with much solicitude, in order to avoid chaos, disorder and scandal that would gradually penetrate communal prayer, were it not well organised. Liturgical canons and orders are in the Typikon. Neither the priest, nor individual members of the laity have the right to change anything, whether large or small, in these very important orders, but on the contrary, all are obliged to observe them with faith and respect. If there are in these holy regulations anything that requires restoration or renewal, people have the right to draw it to the attention of the ecclesiastical authorities, and they must take care of the good order, and they too wish there to be renewal and for the true good.” (ibid. Pages 10-11)
“We note that there are liturgical infractions that have started to multiply nowadays and to spread easily due to ease of transport and communications, so that many think that these abuses have become proper rules. The reason for all that is in these infractions, and that is why some clergymen are imbued with the idea that liturgical matters come second to the depth of the liturgy. They have little respect for these canons and take the view that there is no need to have much regard for them, forgetting, or wishing to forget that bark or peel is important for preserving a plant’s pith. The heart of the plant loses much of its substance, becoming fragile, and close to putrefaction, which means that the priest begins to condense certain rites forgetting that the ecclesiastical canons do not give him that right. What makes that so much worse is the mentality of believing oneself, of presuming that some who are specially educated, scoff at the Church’s orders as outdated, believing that they understand the rites much better than the holy fathers of old, who organised them. That is why we ask for the Divine Liturgy to be celebrated, as far as prayers, gestures and symbols are concerned, with a great deal of reverence, piety, compunction, avoiding everything that could harm the holiness of the work that we do.” (ibid. Pages 11 – 13)
“When several members of the clergy are serving the Divine Liturgy together, they must all follow the order laid down by the ephemeros – the person organising the roll – particularly with regard to bowing or prostrating at the same time and in the same way, as the sight of some priests bowing while others are raising their heads creates a bad impression. This point is quite obvious and no-one with any sense of propriety needs to be reminded of this.
“Priests must follow the text of the book in front of them and do not have the right to deviate from it or to summarise it, for they do not have that responsibility. Wishing to strive to explain changes (sic) does not come from a pure, gentle heart, but from presumption in a person seeking to show off. The Church alone has the right and ability to change it and for it to be true and good. What is to become of us if every priest is free to make changes as he wishes?” (ibid. Pages 13)
“We see many neglecting the prayer before the royal doors and going in directly to put on the priestly liturgical vestments without preparation, which scandalises the pious faithful and lessens reverence for priests even among the lay faithful who serve the church. If some special circumstances make it impossible always to say the prayers before the doors, they should at least be said in the sacristy before the priestly vestments are donned.” (ibid. Page 14)
“Being busy themselves with ideas and things foreign to prayer, and being inclined to give least effort, and wishing to move quickly to don their vestments: - all that makes some priests neglect these prayers before the royal doors mentioned above. As these prayers contain preparation relative to the Divine Liturgy, we draw everyone’s attention to the importance of not neglecting them.” (ibid. Page 15)
“Again, a reprehensible custom is spreading among some priests of asking a fellow priest to do the proskomedia for them, although it is obligatory for the priest himself, or one of the priests who is going to celebrate with him, to prepare the prothesis. In doing that, the priest must have on his priestly vestments, not just the epitrakhelion alone. We even have priests preparing this prothesis in ordinary clothes, without even rasa and epitrakhelion, which is quite unbelievable, and yet it happens!
Another, even more serious error, as we have noted in certain places, is that the priest charges one of the servants of the Church, a layperson or sacristan, with doing the prothesis before the Divine Liturgy and limits himself to doing the prayer of the offertory. This is a serious transgression, which gives people the habit of not respecting the holy things, and makes them lose respect for the priest and reverence due to his priesthood. Now there is an essential obligation that spiritual superiors should take serious measures so that this disrespect for spiritual things comes to an end.” (ibid. Page 18)
“Again, in the preparation of the Liturgy, prosphora should be used, bread prepared with a special stamp, not just any bread on sale in shops, for such bread usually contains other matter, making the bread illicit.” (ibid. Page 19)
