Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

[Servus Iesu]

Hi-

I was wondering if there is a date or approximate date put on the composition of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I realize that the Divine Liturgy of St. JC developed out of the previous liturgies, but in its present form is it exactly what St. John Chrysostom handed on? Were there any modifications of the liturgical books throughout the years?

What is the term for the week-to-week prayers of the liturgy (propers in the Roman Mass)? Do we know the origins of these?

Thanks for your help.

[JasonV]

Have you checked out this website yet? http://www.chrysostom.org/

[zebu]

Well, in catechesis I learned that the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom was more or less in its present form by the 12th century. I don't really have any evidence to back that up though, it's just what I was told. There were still some changes after that though of course, but it definitely would have been recognizable to us. A notable change would be the Nikonian reforms in the 16th century.

The movable prayers are called the troparia and kontakia.

[Servus Iesu]

Thanks for the website. I believe myself to be a Chrysostom devotee of sorts, I've read quite a number of his sermons.

Now, St. John lived in the fourth century, but if what I'm told is correct the liturgy in its present form is substantially that of the 12th century. Who made the changes? How significant are they? What is the Nikonian Reform?

[Servus Iesu]

Could we define: Troparia, Kontakia, and also Ektenia? Apologies for my ignorance...

[OIT]

The Kontakia were written by St. Romanos the Melodist, whose feastday was last Saturday. Kontakia are essentially hymns, but I'm sure someone else can better define these terms.

[Akathist]

Could we define: Troparia, Kontakia, and also Ektenia? Apologies for my ignorance...

See these links: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Kontakion
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Troparia


About the Ekentia, I might be wrong but I think this is the "pre prayer" like thing said by the Priest or Deacon... such as "again and again let us pray to the Lord..."

About the changes in the DL. I also might not have this fully accurate, but I believe that the changes included adding in things like the Toparia, Kontakia and then later reducing the length of these things that were added.

It is my understanding that substantially the DL has not been altered, but has rather had a these things added, then reduced and perhaps some other reductions. For example, some jurisdictions use the Beatitudes in their DL and some do not.

How it was explained to me was that St. Basil's DL is longer than St. Crysostom's and it is earlier than St. Chrysostom's. But when we do St. Basil's DL, it seems exactly the same to me. I asked my Priest why it takes longer but seemed the same and he indicated that there are some small reductions in St. Crysostom's from St. Basil but not a change in the essential aspects of the service.

[Xpycoctomos]

Servus... thanks for your questions... I would love to learn more about this. All the stuff you heard is what I have heard too.

John

[PrincessMommy]

"

About the changes in the DL. I also might not have this fully accurate, but I believe that the changes included adding in things like the Toparia, Kontakia and then later reducing the length of these things that were added.

It is my understanding that substantially the DL has not been altered, but has rather had a these things added, then reduced and perhaps some other reductions. For example, some jurisdictions use the Beatitudes in their DL and some do not.


This is my understanding as well. I found a Eucharistic prayer by Hippolytus (c.215) that is remarkably similar to our own. The liturgy has been shaped and moulded. They did not throw it out and re-invent the wheel.

[Servus Iesu]

Thanks John et al. Liturgics is a fascinating topic to me. I would be interested in reading a book about the developement of Eastern liturgy, in the vein of Fr. Fortescue's Roman Mass study. Surely there must be some scholarly studies on this topic, though lamentably I probably don't have the time to read any of them right now with my current load of classwork.

My understanding is that the developement of the Eastern liturgy is in at least one way opposite to the process of change in the Roman Mass. We began with a very simple Mass which flowered and grew throughout the centuries in an organic developement, while the Divine Liturgy underwent a -shall we say- organic simplification. Isn't the DL of St. John a simplification of the DL of St. Basil, which is in turn a simplification of the DL of St. James?

This is an interesting turn of events in my opinion, as it seems to disprove some of the fundamental assumptions of naturalist and Protestant religious historians. The near universal presupposition is that the 'early Church' began very simply and non-ritualistically and through pagan influences and the accretions of time became more florid and complex in its liturgics. However, if what I understand about the DL is true, the early Church was so excessive in ritual that it became cumbersome for the growing Church to maintain the ancient liturgies in their oldest forms.

