reinoiri lit in serbia

7/28/2019 Reinoiri Lit in Serbia

1/26

EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 12

INQUIRIES INTO

EASTERN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Selected Papers of the Second International Congress

of the Society of Oriental LiturgyRome, 17-21 September 2008

Edited byBert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples

and Stefanos Alexopoulos

PEETERS

LEUVEN PARIS WALPOLE, MA2012


2/26

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Mark M. MOROZOWICH, Tradition and Natural Disaster: The Roleof Liturgical Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Peter JEFFERY, The Mystical Chorus of the Truth Itself: Liturgyand Mystery in Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . 19

Susan ASHBROOK HARVEY, Performance as Exegesis: WomensLiturgical Choirs in Syriac Tradition . . . . . . . . 47

Gerard ROUWHORST, The Celebration of Holy Week in Early Syriac-Speaking Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Maxwell E. JOHNSON,Baptismal Liturgy in Fourth-Century Jerusalem

in the Light of Recent Scholarship . . . . . . . . . 81

Robert F. TAFT, Reservation and Veneration of the Eucharist inthe Orthodox Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Gregory WOOLFENDEN, The Processional Appendix to Vespers:Some Problems and Questions . . . . . . . . . . 121

Gabriele WINKLER, Unsolved Problems Concerning the Back-ground and Significance of the Vocabulary of Praise in Someof the Oldest Eucharistic Prayers . . . . . . . . . 135

Sebasti JANERAS, Una celebrazione liturgica tutta particolare aCostantinopoli nel secolo sesto . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chrysostom NASSIS, The Adventures of a Liturgical Commemora-

tion: The Sixth Ecumenical Synod in the Heortologion of theByzantine Rite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189


3/26

VIII CONTENTS

Nino SAKVARELIDZE,Einige Besonderheiten der Deutung der vier-ten Bitte des Vaterunsergebetes durch Maximos den Bekennerin ihrer altgeorgischen Gelati-bersetzung (12. Jahrhundert) 209

Stig Simeon R. FRYSHOV, The Georgian Witness to the JerusalemLiturgy: New Sources and Studies . . . . . . . . . 227

Andr LOSSKY, Typica manuscrits sabates du 12e sicle: Refletsdune tradition composite . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Panayotis KALATZIDIS, La disposition intrieure rdactionnelle

des manuscrits liturgiques, Paris, Coislin 213; GrottaferrataG. B. I; Athnes, Ethnike Bibliothke 662 . . . . . . . 279

Michael ZHELTOV, The Rite of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the OldestRussian Leitourgika (13th-14th centuries) . . . . . . . 293

Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES, The Descent to the West in the Liturgical

Commentaries of Symeon of Thessalonica . . . . . . . 311

Vassa LARIN, The Bishop as Minister of the Prothesis? Reconsid-ering the Evidence in Byzantine and Muscovite Sources . . 319

Michael PETROWYCZ, The Addition of Slavic Saints to 17th Cen-tury Liturgical Calendars of the Kyivan Metropolitanate . . 331

Simon MARINCK, The Ruthenian Heirmologion in the History ofByzantine Liturgical Music: Status quaestionis . . . . . 345

Hlib LONCHYNA, Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky and LiturgicalReform: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS, The State of Modern Greek LiturgicalStudies and Research: A Preliminary Survey . . . . . . 375

Nina GLIBETIC, Liturgical Renewal Movement in ContemporarySerbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Margot FASSLER, Chanting and Children at St. Marks CopticOrthodox Church, Jersey City . . . . . . . . . . 415


4/26

CONTENTS IX

Marcel MOJZES, Introduzione alla teologia e spiritualit deiKatanyktika dellOktoichos . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Emmanuel FRITSCH, The Altar in the Ethiopian Church: History,Forms and Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443


5/26

1 I would like to thank Gabriel Radle and Steven Hawkes-Teeples S.J., for their helpin the writing and editing of this paper. I am also indebted to Professor Nenad Milo sevicwho, through his lectures at the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church inBelgrade, was the first to inspire my curiosity on this subject. All translations from theSerbian original are my own.

2 Jovan (Mladenovic), Orthodox Bishop of the Sumadija Eparchy, document filed asE.br. 987, issued on 5 June 2006 in Kragujevac. The unpublished document instructs thatall the prayers, from the First Prayer of the Faithful until the end of the Divine Liturgy,are said audibly, clearly and articulately.

3 Some disputes have been covered by the Press, for example: A. Milutinovic,Istina o Venwanima i osveee temea crkve svetoga Nikolaa u Tuleima,Official Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: http://www.spc.rs/Vesti-2007/04/18-04-07-c.html#tul (accessed 24 January, 2009); M. Pesic, Ko navlawi zavesu nacrkvene dveri, Politika Online: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Ko-navlachi-zavesu-na-crkvene-dveri.sr.html (accessed 24 January 2009).

4 Communications of Holy Assemblies are published in Pravoslave, the bimonthlyofficial newspaper of the Serbian Patriarchate. See Saopjtee za avnost: redovnodrugo zasedae Svetog arhiereskog sabora Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve,odranog u Beogradu od 4. do 8. oktobra 2006. godine, Pravoslave 950(Belgrade, 15 October 2006), pp. 2-3.

5

The committee was formed on 6 October 2006. Its members are: the president,Metropolitan Jovan (Pavlovic), Bishop Georgije (Djokic), Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic),Bishop Irinej (Bulovic), Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), Bishop Ignatije (Midic).

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT

IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

Nina GLIBETIC

Introduction1

When on June 5th, 2006, Bishop Jovan (Mladenovic) issued an act in

his diocese (S

umadija) instructing his presbyters to celebrate the DivineLiturgy with the holy doors open and to pronounce liturgical prayers

aloud, he could not have predicted the far-reaching effect this document

would have on the Orthodox Church in Serbia.2 Not only did some of

the faithful in his diocese, including clergy and monks, express great

protest and dissidence,3 but the Divine Liturgy became a key topic in the

October regular Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade.4 The discussions at

the Holy Assembly resulted in the formation of the Committee for

Research on Liturgical Questions, which includes members noted for

contrasting views.5

UntilthefindingsoftheCommitteeareaccepted, the


6/26

394 N. GLIBETIC

6 Sveti arhiereski sabor Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve: saopjtee zaavnost sa redovnog zasedaa odranog u Beogradu od 14. do 25. maa 2007.

godine, Pravoslave 965 (Belgrade 1 July 2007), pp. 2-3.7 At the same time, the topic of liturgical renewal is not new in Serbia. For example,see the discussions at the first and second Catechetical Symposium held in Belgrade in

HolyAssemblyhasrequested that theestablished, centuries-old litur-

gical traditionof theSerbianOrthodoxChurchbemaintained inevery

diocese [drati se ustaenog vekovnog poretka naje Crkve].6

Bishop Jovan subsequently annulled his act and the tension in his dio-

cese somewhat calmed. However, there soon emerged a challenge

regarding a larger liturgical question. Namely, it became clear that in

Serbia the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in different ways and the faithful,

including hierarchy and laity, are not always in agreement regarding

what constitutes the established, centuries-old Serbian liturgical tradi-

tion.