“So the priest must expend more effort for the people to understand what is said during the Divine Liturgy, especially during the chanting of the Holy Gospel, and this prayer should be sung slowly and clearly, without too much embellishment, which would mean that the sense of the words themselves be lost.” (ibid. Page 20)
“Again, the priest must use the censer during the Divine Liturgy, except if there is no means of so doing.
Many priests shorten the Little Entrance and sometimes even the Great Entrance by just turning on their heel at the altar, although it is known that the Little Entrance must be done by processing around the altar and then going out with the Holy Gospel in front of the iconostasis. In the Great Entrance, the priest should go out of the north door and outside in front of the iconostasis.” (ibid. Page 22)
“According to the Greek Liturgikon, the censing should be done during the singing of the Alleluia and the verses following the reading of the Epistle.” (ibid. Page 28)
“Our parents and ancestors in faith had the custom of ending the Gospel reading with the words, “This is the word of truth.” This saying is an act of faith with regard to the Word of God, and is an ancient custom going back to an unknown date. That is why it is fitting that we end the Gospel reading as our parents did, with the word, “Haqqan (Truly),” even if it is not printed in the text.” (ibid. Pages 28-29)
“We notice that many of our children, the priests, have abandoned the use of zeon in the Liturgy, either through ignorance, laziness or carelessness. For that they are to be reprimanded. If every priest or bishop starts to do as he likes, our rites are destroyed.” (ibid. Page 29)
“Similarly, one should not use bread in the form of a host, as the Latins and other do, even if the host is of leavened bread, as is done in countries outside our Eastern countries. The outward form of the bread that we see with our eyes must be respected, not just whether the bread is leavened or unleavened, which is less evident.
“Another mistake that arises from ignorance and carelessness is that some priests, as I have been told, begin to do as follows: they communicate from the Lord’s Body, having put the Body into the chalice, without drinking first from the chalice. This is really disregarding apostolic tradition and the regulations of the holy Church and is illicit and deserving of reprimand.” (ibid. Page 31)
“It is disrespectful, too, to transfer the uncovered diskos from the altar to the prothesis, and for this diskos to remain uncovered up until the end of the Liturgy. The diskos must be covered, with the asterisk above it.” (ibid. Page 32)
“We have also noticed that some of our children, the priests, do not respect the orders of the holy Church and celebrate the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom instead of the Liturgy of Saint Basil for trivial reasons and without the permission of their ecclesiastical superiors. This really shows disregard for the liturgical texts and for the order that the Church has arranged. We require this to be conscientiously observed. Where shall we be if everyone does as he likes?” (ibid. Page 33)
“It can be noticed that some priests who are obligated by their pastoral work to celebrate two Divine Liturgies in the ten weeks when the Liturgy of Saint Basil should be celebrated, actually celebrate the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom to save some minutes of time. If those priests thought that the people attending the second Liturgy have the right to hear the Liturgy of Saint Basil, they would not have done that.” (ibid. Pages 33-34)
“In some places, the altar has become a flower-garden and terrace, where various ornaments, such as electric lights can be found, all of which are outside the real meaning or purpose of the altar. Western churches are now abandoning customs that were introduced formerly. In Rome it is now forbidden to use artificial flowers on the altar. Look at the papal altar at the centre of Saint Peter’s basilica. It is simple, without ornaments. There are six candlesticks on the altar. Above is the very high canopy, resting on pillars at the four corners of the altar, not on the altar itself, as generally happens in our churches. We have to go back in history to understand the meaning of the altar without being seduced by appearances and love of mimicry.” (ibid. Page 34)
“We strictly forbid the use of electric light in preference to candles or oil-lamps during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, because, in addition to candlelight or oil-lamps providing quiet, sober light conducive to the spirit of piety, they symbolise spiritually the Church’s holiness from earliest times.” (ibid. Pages 35-36)
“Our hope is that our children, the priests, especially the younger ones among them, will, in a spirit of piety pay close heed to what we are saying. They should not allow a new spirit of apathy to invade their hearts, where it will find good, fertile ground, and oblige them to disregard the words of their superiors, become presumptuous and consider every novelty an advance or progress. They should rather treat what the proper authorities tell them, as coming from the heart of God himself, and consider themselves duty-bound to put it into action in the real world: that should be their rule of conduct.” (ibid. Page 36)