If we believe that the Apostles received the liturgy in some form from Christ the Lord, this makes perfect sense in my mind. The Apostles had the scriptures opened to them and understood the interplay of biblical prophecy and its fulfillment so well that it would not be surprising if their liturgies sought to express these mysteries in their fullness. Perhaps it is only my impression, but does it not seem as though when they met to 'break bread' that they were coming together for quite some time and not for just one hour on Sunday morning? Can anyone think of any Scriptural evidence as to the nature of early liturgy, beyond the obvious?

[PrincessMommy]

Thanks John et al. Liturgics is a fascinating topic to me. I would be interested in reading a book about the developement of Eastern liturgy, in the vein of Fr. Fortescue's Roman Mass study. Surely there must be some scholarly studies on this topic, though lamentably I probably don't have the time to read any of them right now with my current load of classwork.

Have you read The Shape of The Liturgy by Dom Gregory Dix? As far as I know it is considered the authoritative work on the subject.

[Xpycoctomos]

Thanks John et al. Liturgics is a fascinating topic to me. I would be interested in reading a book about the developement of Eastern liturgy, in the vein of Fr. Fortescue's Roman Mass study. Surely there must be some scholarly studies on this topic, though lamentably I probably don't have the time to read any of them right now with my current load of classwork.

My understanding is that the developement of the Eastern liturgy is in at least one way opposite to the process of change in the Roman Mass. We began with a very simple Mass which flowered and grew throughout the centuries in an organic developement, while the Divine Liturgy underwent a -shall we say- organic simplification. Isn't the DL of St. John a simplification of the DL of St. Basil, which is in turn a simplification of the DL of St. James?

This is an interesting turn of events in my opinion, as it seems to disprove some of the fundamental assumptions of naturalist and Protestant religious historians. The near universal presupposition is that the 'early Church' began very simply and non-ritualistically and through pagan influences and the accretions of time became more florid and complex in its liturgics. However, if what I understand about the DL is true, the early Church was so excessive in ritual that it became cumbersome for the growing Church to maintain the ancient liturgies in their oldest forms.

If we believe that the Apostles received the liturgy in some form from Christ the Lord, this makes perfect sense in my mind. The Apostles had the scriptures opened to them and understood the interplay of biblical prophecy and its fulfillment so well that it would not be surprising if their liturgies sought to express these mysteries in their fullness. Perhaps it is only my impression, but does it not seem as though when they met to 'break bread' that they were coming together for quite some time and not for just one hour on Sunday morning? Can anyone think of any Scriptural evidence as to the nature of early liturgy, beyond the obvious?
Very interesting insights and thoughts. I would be interested to hear what you find.

[Ilian]

The cantor or choir director will usually have what can be called an extended psalter, which contains the Horologian (which is unchanging) and the variable parts of the services for the day (similar to propers). The variable parts are drawn from multiple service books (the General Menaion, Festal Menaion, Triodion, Pentecostarion, etc.) and would include the appointed troparia, kontakia and prokeimena for the day’s commemorations. This is not just for the liturgy, but for all services (hours, matins, vespers and so on).

I believe both St. Basil’s liturgy and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom are revisions to the much longer liturgy of St. James. I believe some scholars have theorized that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was aided by others, but bears his name for the composition. The two liturgies are very similar. One difference I can think of is the prayers of consecration are much longer in the liturgy of St. Basil.

The liturgy itself has undergone an enormous amount of revision and change over the life of the church, and has generally become more complex. It is probably more accurate to say that what has undergone this process of change is not so much the liturgy itself, but the typikon which is the structure of the liturgy as it is practiced. Changes to the typikon have been ongoing, and each particular church within the Orthodox family shows its distinct imprint on the typikon which in many ways is reflected in the variances you will see in the liturgy when you visit different Orthodox Churches.


Two books you can explore are "An Introduction to Liturgical Theology" by Fr. Alexander Schmemann and "The Orthodox Liturgy" by Hugh Wybrew. Both chart the historical development of the liturgy.