At the risk of speaking too generally, one can discern two tendencies

in these debates with regard to the liturgical question. There are thosewho want certain practices abandoned because they see them as contrary

to the Serbian, and more broadly, the Orthodox liturgical tradition

and there are those who oppose these changes, seeing them as contra-

dicting the established Orthodox liturgical tradition. The former have

spontaneously implemented reforms in worship on the parish level, a

move criticized by the latter as, among other things, betraying the tradi-

tion of the Serbian Orthodox Church. What lies behind these debates is

a tension between a spontaneous and still emerging liturgical movement

and a critical reaction against this movement. Our intention in the fol-lowing pages is to offer a preliminary description. We will do so by

examining the general characteristics of this movement, the specific

liturgical reforms being implemented by it, and the historical circum-

stances that led to it. Lastly, we hope to show that the liturgical reforms

belong to an overall ecclesial renewal, one seeking a more authentic

expression of life in Christ.

1. Sources

Before describing the movement, some brief remarks about the

sources are in order. Because the liturgical movement in Serbia is con-

temporary to the writing of this essay, books and academic studies

on this subject are lacking.7 In addition, unlike the liturgical rebirth


7/26

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 395

1980 and 1981: Parohia kao iva molitvena zaednica: Prvi KatihetskiSimposion Arhiepiskopie beogradsko-karlovawke, Teolojki Pogledi XIII(Belgrade, 1980) 3, pp. 73-161; Svete tane i ivot parohie: Drugi KatihetskiSimposion Arhiepiskopie beogradsko-karlovawke, Teolojki Pogledi XVI(Belgrade, 1981) 1-3, pp. 1-79. For a more recent work discussing twentieth-century litur-gical reform in Byzantine-rite churches see: Marcel Mojzes,Il movimento liturgico nellechiese bizantine: Analisi di alcune tendenze di riforma nel XX secolo (Rome, 2003). This

book does not discuss the Orthodox Church in Serbia, but the recently published 3-vol-ume work of the theologian and liturgist, Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), does: A. Jevtic,Hristos Nova Pasha: Boanstvena Liturgia, 3 vols. (Belgrade-Trebinje, 2007-2008).

8 Pavlos Koumarianos, Liturgical Rebirth in the Church of Greece Today: ADoubtful Effort of Liturgical Reform, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III,4 (2007) 119-144.

9 For some examples, see the letter written by the editors of Banatski Vesnik:O Sveto Liturgii i promenama u o, Banatski VesnikLXVI (Vrsac, Decem-ber 2006) 3-4, pp. 1-9, and the reply of Bishop Atanasije: A. Jevtic, O BoanskoLiturgii PashiGospodoi najo, Pravoslave 961 (Belgrade, 1 April 2007),pp. 10-12.

10 For example, see the letters of Bishop Jefrem (Milutinovic) and Bishop Georgije(Djokic) addressed to the Holy Assembly of Bishops and published in Pravoslave:J. Milutinovic, Narujavaebogoslubenog poretka, Pravoslave968 (Belgrade,15 July 2007), pp. 6-8; G. Djokic, Tradicionalno i savremeno bogosluee,Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007, pp. 9-17. Bishop Atanasije replied to boththese letters: A. Jevtic, O obnovi liturgiskog ivota, a ne promeni ili reformiLiturgie, Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007), pp. 18-26.

11 In recent decades, many works dealing with the history and theology of Orthodoxworship have been published in Serbia. Primary source material important for the studyof Christian worship has also been translated and issued. Additionally, one can find booksopposed to the liturgical movement, for example: V. Dimitrijevic, Pisma o litur-

gisko obnovi (Gornji Milanovac, 2008); Gresni Miloje, Ne pomiwi stare mee:pisma i razgovori, 2d ed. (Gornji Milanovac, 2008). The latter and similar works are

almost always polemical in tone and content.

movement in Greece described by Pavlos Koumarianos at the 2006

Society of Oriental Liturgies conference, the Assembly of Bishops of

the Serbian Orthodox Church has not organized conferences nor pub-

lished encyclicals on this subject and the Committee for Research on

Liturgical Questions has yet to issue its findings.8 For someone research-

ing the movement, the sources are limited and often polemical, and the

information is scattered. There are public debates, some of which have

been published on-line or in various journals such as Pravoslave,

the official magazine of the Patriarchate.9 Personal letters, usually of

complaint, have been written and addressed to the Holy Synod.10

One can find a growing number of articles and books published in

Serbia dealing with the liturgy.11

Finally, controversial brochure-typeliterature opposed to the renewal is easily available, ever proliferating


8/26

396 N. GLIBETIC

12 Some examples are: V. Dimitrijevic, Hleb nebeski i waja ivota (GornjiMilanovac, 2007); Posni Kalendar za 2008. godinu(Lipovac, 2008).

13 For a discussion of spontaneous and non-spontaneous liturgical reform, see theexcellent doctoral dissertation defended at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome:Thomas Pott,La rforme liturgique Byzantine: Etude du phnomne de lvolution non-spontane de la liturgie byzanine, Bibliotheca Ephemerides liturgicae. Subsidia 104(Rome, 2000).

14

O. Subotic, Povratak liturgisko pobonosti, Pravoslave 931-932(Belgrade, 15 January 2006), pp. 28-29, on p. 28.

15 Subotic, Povratak (see n. 14), p. 28.

and triggering disagreements.12 To comprehend more fully the situation

as it emerges, one must also engage in active field work by attending

local liturgies and in this way discover what the initiatives are first

hand.

2. Description of the Movement

Contemporary liturgical renewal in Serbia is neither systematic nor an

official, institutional undertaking. Despite some non-spontaneous ele-

ments, such as the previously described act issued by Bishop Jovan, it is

a spontaneous movement, one without a clearly defined program ofimplementation.13 This spontaneous quality is partly an outcome of con-

temporary historical circumstances. The Turkish and Austro-Hungarian

occupations, the two world wars and the Communist era have for centu-

ries created difficult situations for the Serbian Orthodox Church, leaving

little room for mystagogical reflection. However, with the collapse of the

Communist government and the growing interest in tradition and faith

identity, the Church has begun to recuperate. In the words of Oliver Sub-

otic, the time in which we live is characterized by a massive rejection of

the previous atheistic ideology and by a great interest in ecclesial-liturgi-cal life.14 This growing interest has created an impetus for theological

reflection, which has in turn inspired liturgical reforms. Comparing the

situation to the one after the Edict of Milan in 313, Subotic continues:

The question which appeared then, and which also appears now, is thefollowing: in what way can we preserve the authentic liturgical expressionaccording to whichtheEasternChurchlivesandbreathes, butalsosatisfythereligiousneedsofthegreatnumberofthenewlyconverted [novoveru-

uih] whofeelthattheirplaceisintheBodyoftheChurch, butwhostilldo not have the necessary spiritual sensitivity [istanwanost] relating totheLiturgy.15


9/26


16 For example: G. Miloje, Ne pomiwi(see n. 11), p. 14.17 A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18.18 See I. Bulovic, Introduction to Na putu ka liturgiskom preporodu, by

N. Balasov, trans. K. Koncarevic and K. Simic, 2 vols. (Novi Sad, 2007), vol.1, pp. 1-7,on p. 3.

19Ibid., p. 3.20 The title of Bishop Atanasijes article is revealing. It translates as: The Renewal of

Liturgical Life and Not Change or Reform of the Liturgy (see n. 10). See the use of theword reform by Bishop Georgije (Djokic): Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 10.