 

IV- Introduction and Preface to the book of Liturgies (1992)

For forty years, many questions about the Divine Liturgy and other liturgical matters were conveyed to the Holy Synods of our Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate and the Synod Fathers at various times offered various replies and solutions.
At the Synod of 1986, a new Synodal Liturgical Commission was formed, headed by Archbishop Lutfi Laham, Patriarchal Vicar in Jerusalem. Many questions were put to them about Liturgy, so the new commission saw it as a necessity to deal with all these questions in the context of a complete study, taking into consideration the Divine Liturgy and all other liturgical problems.

Criteria for liturgical reform
We chose the word reform because it includes the other expressions used, such as renewal, progress, animation and because the meaning of reform is not limited to abbreviation, criticised by some, and not to change, because there is no framework for change, nor to liturgical animation alone, because animation does not include reform of the old, should that be necessary.

We understand by liturgical reform the organisation of the texts of the liturgical services used in our Church, in order to explain in a better, clearer way the basic realities or truths contained in those words, so that the Christian people may, as far as possible, understand them easily and participate with a full, active and common participation.

So we had as a basic principle or rule, fidelity to our original Antiochian Byzantine tradition, so as to be able to preserve in a progressive and open way our original, genuine Orthodox patrimony in the fields of theology, liturgy, hymnography and spirituality.

That is why liturgical reform requires knowledge of our patrimony in order to follow its first inspiration, and to enable us to avoid the temptation of introducing foreign elements into the structure of the liturgy or changing it into another rite.

Why liturgical reform?
The reason for liturgical reform is not desire for change, but it has a pastoral aim, inspired by the spiritual welfare of the faithful. In that respect, we should remember that liturgy is a branch of knowledge and life and can accordingly be taught and lived, in order to give primary liturgical education about the reform, and ensure that it can be common, reaching all the faithful.

In addition to the pastoral aim it is important to emphasise the theological, liturgical principle based on the meanings, symbols, gestures or movements and liturgical terminology. The liturgical texts in Greek, in spite of the fact that they were printed without a critical apparatus, conform to the truth of faith. Therefore, to translate these texts into other languages necessitates faithfulness and precision in translating, so that theological truth can be preserved in a pure expression.

Reform is organisation
Liturgical reform is required to control the prevailing chaos in the printing of liturgical texts and in icon-painting and their placement in church, so that all – bishops, priests, monks, nuns, deacons, laypeople – conform with the Church’s instructions and decisions and those of its institutions, according to the holy canons. So it is necessary for every liturgical book of any kind to be printed under the supervision of the liturgical commission. No book or pamphlet may be published without the Placet or permission of the liturgical commission.

Furthermore the liturgical reform should be in line with agreed principles, in order that there be harmony between respect for the Greek text and its original Greek melody, enabling them both to be freely translated into Arabic. We should begin to unify popular basic liturgical songs, so that the faithful can learn them easily and – bishops, priests and faithful - sing them all together at assemblies, congresses and so forth.

Reform should proceed from a popular base
The Holy Synod is the first and last authority in the liturgy. The bishop too is chiefly responsible in his eparchy and has to watch over the implementation of the Synod’s decisions.

But if we wish our services to be vital and intensely lived, local liturgical commissions must be formed in eparchies, parishes and monasteries. They should be led by the bishop or his deputy. Every local commission should animate and develop the renewal among the faithful; they will remain in touch with the Synodal Liturgical Commission.

Reform as education
All the faithful, clergy, monastics, the other members of orders and bishops should share in liturgical formation: it is most essential in the reform. We suggest some practical ways of realising it:

1. The printing of a book or periodical, a kind of liturgical directory, explaining the bases and methods of the reform, the decisions of the Synod in this field and the methods of their implementation. This book should contain articles on Byzantine spirituality and history, as well as explanations about the various ritual practices, their meaning and symbolism.

2. Every liturgical book should contain an introduction, explaining the meaning of the rite and symbols; they should be at the disposal of priests and people.

3. Bishops should undertake the responsibility of explaining to their priests the liturgical and theological meaning of each sacrament, so that the formation can proceed uninterruptedly.

4. The same task lies with the Superiors General of the orders and congregations and with the heads of seminaries.

5. Liturgical courses, workshops and congresses should be organised for priests, monks, nuns, members of orders, cantors, teachers of religion and lay-people under the auspices of liturgical education centres and theological institutes.

6. Special care should be given to children, in order to introduce them in a regular way, with precision and piety, to liturgical services.

7. Use should be made of books, videos, cassettes to spread this formation among the people.

8. A really comprehensive library should be available in the rooms of the Liturgical Commission; this would be an information point for everyone about the Liturgical Commission’s completed studies and a starting point for a scientific education.

Reform as animation
Liturgical animation means a beautiful celebration, worthy of our prayer; it should be just as far from routine and boring habit as from disorder and improvisation.
The components of animation are very many.

1. We have felt the pressing necessity of animation, where in our Melkite Church the custom has arisen for the daily celebration of the Liturgy, especially in monasteries, houses of religious orders, schools, seminaries and so forth. This has led us to have recourse to the variable elements of the Liturgy and in order not to lapse into a separation, or estrangement, which might alienate us from our particular identity, we have recourse to our traditional elements. A few examples may illustrate this:

2. the alternating use of the three antiphonal hymns on various occasions and on various days

3. the introduction of new texts, which help us to live out our own spirituality at each feast; by introducing new requests into the litanies - these texts are inspired by the liturgical hymns of the feasts themselves;

4. the use of the feast’s own antiphons and hymns on all days of the octave, through which the faithful can enter more deeply into the hymns proper to the feasts, especially of the Lord and of the Mother of God, and make them their own.