[Jacob4707]

Per Hugh Wybrew and Dom Gregory Dix, too, I believe, Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy continued to develop and change until the 14th century or so. During the time of Cabasilas there apparently were some significant changes.

[zebu]

The changes were all organic, they just happened naturally. No one ever FORCED changes, up until the Nikonian reforms. Those were put in place by Patriarch Nikon of the Russian Church, who wanted to make Russian practice more in-line with contemporary Greek practices, because he assumed they would be older. An example of some of the changes would be crossing yourself with 3 fingers(like now) instead of 2 fingers(before the changes). Then also in the late 19th Century the Greeks and Antiochians cut out sections of the Divine Liturgy just to make it shorter, while other churches have the older, more complete form.

Ectenia is just the Slavonic word for litany. It isn't a changeable part of the liturgy.

The Kontakia and Troparia actually developed as responses between psalm verses, fleshing out the Christian interpretations of Old Testament psalms. Or so I have been told.

[Servus Iesu]

If my understanding is correct, the liturgical changes to the DL throughout the centuries consist either in shortening it or modifying the moveable parts. That is probably a complete oversimplification, but wouldn't you say that there are many parts of the DL which are basically fixed?

Another question then I suppose would be whether there have been modifications to the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil? Is this liturgy substantially the creation of St. Basil? Are there any comparative studies of it and the DL of St. John Chrysostom?

How about the Divine Liturgy of St. James? Does popular piety hold that this liturgy is the work of the Apostle (either the greater of the lesser) or is it generally accepted that it was a later work or the creation of another James entirely? Or again is this question open to debate? What is the pious consensus?

In our college library there are some works on Eastern liturgies and the Orthodox Churches. I saw some of what we have today when I was looking for another book. Right now I have a lot of work to do, but when my schedule dies down a little bit I'm going to see what we have and I'll ask you guys whether you've heard of any of it and can recommend it (or not).

[JasonV]

Have you read The Shape of The Liturgy by Dom Gregory Dix? As far as I know it is considered the authoritative work on the subject.

Dix's work is still important, but it's no longer the authority on Liturgical development. Paul Bradshaw is generally considered the new authority on this.

[Jacob4707]

Dix's work is still important, but it's no longer the authority on Liturgical development. Paul Bradshaw is generally considered the new authority on this.

(It looks like I'll be ordering more books from Amazon!)


1. So, which of Bradshaw's books do you recommend?

a. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (2002):
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Origins-Christian-Worship-Liturgy/dp/0195217322/

"Nonetheless, a growing number of scholars are coming to share the main points of Bradshaw's thesis: when the fragmentary nature of the evidence and the problems of interpreting it are adequately taken into account, rather little can be known about Christian worship in the first several centuries. What we do know points to diversity of liturgical practices rather than uniformity. Hence, the notion that "a single coherent line of liturgical evolution can be traced from the apostolic age to the fourth century" must be scrapped (ix). Bradshaw powerfully proves these points with his penetrating and, at times, devastating reviews of secondary studies and thorough analyses of primary sources. Indeed, he has set the standard for future research on ancient liturgy; any scholar who ignores this foundational work risks laboring in vain.... Despite such unguarded moments, this final chapter proves a splendid capstone to Bradshaw's study. For in it he offers possible explanations of the apparent unity in post-Nicene liturgy that many scholars have erroneously assumed indicates unity in the preceding centuries."

The above seems to be a critique/refutation of Dix's work and thesis.

b. Eucharistic Origins (2004):
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Origins-Paul-F-Bradshaw/dp/0195222229/

c. Early Christian Worship (1998):
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Worship-Introduction-Practice/dp/0814624294/


2. To what extent does Bradshaw's work affect Orthodox beliefs? I.e., not what Orthodoxy currently does or teaches, but rather: To what extent does Bradshaw show Orthodoxy to be (as it so claims) based on and a continuation of the earliest Christian liturgical beliefs and practices - and/or to what extent does he show that Orthodoxy cannot claim such about itself?

[Teke]

Here is some info I found with some good references. Sites earliest refs.