Though the word reform is employed in this article, we use it to designate concrete,visible changes in the way worship is conducted. In other words, reforms are a part ofa larger movement, which in this case has as its aim the renewal of Christian life.

Alongside a dawning ecclesial movement is a growing number of Ser-

bian people who identify themselves as Orthodox Christians but who

have undergone little or no catechetical instruction. Their return is not

infrequently accompanied by an overemphasized sense of national iden-

tity, and results in a narrowly conservative attitude, one aimed at pre-

serving what they consider to be the authentic Serbian liturgical tradi-

tion. Because such a mentality is often paired with little theological

education and infrequent liturgical participation, every perceivedchange

inworshipisexperiencedasabetrayaloftheSerbiantraditionandasa

self-willedinnovation [novotaria], andrejectedonthesegrounds.16

This, at least in part, explains the controversies surrounding the liturgical

movement.Those involved in the movement have replied to these and similar

accusations. Accordingtothem, thefundamentalissueisnotchange

[promena] or reform [reforma] of the Holy Liturgy, but the

renewal of us all in the Church through the renewal of our Christian,

Orthodox, evangelical, liturgical life and existence.17 Or, in the words

of Bishop Irinej (Bulovic), what is at stake is our [personal] rebirth, the

renewal of our own mind, heart and entire being.18 These writers avoid

using the word reform for seemingly two reasons: firstly, because

it labels the liturgical movement as only implementing formal, structuralchanges in the liturgical action without taking into account its broader

scope, including an overall ecclesial renewal.19 Secondly, for the sake

of dialogue, because the word reform is regarded by many as designat-

ing an action that breaks away from the tradition of the Church.20 The

liturgical movement therefore and the term movement is here used

loosely, to connote something not formally organized has as its pri-

mary aim not the reform of worship but the renewal of Christian life. For

this very reason, those involved in the renewal hold that the Liturgical


10/26

398 N. GLIBETIC

21 A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18.22 Besides his already cited books and articles (see n. 7, 9, 10) consult: A. Jevtic, O

Crkvi i Liturgii (Vrnjci, 2005); A. Jevtic, Osam Predavaa o Sveto Liturgii(Vrnjci, 2008). In English: A. Yevtich, Christ: The Alpha and Omega (Vrnjacka Banja,2007). The same work is available in Greek: A. Jevtic, Xristv, JXratnHntwn(Athens, 2007).

23 Consult: I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18).24 H. Stolic, Boanstvena Liturgia Svetoga apostola akova (Belgrade,

1985); H. Stolic, O Hilandarskom Tipiku, Banatski Vesnik 58(Vrsac, 1998) 1-2,pp. 11-13; Liturgia Apostolskih Ustanova, trans. and ed. H. Stolic (Kraljevo,2004). Bishop Hrizostom has also initiated the publication ofMenaia containing hymno-graphical texts for Serbian saints. For centuries and due to difficult historical circum-stances, Serbia has been using Russian and Ukrainian Menaia. The Srbljak (in Serbrian:

Srbak), a supplementary book containing offices for Serbian saints, filled the gap.25 Liturgical reform was given as the reason for a hunger strike by three priests fromthe small town ofCacak. The priests insisted that they were moved to a different parish

Committee can in fact come to a conclusion that a particular change in

worship is desired. Such a change ought to be understood as a renewal

[obnova] of theforgotten, missedorsuppressedcenturies-oldpractice

ofecumenicalOrthodoxyandnotasaself-willedinnovation.21 The aim

of such a change would be to bring the faithful closer to the truth on

which the entire Orthodox tradition rests.

Despite its spontaneous quality, it is particular bishops who are at the

center of the renewal, the majority of whom were educated in the Church

Fathers as part of the broader Neo-Patristic movement. These include

the retired Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), from the Bosnian eparchy of

Zahumsko-Hercegovacka. Primarily a patristic scholar, Bishop Atanasije

is also a noted liturgical theologian and historian of the liturgy. He is themost vocal defender of the liturgical movement and has published exten-

sively on the subject.22 Another important figure is Bishop Irinej

(Bulovic) of the Backa diocese and the dean of the Theological Faculty

of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade.23 His diocese, located in

one of the most multi-cultural regions of Serbia, has seen a number of

liturgical initiatives, including the translation and celebration of the

Divine Liturgy into the Roma Gypsy language. Bishop Hrizostom

(Stolic) of the historical diocese ofZica also has an important role in this

movement. His diocese is the seat of the first Serbian archeparchy,established by St Sava of the Nemanjic dynasty. Bishop Hrizostom is

responsible for the writing and translation of important liturgical works

and the publication of service books.24 Though not as outwardly vocal as

Bishop Atanasije, Bishop Hrizostoms diocese has struggled with the

most protest and dissidence.25 Another important figure is Amfilohije


11/26


because they refused to celebrate according to the new rite [novi obred]. SeeA. Arsenijevic, Svetosave naspram ekumenizma, Wawanske Novine (Cacak,5 February 2008), pp. 6-7; N. R., Svejtenici prekinuli protest, Wawanski Glas(Cacak, 8. February 2008), p. 5; Saopjtee za avnostEparhie iwke, WawanskiGlas (Cacak, 8. February 2008), p. 5; S. Markovic, Dokle tako, Vaje Preosvejten-stvo, Wawanske Novine (Cacak, 11 March 2008), pp. 10-11. In the small town of

Duskovci, a group of people, protesting inside the church building during the celebrationof the Divine Liturgy, attempted to physically prohibit Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic) fromleaving. See B. Kerkezovic, Istinom na la, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July2008), pp. 12-13; Regent Archpriests of the Eparchy ofZica, Saopjtee Arhiere-skih namesnika Eparhie iwke, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008) p. 9; A.Jevtic, O pagubnim novotariama tzv. revnitea starog nawina sluea,Pravoslave991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008), pp. 10-11.

26 See his homily delivered in the Patriarchate chapel (Belgrade) and quoted on theOfficial Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: O preovladavau sujtine nadformom u liturgiskom ivotu naje Crkve, 12. August 2008, Official Website ofthe Serbian Orthodox Church: http://www.spc.rs/sr/arhiepiskop_amfilohije_o_preovla-davanju_sustine_nad_formom_u_liturgijskom_zivotu_nase_crkve (accessed 25 January2009). (Patriarch Pavle died on 15 November 2009; note of the editors.)