5. The possibility of variation in liturgical prayer is very helpful for various pastoral needs.  Our intention was to consider the particular situation of a parish, or an homogenous group, such as a school class, a group of seminarians, pilgrims, people celebrating a special feast, for example a jubilee, or holding a congress, or holding a Solemn Communion and so on.

6. Another important aspect of liturgical animation is the participation of the people in the prayer of the Church. To that end, simple melodies must be used, easy liturgical responses, as was the custom in the early Church. The documents of liturgical singing in Greece and elsewhere contained popular responses, to which we should revert. This does not restrict the development of ancient, original Byzantine choral art among choirs and specialist cantors. It is very important to combine both together. People should be encouraged to participate in liturgical singing, in which (however) a sufficient portion of the singing should be left up to the cantors and choirs, because people love the beauty of the singing and the beauty of the voices. Both aspects should be preserved, but it should not be permitted for the choir to obliterate the people’s participation, since on the whole it is indeed the people’s prayer which is the prayer of the Church, and we are not at a concert or in an opera, where artistic performances are given and where the people are simply just listeners.

7. The participation of the people requires however skilled and trained prayer-leaders. It is the obligation of the bishop and priests to find deacons to serve their church. Besides, there is a lively desire, to restore the institution of the permanent sub-deacons and to broaden their role, so that if there is no deacon they can substitute in singing the litanies; in that way they fulfil the role of the liturgical prayer-leader (animator.)

8. The role of the reader should not be neglected. He should be chosen from among those who are skilled in singing and reading, in such a way that people understand the text of the psalm, the epistle or any other prayer. It must be ensured that the choirs carry out the singing well and lead the people and so contribute to the beauty of the whole celebration.

9. In order to attain this goal, all these collaborators ought to get together regularly with the priest, so that everything is well co-ordinated, because the choir and the liturgical prayer-leader select and assign the readings, hymns and melodies together.

10.  All these liturgical pieces of guidance could be made the subject of a periodical or a paper, distributed to the faithful at the beginning of the Liturgy, thus allowing them to [reflect on and] join in the prayers easily; they could take them home with them and so keep some spiritual guidance for the week. One could also envisage a periodical at parish, inter-parish or eparchial level.  (Book of the Divine Liturgies 1992, pages 13 and 21)

V- Members of successive liturgical commissions
In 1952, the late Archbishop Euthymios Youakim of Saida and Zahleh was nominated President of the Synodal Liturgical Commission. Also nominated was Fr. Neophytos Edelby as secretary to the commission and then other members joined the commission, representing their congregation or eparchy. Among others were Fr. Nicolas Kadry, Soarite, Fr. Chrysostomos Hallaq, Soarite, who devoted themselves to that work, Fr. Gregorios Hayyek, Salvatorian, Fr. Theophilos Kababi, Aleppine, Fr. Boutros Mouallem, Paulist, Fr. Ignace Dick of the Eparchy of Aleppo, and later there joined them Fr. Euthymios Skaff, Salvatorian. Finally, Mgr. Neophytos Edelby was asked to be president of the commission. The first thing that the commission did was to revise the Paraklitiki. That was done in 1985. Meanwhile, the Anthologion had appeared in Greek in Rome, under the supervision of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and at its expense. The Congregation delegated a commission of three persons to do this work (1967-1980) and Father Georges Gharib, from the patriarchal clergy was one of the members of that commission. (Lutfi Laham, Book of Liturgical Prayers, Jounieh, Pascha 1999, Pages 13-14)

These liturgical commissions supervised the recovery of liturgical texts from our liturgical books: we thank them and value their work. We wish especially to mention persons who worked during the last phase from 1992. They were a united group with a broad base. In it were represented eparchial clergy, religious committees. These are their names: Bishop Saba Youakim, Fr. Georges Baliki, Paulist, secretary, succeeded in 1996 by Subdeacon Elias Shatawi of the eparchial clergy, Fr. Euthymios Skaff, Basilian Salvatorian, Archim. Nicolas Antiba, Basilian Aleppine, Archim. Fouad Sayyegh, of the patriarchal clergy of Damascus, Fr. Alam Alam also of the patriarchal clergy of Damascus, Fr. Samir Nahra, of the eparchial clergy of Saida, Fr. Joseph Saghbini, Salvatorian, Fr. Joseph Gebara, of the eparchial clergy of Beirut, Sr. Eugenie Abouzeid, of the Congregation of our Lady of Perpetual Help, Sr. Maxime AjJoub  of the Basilian Soarite Order. (ibid. Pages 25-26)