Introduction to the Divine Liturgy - Most Ancient Service
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7117.asp

Some good references (worship, liturgy) here (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_worship.aspx).

[MariaRegina]

In the Acts of the Apostles, here is one account of how the early Christians worshiped until very late in the evening .... one young man fell asleep and then fell out of the window to his death, but he was restored to live.

[JasonV]

(It looks like I'll be ordering more books from Amazon!)


1. So, which of Bradshaw's books do you recommend?

a. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (2002):
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Origins-Christian-Worship-Liturgy/dp/0195217322/

"Nonetheless, a growing number of scholars are coming to share the main points of Bradshaw's thesis: when the fragmentary nature of the evidence and the problems of interpreting it are adequately taken into account, rather little can be known about Christian worship in the first several centuries. What we do know points to diversity of liturgical practices rather than uniformity. Hence, the notion that "a single coherent line of liturgical evolution can be traced from the apostolic age to the fourth century" must be scrapped (ix). Bradshaw powerfully proves these points with his penetrating and, at times, devastating reviews of secondary studies and thorough analyses of primary sources. Indeed, he has set the standard for future research on ancient liturgy; any scholar who ignores this foundational work risks laboring in vain.... Despite such unguarded moments, this final chapter proves a splendid capstone to Bradshaw's study. For in it he offers possible explanations of the apparent unity in post-Nicene liturgy that many scholars have erroneously assumed indicates unity in the preceding centuries."

The above seems to be a critique/refutation of Dix's work and thesis.

b. Eucharistic Origins (2004):
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Origins-Paul-F-Bradshaw/dp/0195222229/

c. Early Christian Worship (1998):
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Worship-Introduction-Practice/dp/0814624294/


2. To what extent does Bradshaw's work affect Orthodox beliefs? I.e., not what Orthodoxy currently does or teaches, but rather: To what extent does Bradshaw show Orthodoxy to be (as it so claims) based on and a continuation of the earliest Christian liturgical beliefs and practices - and/or to what extent does he show that Orthodoxy cannot claim such about itself?

Go with "a" first.

As for it's effects, who can say for sure. But it could provide an argument for diveresity that didnt' exist before.

[Jacob4707]

Go with "a" first.

As for it's effects, who can say for sure. But it could provide an argument for diveresity that didnt' exist before.

Thanks! I ordered all three today, as ordering c. was only $9.72 more.

So many books.
So little time.

I am a living example of this: "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." - Desiderius Erasmus

[JasonV]

Thanks! I ordered all three today, as ordering c. was only $9.72 more.

So many books.
So little time.

Early Christian Worship is ok, but it's a 90 some page booklet that is more of a primer than anything. But it's cheap, so it's no big deal.

I am a living example of this: "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." - Desiderius Erasmus

Yeah...that's me too. My wife complains that my clothes are shot, but I always say that I'd rather have something to read than fancy clothes. :thumbsup:

One of my favorite book quotes: "The worse thing about new books is that they keep us from reading old ones." -Joseph Joubert

[Akathist]

(It looks like I'll be ordering more books from Amazon!)


1. So, which of Bradshaw's books do you recommend?

a. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (2002):
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Origins-Christian-Worship-Liturgy/dp/0195217322/

"Nonetheless, a growing number of scholars are coming to share the main points of Bradshaw's thesis: when the fragmentary nature of the evidence and the problems of interpreting it are adequately taken into account, rather little can be known about Christian worship in the first several centuries. What we do know points to diversity of liturgical practices rather than uniformity. Hence, the notion that "a single coherent line of liturgical evolution can be traced from the apostolic age to the fourth century" must be scrapped (ix). Bradshaw powerfully proves these points with his penetrating and, at times, devastating reviews of secondary studies and thorough analyses of primary sources. Indeed, he has set the standard for future research on ancient liturgy; any scholar who ignores this foundational work risks laboring in vain.... Despite such unguarded moments, this final chapter proves a splendid capstone to Bradshaw's study. For in it he offers possible explanations of the apparent unity in post-Nicene liturgy that many scholars have erroneously assumed indicates unity in the preceding centuries."