27 I provide here a partial bibliography of Milosevics works: N. Milosevic, JqeaExaristavkntrotvqeavlatreav: JsndesivtnmustjrwnmettvqeavExaristav (Thessalonica, 2001); N. Milosevic, Rimska Liturgia, Bogoslove(Belgrade, 2002) 1, pp. 19-37; Posledovae tritekti ili tree-jestog wasa,Bogoslove (Belgrade, 2002) 2, pp. 69-89; Posledovae panihide, Bogoslove(Belgrade, 2003) 1-2, pp. 25-40; Sveta tana ispovesti i pokaaa, Beseda (NoviSad, 2004) 6, pp. 111-118; Protoere Lazar Mirkovi kao liturgiwar, Srpskateologia u dvadesetom veku 1 (Belgrade, 2007), pp. 29-37;Episkop dr. Sava Vuk-ovi kao liturgiwar, Srpska teologia u dvadesetom veku 2 (Belgrade, 2007), pp.129-133; Evharistisko bogoslove Svetoga Ignatia Bogonosca

na primeru tane braka, Vidoslov 42 (Tvrdos-Trebinje, 2007), pp. 109-114. I amgrateful to Milan Jovanovic, graduate student at the Theological Faculty of the Serbian

Orthodox Church, who provided me with these bibliographical references.

(Radovic), the Metropolitan of Montenegro. He supports the liturgical

movement and has replaced Patriarch Pavle during his long hospitaliza-

tion.26 This list is by no means exhaustive and the movement extends to

include other people with diverse vocations in the Church, including

laity, clergy, monks, students and professors.

One cannot talk about liturgical renewal in Serbia without mentioning

the influence of the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The faculty was only in 2004 reintroduced into the University of Bel-

grade, following its exclusion by the Communists in 1952. At the fac-

ulty, the lectures on liturgics by Professor Nenad Milosevic are some of

the most popular and controversial, and always fill the lecture hall.27 In

addition to these lectures, Milosevi

chas introduced the celebration of

the complete daily liturgical cycle in the university chapel, a practice

that has for many become the center of student life. These celebrations,


12/26

400 N. GLIBETIC

28

Subotic, Povratak (see n. 14), pp. 28-29.29 Saint Sava, Hilandarski Tipik Svetoga Save, trans. L. Mirkovic (Belgrade,

1935).

including frequent all-night vigils, allow students to go beyond mere

scholarship and enjoy a living understanding of worship. Another key

initiative put forth by Milosevic and inspired by his Greek mentor, Pro-

fessor Ioannis Fountoulis, has been the weekly celebration of diverse

liturgies found in history throughout the East, some of which are rarely

or no longer celebrated by Christians today (an example is a reconstruc-

tion of the Divine Liturgy found in the Apostolic Constitutions). This

initiative exposes Milosevics students to the dynamic pluralism found

in liturgical practice and inspires a deeper reflection on the nature of

Christian worship. Recently, and already celebrating in a spirit similar to

the one existing at the Theological Faculty, a small chapel has been con-

secrated at the University of Belgrades student Residence Hall. Onemust also mention the seminary in Kragujevac. Considering that youth

make up by far the largest percentage of practicing Orthodox Christians

in Serbia, the influence of these educational institutions is quite signifi-

cant.28 To the list we can also add specific monasteries, such as Zica,

Kovilj and Gradac, along with parishes throughout the country, where

the liturgical life has been visibly affected by the renewal.

3. Specific Reforms

Having described in broad strokes some of the main characteristics of

the liturgical movement, we now examine the specific reforms in wor-

ship which have already been implemented on the parish level. These

reforms have been primarily restricted to the Divine Liturgy. Due to the

spontaneous nature of the movement, they have not been introduced in a

consistent manner but by partial implementation; various combinations

of specific reforms are evident in actual practice.

a. Holy Communion

A central, visible change inspired by the liturgical movement is the

frequent reception of holy communion. In his thirteenth-century partial

translation of the Evergetis Typicon, from the Constantinopolitan mon-

astery of the same name, St Sava, the first Serbian archbishop, upheld

frequent communion as a Christian ideal.29 Over the centuries however,


13/26


30 In some monasteries, such as Zica and Gradac, the Divine Liturgy is celebratedevery morning unless otherwise prescribed by the Typicon.

31 The New Jerusalem Bible: Pocket Edition (New York, 1990).32

I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18), pp. 1-2.33 Patriarch Pavle, O postu i priwejivau, Pravoslave 953 (Belgrade,

1 December 2006), pp. 2-3, on p. 3.

and especially during the Ottoman occupation, this practice fell into dis-

use. The contemporary liturgical movement encourages frequent com-

munion, as is evident in churches affected by the movement.30 Remind-

ing that the Church is first of all a liturgical or an eucharistic community

[liturgiska ili evharistiska zaednica], BishopIrinej (Bulovic)

cites the Gospel of John to show the centrality of communion in the

Christian life: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the

Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53). 31

In Bishop Irinejs words: participating in the Eucharist and receiving

[priwejivati se] theBreadoflifeandtheTruedrinkmeanshaving

eternal life in thepresentand living injoyfulexpectationof the future

resurrection.32

Frequent communion is in contrast to common practices in the

Serbian Orthodox Church, such as the faithful receiving only on Easter

Sunday and Christmas, or clergy not allowing the faithful to receive out-

side the four major fasts. In churches affected by the renewal, commun-

ion always takes place at the time prescribed by the Sluzebnik, that is,

following the communion of the clergy,and is never left for the end of

the Divine Liturgy. The latter is an occasional practice in parishes

throughout the country, especially during principal feasts.

b. The Relationship Between Fasting and Communion

Discussing different ways in which the relationship between fasting

and communion is understood by the faithful, Patriarch Pavle writes:

we must save ourselves from every extreme and every one-sidedness.33

The patriarch is referring to different practices evident in the Serbian

Orthodox Church with regard to fasting in the preparation for holy com-

munion. For example, in churches not affected by the renewal, itiscom-

monforapriest toquestion thoseapproaching thechalice if theyhaveprepared. This question refers to a week-long fast on water [na

vodi], thatis, a week-long abstinence from any animal product and oil

prior to communion. The practice seems to have become widespread in


14/26

402 N. GLIBETIC

34 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko i svetotainsko bogoslove u KarlovawkoMitropolii XVIII. veka (Ph.D. diss., University of Belgrade, 2007), pp. 162-163.

35 For example: V. Dimitrijevic, Hleb nebeski (see n. 12),pp. 29-33//54-56.36 A. Jevtic, Liturgiski mir i edinstvo u najo Crkvi, Pravoslave973

(Belgrade, 1 October 2007), pp. 6-8, on p. 8; Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 1, p. 23.37 Patriarch Pavle, O postu (see n. 33), p. 3. Though Bishop Georgije (Djokic) is

critical of the liturgical movement, on this subject he agrees: Tradicionalno (see

n. 10), pp. 15-16.38 A. Radovic, O preovladavau (see n. 26).39 G. Djokic, Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 16.

the eighteenth century, though this has yet to be studied in a systematic

way.34 For now, we can hypothesize that the practice developed in order

to enable those who attended the Liturgy infrequently to approach the

sacrament by preparing in such a way. While exceptions are made due

to illness or similar circumstances, the week-long fast is today consid-

ered a mandatory step in the preparation for holy communion by many

Serbian faithful, even by those in church regularly. They defend the

practice as a necessary ascetic dimension of church life.35

According to those involved in the liturgical movement, the week-

long fast betrays the canons of the Orthodox Church, such as those of

the Quinisext council, which forbid fasting on Saturdays and Sundays.36

In parishes affected by the renewal, liturgically active faithful keep theregular fasts all the while receiving communion at every Divine Liturgy.

Both fasting and communion may be occasionally restricted by the

spiritual father or the parish priest, when a theologically sound reason

presents itself.37 In Metropolitan Amfilohijes words: who am I to deny

the Lord to the one who fasts every Wednesday and Friday and all four

annual fasts, who lives in the spirit of repentance and according to a

Christian life?.38

c. Marriage and Baptism Celebrated Within the Context of the DivineLiturgy

Insisting that marriage and baptism are not private but communal acts

which involve the entire ecclesial body, when possible, churches affected

by the liturgical movement celebrate both sacraments within the context

of the Divine Liturgy. Their effort has not gone without criticism.

Describing the two sacraments as a private family matter, Bishop Geor-

gije (Djokic) asserts that their celebration within the context of the

Divine Liturgy disrupts the communal prayer of the faithful.39 His criti-cism seems to be motivated by an unfortunate pastoral reality: because


15/26


40 A. Radovic, O preovladavau (see n. 26).41

J. Popovic, BoanstveneLiturgie (Belgrade, 1978), pp. 72//130.42 Holy Archiepiscopal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Sluebnik (Bel-

grade, 2007).

many faithful do not personally know those being baptized or married,

they do not experience the celebration of these sacraments within the

Divine Liturgy as belonging to the entire ecclesial Body.

d. The Use of Holy Doors

We mentioned the debates over the use of holy doors in the introduc-

tion of this article, when describing the act issued by Bishop Jovan

(Mladenovic), in which he instructs the clergy of his diocese to keep the

holy doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy. This seems to be the

general practice in churches affected by the liturgical movement. Metro-

politan Amfilohije (Radojevic), in a homily delivered at the Patriarchatechapel, states: do not the closed doors and the silent reading of [liturgi-

cal] prayers keep the lay faithful from an essential understanding of the

Holy Liturgy? If the curtain was torn in the Jewish temple at the moment

of Christs death, who are we to put it up again?.40

Contrary to the liturgical books of his day, the twentieth-century Ser-

bian theologian, Justin Popovic, spiritual father to many of the bishops

involved in the contemporary renewal, does not mention the use of holy

doors in his 1978 translation of the Divine Liturgy into Serbian, except

at communion.41

It was probably his intention to reduce rubrical instruc-tions in Serbian liturgical books,because it is clear from video footage

and photographs that he used the holy doors. Rubrics concerning the

doors are listed in the 2001 Church Slavonic Moscow Sluzebnik, used in

parishes throughout the country, whereas the 2007 Sluzebnikin Serbian

does not mention them.42 In churches unaffected by the renewal, doors

and curtains are both employed in non-pontifical celebrations of the

Divine Liturgy.

e. The Prothesis Rite and the Particles for the Holy Angels

In churches affected by the renewal, the practice of taking out parti-

cles for the Holy Angels in the prothesis rite has been restored. Justin

Popovic re-introduced the same in his translation, indicating the practice

in older Slavic liturgical books and arguing that it ought to be used


16/26

404 N. GLIBETIC

43 J. Popovic, Boanstvene (see n. 41), pp. 230-231.44 A. Jevtic, Hristos(see n. 7), vol. 3, pp. 375//379. Also consult: V. Vukasinovic,

Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 225-226.45

The same is encouraged by those opposed to the renewal: G. (Djokic), Tradi-cionalno (see n. 10), p. 12.

46Ibid., p. 12.

because it brings to light the cosmic dimension of Christian worship.43

Bishop Atanasije shows that this practice fell into disuse in Serbia with

the introduction of Russian liturgical books in the eighteenth and nine-

teenth centuries.44

f. Censing

Insisting on the importance for the faithful to hear biblical readings,

those involved in the renewal encourage censing during theAlleluia and

not during the Epistle reading.45

g. Liturgical Homily

Seeking to restore the traditional order of the Divine Liturgy, in

churches affected by the renewal, the liturgical homily, when delivered,

is always done after the reading of the gospel. This is contrary to the

common practice of leaving the homily for the end of the Divine Lit-

urgy. The latter is justified by those opposed to the reforms on pastoral

grounds. For example, though Bishop Georgije (Djokic) does indicate

that the homily was traditionally delivered after the gospel reading, he

argues that for the sake of those arriving late to the Divine Liturgy it isbest that it be left for the end.46

h. Litanies

In some though not all churches affected by the renewal, the litany for

the catechumens and the dismissal that follows are no longer said.

i. The Reading of Liturgical Prayers in an Audible Voice

In churches where liturgical reforms have been implemented, the

general practice is to pronounce liturgical prayers in an audible voice.

A common exception is the so-calledNemo dignus prayer, considered to

be a personal prayer of the celebrant. One of the effects of this reform is


17/26


47 I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18), p. 2.48 S. Dobic, O Sveto Liturgiii witau liturgiskih molitava na glas,

Pravoslave 981 (Belgrade, 1 February 2008) pp. 6-9, on p. 9. See the reply ofD. Kolundzic, O witau liturgiskih molitava na glas, Pravoslave 984(Belgrade, 15 March 2008), pp. 16-17.

49

G. Djokic, Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 14.50Ibid., pp. 14-15.

51 D. Kolundzic, O witau (see n. 48), p. 17.

the return to only saying It is right and proper at the opening dialogue

of the anaphora, without the words to worship Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit, Trinity one in essence and undivided. Those involved in the

liturgical movement argue that the audible recitation of liturgical prayers

helps reveal the Eucharist as a sacrifice offered by the entire assembly.