The above seems to be a critique/refutation of Dix's work and thesis.

b. Eucharistic Origins (2004):
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Origins-Paul-F-Bradshaw/dp/0195222229/

c. Early Christian Worship (1998):
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Worship-Introduction-Practice/dp/0814624294/


2. To what extent does Bradshaw's work affect Orthodox beliefs? I.e., not what Orthodoxy currently does or teaches, but rather: To what extent does Bradshaw show Orthodoxy to be (as it so claims) based on and a continuation of the earliest Christian liturgical beliefs and practices - and/or to what extent does he show that Orthodoxy cannot claim such about itself?

Is this author Orthodox? I ask because it is well known that scholars write from their biased points of view. I would not trust the words of someone not Orthodox (and canonicial at that) on this subject.

I suggest that you find out what is being used as a Text in one of the Seminaries on this subject. Perhaps you could ask your Priest for suggestions on this subject?

[Jacob4707]

Bradshaw is not Orthodox, but most of the authorities/scholars on the historical development of the Liturgy do not appear to be Orthodox - e.g., Dix and Wybrew - yet their books are the ones people seem to turn to when they want to read about the historical development of liturgy. They cover not just the Orthodox liturgy, but the Roman Catholic and even the Anglican. A popular book on Orthodox Liturgy (Orthodox Worship, A Living Continuity With the Temple, the Synagogue and the Early Church) cites Dix (Anglican) and Bouyer (Roman Catholic) numerous times in its footnotes, and Light & Life sells it and Wybrew's (Anglican) book. I also have Cabasilas.

[Akathist]

Bradshaw is not Orthodox, but most of the authorities/scholars on the historical development of the Liturgy do not appear to be Orthodox - e.g., Dix and Wybrew - yet their books are the ones people seem to turn to when they want to read about the historical development of liturgy. They cover not just the Orthodox liturgy, but the Roman Catholic and even the Anglican. A popular book on Orthodox Liturgy (Orthodox Worship, A Living Continuity With the Temple, the Synagogue and the Early Church) cites Dix (Anglican) and Bouyer (Roman Catholic) numerous times in its footnotes, and Light & Life sells it and Wybrew's (Anglican) books. I also have Cabasilas.

Well, I still think you need to find out what is being used as text in the Orthodox Seminaries and discuss this with your Priest. I firmly hold to the fact that authors write with a bias. If you want to read what these nonOrthodox think, that is fine, but please do not use these nonOrthodox authors to come up with what Orthodox believe and do.

[Jacob4707]

Well, I still think you need to find out what is being used as text in the Orthodox Seminaries and discuss this with your Priest. I firmly hold to the fact that authors write with a bias. If you want to read what these nonOrthodox think, that is fine, but please do not use these nonOrthodox authors to come up with what Orthodox believe and do.

XR: You apparently misunderstand my reason for reading these books. I know what Orthodox believe and do during the liturgy. I have a number of books on that and I attend the Divine Liturgy weekly, and have done so for more than a year now, and Father incorporates this in his catechumen class. I am reading these books because I am interested in the history and development of liturgy and The Divine Liturgy. Coming from a non-sacramental, non-liturgical, non-denominational Protestant background, liturgical worship is a 180-degree change and shift for me and I like to know the history and background of the things I am learning about and doing, just as when I studied NT Greek I also wanted to study the history of manuscript transmission, principles of textual criticism, linguistic and translational principles, etc. And, it seems to me that certain non-Orthodox authors like Dix are referenced quite a bit when the history and development of liturgy is the subject, and I find it beneficial and even uplifiting to acquaint myself with their writings.

[Jacob4707]

Well, I still think you need to find out what is being used as text in the Orthodox Seminaries and discuss this with your Priest. I firmly hold to the fact that authors write with a bias. If you want to read what these nonOrthodox think, that is fine, but please do not use these nonOrthodox authors to come up with what Orthodox believe and do.

XR: I have and am reading Alexander Schmemman's THE EUCHARIST. Do you think that it's an acceptable book for Orthodox Seminarians to read about the Divine Liturgy?