In Bishop Irinejs words, the faithful ought to be the royal priesthood

and concelebrants, instead of mere passive observers.47 By pronounc-

ing liturgical prayers aloud, it is thought that the occasional tendency

toward clericalism evident among both laity and clergy in the Serbian

Orthodox Church could at least partly be overcome.48 Opponents of the

practice hold that the silent reading of prayers can reveal the liturgy of

the Church as a communal act which does involve the entire assembly.Bishop Georgije (Djokic) argues that praying the anaphora in an audible

voice actually impedes the active participation of the lay faithful because

it turns them into passive listeners.49 It is preferable, he concludes, that

the faithful participate in the Eucharistic offering by means of personal

prayer or singing, while the celebrant silently reads these essentially pri-

vate prayers of the clergy.50 Similarly, Father Dusan Kolundzic argues

that the reading of liturgical prayers in an audible voice does not solve

the problem of clericalism. For him, only through catechetical instruc-

tion can the faithful develop an authentic understanding of their role inthe Divine Liturgy.51

j. Troparia of the Third Hour

In churches effected by the renewal, tropariaof the Third Hour are no

longer said within the context of the Divine Liturgy. This is because

they are seen as unnecessary fortifications of the epiclesis, interpolated

into the Divine Liturgy for polemical reasons. However, even prior to

the contemporary liturgical movement, there was a growing awarenessof this problem. For example, in his 1942 translation of the Divine Lit-

urgy into modern Serbian, Bishop Irinej (Dobic) shows a more critical


18/26

406 N. GLIBETIC

52 Nedea Svete Pedesetnice: prazniwne slube, trans. Bishop Irinej Ciric(Ujvidek, 1942), p. 320.

53 J. Popovic, Boanstvene (see n. 41), p. 229.54 A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 2, pp. 134-148//360-373. Consult also Serbian

manuscript evidence: V. Vukasinovi

c, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 226-228.55 J. Milutinovic, Narujavae (see n. 10), pp. 6-7; A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see

n. 10), p. 18.

assessment of the Serbian liturgical practice by indicating that these

troparia are not said in the Greek Church.52 Some years later, Justin

Popovic in his translation placed these troparia in brackets, reasoning

that while it is not up to us at this time to omit them, it is also not up

to us to include them without indicating their more recent introduction

into the Liturgy.53 Today, Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic) argues that the use

of these troparia within the Divine Liturgy is not witnessed in Serbian

liturgical manuscripts and early printed books and is also not authentic

to Orthodox liturgical theology.54 For these reasons, he concludes, the

troparia should be removed from both the Chrysostom and the Basil

anaphoras.

Other practices seen as isolating one section of the anaphora as havingparticular consecratory power, have also been abandoned by those

involved in the reforms. Some examples of these practices include the

lay faithful kneeling during the Words of Institution and/or during

the epiclesis, the ringing of small bells during the anaphora or the priestly

gesture of blessing the holy gifts during the Words of Institution. How-

ever, these gestures were not universally present even before the reforms.

With all these reforms and various reactions to them, we can gener-

ally observe two tendencies being revealed in the Serbian Orthodox

Church today. On the one side and the word side is here used reluc-tantly, for it is never helpful to speak about sides when describing the

Church there are those who want liturgical reforms brought about

because they see the reforms as authentic to Orthodox worship and

theology. On the other side, there are those, such as Bishop Georgije

(Djokic) and Bishop Jefrem (Milutinovic), who describe the reforms as

betraying the established Serbian Orthodox tradition. Both hold that they

are abiding by the Holy Assemblys wish to celebrate in line with the

spirit and centuries-old tradition of Serbian Orthodox Church.55 How

can this discrepancy be explained?


19/26


56 A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), pp. 19-22; A. Jevtic, Hristos(see n. 7), vol. 3,pp. 382-384. Consult also Bishop Atanasijes important article: A. Jevtic, Razvobogoslova kod Srba, Teolojki Pogledi XVI (Belgrade, 1982) 3-4, pp. 81-104.

57 For a general study of Serbian Church history consult Dj. Slijepcevic, IstoriaSrpske Pravoslavne Crkve, 3 vols. (Munich, 1966). For a general history of Serbia,consult the well-known work: K. Juricek, Istoria Srba, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Belgrade,1952).

58 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), vol. 1, pp. 373-374; V. Vukasinovic, Bib-lisko(see n. 34), p. 7.

59 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 7. For a general study on Serbs in

Vojvodina prior to the 1690 migration, consult R. Grujic, Duhovni ivotu Vovod-ini:1. do Velike Seobe od 1690. god.(Novi Sad, 1939).

60 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko(see n. 34), pp. 7-12.

4. Metropolitanate of Karlovci

According to Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), the most vocal supporter of

the liturgical movement, what his critics consider to be the established

liturgical tradition in Serbia is a more recent development in Serbian

worship, which came about between the seventeenth and the nineteenth

centuries.56 This development, which was originally limited to the Met-

ropolitanate of Karlovci, gradually became standard Serbian practice.

Unfortunately, the changes in worship introduced at Karlovci, though

explainable given the historical context in which they developed, have,

according to Bishop Atanasije, led Serbian worship away from a liturgy

that most authentically expresses the Orthodox faith. The transformationthat he and others involved in the contemporary liturgical movement

in Serbia are referring to will occupy us for remainder of this article.

For without understanding this historical context, the liturgical renewal

taking place in Serbia today cannot be understood.57

The history of the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, located in northern

Serbia in the region today known as Vojvodina, is intimately connected

to the large exodus of Serbs fleeing Ottoman rule following the Austro-

Turkish war.58 Though this migration began as early as the fourteenth

century, it was in 1690 that Patriarch Arsenije III (Carnojevic, 1674-1706) led 40,000 people over the Danube River and into the Austro-

Hungarian Empire. By that time, a significant number of Serbs were

already living in that empire and this ethnic continuity allowed the refu-

gees to adapt more easily to their new surroundings.59

However, the circumstances in which Serbs found themselves also

brought new challenges. For the first time, the Serbian people were

confronted with the ideas and prejudices of enlightenment rationalism

and with the polemics of post-reformation Europe.60 Deprived of their


20/26

408 N. GLIBETIC

61 A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 97-98.62 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), vol. 1, pp. 414-429.63 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko(see n. 34), p. 198.64 Ibid., pp. 8//197-200. For a general historical discussion on Serbian-Russian rela-

tions, consult Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), pp. 402-414.65 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 198; A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56),

p. 100.66 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 412.67 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko(see n. 34), pp. 201-211. For an overview of educa-

tion at Karlovci, see R. Grujic, Srpske jkole u Beogradskokarlovawko mitropolii(Belgrade, 1908).

68 Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 412; R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot (seen. 59), pp. 31-41.

69 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko(see n. 34), p. 201.70

Ibid., p. 201; R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot (see n.. 59), pp. 82-90.71 V. Vukasinovic extensively discusses the history, contents and use of catecheses:

Biblisko(see n. 34), pp. 50-91.

political and with the cancellation of the Serbian patriarchate in 1766

religious autonomy, they felt the need to defend their identity.61 This

task was made especially difficult living in a heavily Catholic empire

and confronting explicit pressure toward union with Rome.62 All these

circumstances resulted in what is sometimes described as a process of

Russification of Serbian Church and culture.63 Realizing that the pres-

ervation of their spiritual identity demanded higher education, Serbs

turned to Russia for help.64 Because even basic conditions for educa-

tion, such as good schools, adequately trained teachers and books, were

lacking, Orthodox Russia, sharing a similar language and alphabet with

Serbs, was seen as an ideal ally.65 Soon, promising students were sent

north, especially to Kiev, to study theology at the well-known KievanAcademy.66 By the eighteenth century this trend would result in the

systematization of Serbian education and the opening of the first Sla-

vonic-Latin schools.67 In 1727, Metropolitan Mojsije (Petrovic) opened

a new primary school [osnovna jkola] andtheRussianMaximSuvo-

rov, sentbytheSynodoftheRussianOrthodoxChurch, becameitsfirst

teacher.68 Six years later, Metropolitan Vikentije Jovanovic opened a

High School [sreda jkola, orgimnazia] leaving another Russian,

Emmanuel Kozacinski, in charge.69 The primary schools opened during

this period taught the Slavonic alphabet along with fundamentals suchas arithmetic, grammar and simple spiritual works.70 In the High

Schools, students were taught theology from the so-called Slavonic-

Latin manuals and catecheses, brought to Serbia from the east.71

Russian works, including liturgical books, were imported and already


21/26


72 Ksenija Koncarevic, Lingvistiwki komentar in Balajov, Na putu (seen. 21), vol.1, pp. 259-285. Consult also J. Milanovic, Bogoslubeniezik SrpskeCrkve: savremeno staei perspektive, Logos (Belgrade, 2006), pp. 189-208. Fora discussion on the use of the vernacular in Serbian Orthodox worship, see R. Bajic,Bogoslybeni ezik u Srpsko pravoslavno crkvi: projlost, savremeno stae,perspektive (Belgrade, 2007).

73 V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko(see n. 34), pp. 215-240. A well-known work dealingwith the history of Serbian literature including liturgical works is by D. Bogdanovic,Istoria srpske kievnosti(Belgrade, 1980).

74 For example, see: Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 415. Vukasinovic chal-

lenges this assumption: Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 3. He cites the following work:I. Tarnanidou, Tproblmatatvmjtroplewvkarlobkwnkattnij anakaJovan Rajic 1726-1801 (Thessalonica, 1972), p. 170.

by the middle of the eighteenth century a relatively short amount of

time the Russian version of Church Slavonic, today simply known as

Church Slavonic, had replaced the previously used Serbian recension in

worship.72 The wide-spread introduction of Russian liturgical books,

such as the Minej, Trebnikand Sluzebnik, meant also the introduction

of liturgical elements specific to Russia, such as feasts commemorating

Russian saints, or peculiarities in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy

previously unused in Serbia.73 A parallel process of Russification was

evident also on the level of general culture, where Russian literature, art

and music quickly began to dominate.

5. Contemporary Renewal Movement

Until recently, most historians described the above-mentioned period

in the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church in positive terms. The so-

called process of Russification was seen as the only way Serbia would

be able to overcome pressures toward union with Rome.74 Russian pres-

ence at Karlovci was seen as inspiring a new intellectual dynamism in a

culture severely weakened by the Ottoman conquest and by the exile

into a foreign empire.However, in the twentieth century and especially during the Commu-

nist era, the Serbian theological community initiated what would become

a widespread theological awakening. This awakening led to a critical

re-examination of the changes brought about at Karlovci and has resulted

in the contemporary liturgical movement. Like well-known Neo-patristic

theologians in both East and West, Serbian theologians gradually became

disillusioned with the manualist tradition that had been introduced at


22/26

410 N. GLIBETIC

75 Bishop Atanasije mentions others who have contributed to the overall renewal, suchas Radoslav Grujic, Lazar Mirkovic and Dragi Anastasijevic. He also indicates thetheologians connected with the following Serbian periodicals: Bogoslovski glasnik,Hrijanski ivot, Hrijansko delo, Bogoslove, Glasnik Patriarjie,Hrijanska misao, Svetosave. See A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), p. 102.

76 S. Dovic, O Sveto Liturgii (see n. 48), p. 9.77 For a study on the Bogomoljci movement and Nikolaj Velimirovic, see D. Subotic,

Episkop Nikola i Pravoslavni Bogomoawki Pokret (Belgrade, 1996). BishopNikolaj also wrote a book on the Bogomoljci: Divan: nauka o wudesima (Munich,1953).

78 For some initial discussions on the influence of Bogomoljci on Serbian worship,see D. Kapisazovic, Pevae bogomoawkih pesama u hramovima Vesnik 392(Belgrade, 15 October 1965) p. 3; S. Ratkovic, Pevae bogomoawkih pesama uhramovima, Vesnik 395-6 (Belgrade, 1-15 December 1965), pp. 3-4; D. Kapisazovic,Odgovor, Vesnik397 (Belgrade, 1 January 1966), p. 8; A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7),vol. 3, p. 382.

79 A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 102-103.80

An English bibliography of Father Justins works is available in Wovek bogowovekaHrista: spomenica 110-godijici blaenog prestavea Prepodobnog Ocaustina Novog eliskog, ed. A. Jevtic (Belgrade, 2004), pp. 352-382.

Karlovci. It was notably Bishop Nikolaj (Velimirovic. 1880-1956), and

especially Archimandrite Justin Popovic (1894-1979), who turned to the

Church Fathers in search of a more authentic expression of Orthodox

theology75. In an article published in Pravoslave, Sava Dobic writes:

The two of them [Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic] have started ageneral spiritual-ecclesial renewal, whose fruits we are reaping today andwhich is crowned by the liturgical renewal. Their work demands that wenot discontinue this renewal.76

Besides writing numerous books, including theological, historical and

poetical works, Nikolaj Velimirovic was the spiritual leader of an earlier

existing Serbian renewal movement, the so-called Bogomoljci [Bogo-

moci], meaning the God-Beseechers.77 An indirect relationshipcould possibly be established between this lay movement and the con-

temporary liturgical movement, though we leave this task for another

time.78 For now it suffices to say that the writings of Bishop Nikolaj

continue to inspire Serbian theology, and in this way also the liturgical

movement.79

Justin Popovic is more directly related. In his theological writings, we

see a clear return to the Fathers, and a strong influence of Neo-patristic

authors.80 His search for a more authentic theological expression also

inspired him to introduce concrete liturgical reforms. These includetranslating the liturgies into modern Serbian, re-introducing particles for

the holy angels in the prothesis, placing Third Hour troparia in brackets,


23/26


81 J. Popovic, epilogue to Boanstvene (see n. 43), p. 232. I hope to soon publishan English translation of this text, important as it is for the study of twentieth-centuryworship in the Serbian Orthodox Church.

82 For example: A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 98-101; A. Jevtic, Epilogue toVeliki post by A. Schmemann, trans. J. Olbina (Vrnjacka Banja, 1999), pp. 164-174,on pp. 164-165; A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), pp. 19-22; V. Vukasinovic, Bib-lisko (see n. 34), p. 61. Bishop Irinej (Bulovic) alludes to this process: Introduction(see n. 21), pp. 1-7. Consult also S. Dobic, O Sveto (see n. 48), pp. 7-8.

83 See G. Florovsky, Westliche Einflsse in der russischen Theologie, Procs-Verbaux du Premier Congrs de Thologie Orthodoxe Athnes, ed. H. S. Alivisatos(Athens, 1939), pp. 212-232; G. Florovsky, Collected Works, 4 vols. (Belmont, Mass.,1975), pp. 157-182.

84 Theological books introduced during this period, the so-called confessions of faith

[ispovedaa vere] and similar works, are described in: V. Vukasinovi

c, Biblisko(see n. 34), pp. 56-61.

85 A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 19.

and insisting that it is people and not choirs who ought to sing liturgi-

cal responses.81 Both his theological writings and his liturgical initiatives

influenced the current liturgical movement. This is especially evident

when one takes into account that Justin Popovic was the spiritual father

to the most active bishops involved in the renewal, such as Irinej

(Bulovic) and Atanasije (Jevtic).

When reading the writings of Father Justins disciples, oneoftenencoun-

ters the concept of pseudomorphosis [psevdomorfoza], used to

describethedevelopmentsattheMetropolitanateofKarlovciweexam-

inedearlier.82 According to these authors, the theological-liturgical life

at Karlovci during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries underwent aprocess similar to the pseudomorphosis described by Georges Flo-

rovsky, a father of the Neo-patristic movement in the East.83 Generally

speaking, what is meant by the use of this word in the Serbian context is

the visible transformation of Serbian theology, worship and popular

liturgical piety. This transformation came about especially through the

introduction of Russian theological and liturgical books, heavily influ-

enced by Moghilan Kiev and the theology of the Manualist School.84

For example, referring to those opposed to the liturgical movement,

Jevtic writes:For some of them, the centuries-old tradition is in fact the Karlovcipractice, introduced a few centuries ago, not witnessed in our manuscriptsand first printed Sluzabnici but appearing through [those books] broughtfrom Kiev, Lvov, Vilnius and Moscow, or in those reprinted at Karlovci85


24/26

412 N. GLIBETIC

Even though we may attribute the adoption of this predominantly late

Scholastic theology86 to historical circumstances, Jevtic indicates that

Neo-patristic theologians, such as Justin Popovic, have already exposed

this theology as an inadequate expression of the Christian ethos, both

eastern and western. It follows that this theology, and the liturgical

reforms implemented under its influence, should be abandoned.

However, those involved in the contemporary liturgical movement do

not seek reforms simply to rid the Serbian liturgy of Russian or Roman

Catholic influences that came about at Karlovci. Neither do they seek to

return Serbian worship to an imagined, idealized liturgy as once cele-

brated by the Fathers.87 Rather, the re-discovery of a theology centered

on the liturgical dimension of ecclesia has prompted an evaluation ofestablished Serbian liturgical practices, which in turn inspired concrete

reforms in worship. For example, in his epilogue to the Serbian transla-

tion of Father Schmemanns The Great Lent, Jevtic agrees with Schme-

manns criticism of the Scholastic tradition. However, he reminds that

Manualist theology, and its adoption by the Orthodox, is an expres-

sion of a more profound crisis, and one repeatedly witnessed in Christian

history; that is, it is a crisis of faith.88 The solution, therefore, is not

simply to abandon practices in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy

because they have come about in more recent centuries, and in this case,also under foreign influence. The implemented reforms, and the theol-

ogy from which they derive, instead seek a more authentic epiphany of

the Christian life of faith in Christ. Although patristic theology is a sure

test of profound and authentic theological expression, the Fathers are

not limited to a particular historical epoch. One can speak of twentieth-

century Fathers, for example Popovic and Velimirovic. It is Christ who

86 We specify late Scholastic so as not to disregard the entire Scholastic philosophi-cal-theological tradition, but to refer to a particular development within this tradition, andone that has been heavily criticized by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike. Thisspecification is our own.

87 We write this partly in response to the following important essay, which criticizesthe use of the concept of pseudomorphosis by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike:Dorothea Wendebourg, Pseudomorphosis: Ein theologisches Urteil als Axiom derkirchen- und theologiegeschichtlichen Forschung, in The Christian East: Its Institutionsand its Thought. A Critical Reflection, ed. Robert F. Taft, Orientalia Christiana Analecta251 (1996), pp. 565-589. In English: Pseudomorphosis: A Theological Judgment asan Axiom for Research in the History of Church and Theology, trans. Alexandra Riebe,The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43 (1997) 321-342. I am indebted to Sister

Vassa Larin and Father Robert Taft who showed me this article and inspired a morecritical evaluation of this concept.88 A. Jevtic, Epilogue (see n. 82), pp. 165-166.


25/26


is the true source of theological reflection and of the Churchs liturgy,

and He promised to be with His Church in every epoch.

Conclusion

Although we have examined some of its main characteristics, intro-

duced the persons most intimately involved, listed concrete reforms

being implemented, and described the broader historical context, our

study of the current liturgical movement in Serbia has only touched the

surface. Not only would we have to follow up with a more systematic,

historical examination of Serbian worship, but more importantly, wewould have to seek a deeper understanding of the theology on which this

movement rests. Alexander Schmemann rightly notes that the Churchs

leitourgia is the full and adequate epiphany of that in which the

church believes.89 The deepening in faith and in theological understand-

ing that has accompanied the Serbian Church in recent decades has

begun to manifest also in the liturgical life of the Church. Given the

especially difficult political and social circumstances in recent Serbian

history, it is remarkable, or perhaps only natural, that a search for Ortho-

dox faith and its genuine expression in worship should arise. This searchwas especially inspired by the Neo-Patristic movement, and in particular

by the writings of Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic.

However, spiritual renewal is never an easy task, and resistance, isku-

jee, is always encountered. There are radical differences among the

Serbian faithful on the level of education, exposure to other cultures and

liturgical traditions, in theological understanding and in the experience of

ecclesia and it is here, more than anywhere else, that we find our expla-

nation for the criticism the movement has received. Here we also dis-

cover an explanation for the divergences in liturgical practice evident inthe Serbian Church today. In the words of Emilianos Timiadis, worship

too bears the seal of history, that of the pilgrimage of the chosen and

redeemed people struggling to remain loyal to their Savior and to partici-

pate in His glory.90 Historical tensions have a way of showing their face

in the liturgy of the Church. At the same time, liturgical divergences

89 A. Schmemann, Liturgical Theology, Theology of Liturgy, and Liturgical Reform,

Saint Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 13 (1969) 217-224, on p. 218.90 E. Timiadios, The Renewal of Orthodox Worship, Studia Liturgica 6 (1969)95-115, on p. 95.


26/26

414 N. GLIBETIC

ought not to be feared, for diversity in liturgical practice has always been

present in the life of the Church.

The Serbian liturgical movement is a new movement, one still

predominantly acting on an intuition, albeit one rooted in vigilant theo-

logical reflection. Though this intuition has judged particular historical

developments in Serbian worship critically, more detailed historical

analysis has yet to substantiate these assumptions. While a distanced

evaluation of the fine points must still stand the test of time, the current

situation should be seen as expression of hope. This is because it reveals

our liturgy as indeed living, and us, pilgrims, as struggling to remain

true to our Lord.

reinoiri lit in serbia

Documents