About reforms in our worship

At diocesan pastoral meetings and in opinions on the subject of the meeting at the Council, many members of the clergy expressed opinions about the need for a reduction in the composition of our worship and some changes in it. These opinions, touching on the most essential subjects, inextricably linked with the charter of the Orthodox Church, with church and popular pious customs and with the very beliefs of the people, require the most detailed consideration and the most careful verification. The ancient charter of our worship, applied in its entirety to monastic liturgical and prayer practice, undoubtedly requires, in relation to the needs of our time and to the economic structure of current social life, many reductions when they can be made without violating essential parts of the liturgical rite. But these reductions have long been indicated by the needs of parish life, and are allowed everywhere in practice - to the extent that corresponds to the needs of life, local custom and the wishes of the parishioners. Everyone is aware of the reductions in church services in court and military churches and in educational institutions. In parishes, in many places, for example, instead of the third, sixth and ninth hours, only one or two hours are read instead of the full composition of kathismas 1, only one kathisma is read, and then a shortened one, the reading of psalms 2 at Great Compline is shortened, only one verse is read from the canon for each song, from the full composition of the festive parimia 3 only a few are elected, in the composition of the festive matins, when several canons are appointed, only one canon with its irmos, 4 of the stichera 5 shown in the service book, only a few are sung and read, and so on. But even in these cases, the parish priest is usually guided by the long-standing custom of the parish and the demand or desire of local parishioners when they want to make up for the reduction in service in certain parts. In this regard, it is necessary to leave room in each parish for the satisfaction of local customs and the pious desires of the local flock, so as not to disturb the pious feelings of the people. And therefore, in any case, it is undesirable and unsafe to create a new, obligatory for the parish, reduction of the liturgical composition and ritual: it would be sufficient, when it was recognized as necessary, to provide instructions - only for the clergy 6 and for the conscience of the clergyman - of some reductions that can be allowed without a doubt. In general, it must be said that the burdensome duration of the service, felt in practice, occurs mainly not from the number of readings and chants included in its composition, but from the excessive intensification of external ritual in it and from the careless and inattentive performance of it by the clergy. This is what the reformers should pay primary attention to, and this is still the least of their concerns. Much of the blame for this lies with the deacons, who prolong the service to an extreme extent and flaunt their voices, which among the inexperienced and inattentive often turns into a roar, disturbing the silence and reverent mood of the congregation. Stretching out the pronunciation of the litanies, 7 the reading of the Apostle 8 and the Gospel to the extreme, such deacons 9 often turn the church service into some kind of hypocrisy that suits the taste of some ignorant lovers of extreme shouting. This distortion of the official rank is especially evident in cathedral churches, where protodeacons are deliberately invited, especially on holidays, 10 striking with their vocal means, and the hierarchal service, replete with ritual, is burdened to the extreme by such deacons. Church services, especially on holidays, are greatly aggravated by the noisy and disorderly singing of numerous singing choirs, often ignorant both in music and in the understanding of the service: having neither taste nor knowledge, but flaunting their throaty means, they burden and distort the service and disturb the silence by singing noisy concerts. On the other hand, the extreme carelessness of the deacons in pronouncing the litanies, with the habit of rushing and swallowing whole words and phrases, as well as the carelessness of the clerics in reading, not only distort the service, but also deprive it of prayerful meaning, turning it into soulless mechanics. In the history of our ancient Church, we cannot point to a time when, according to the testimony of monuments, church services in parish churches were performed in good order and reverence, in an orderly manner. All monuments of the 16th and subsequent centuries testify to the contrary. In the middle of the 16th century, the zealous and reasonable Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, 11 a close adviser to the young Tsar Ivan IV, 12 paid special attention to the church disorder of that time. At his suggestion, the young tsar in 1551 convened the Hundred Head Council 13 for the “renewal of the Church” and proposed to him in a long speech 69 questions, which were considered at the council. These questions and then the decisions of the council present us with a pitiful picture of ignorance, soullessness and indecency in the state of the clergy and in the conduct of church services. The ardent, animated messages of Maxim the Greek date back to the same time, 14 in which, praising the Russians’ zeal for the Church and piety, he bitterly grieves that this piety is expressed only in the external rituals and external decorations of the church, without being reflected in morals, in life and activity and in church deanery. The resolutions of the council were undoubtedly put into execution, but it does not appear that they led to the cessation of church disorders, for throughout the entire 17th century, complaints about the same disorders and the same confirmations about church deanery and the placement of trained priests in parishes were repeated at councils and in local orders of bishops. But there was nowhere to get the latter, and the schools at the churches, which Stoglav demanded, 15 were not established. Priestly positions were often inherited, sometimes to completely illiterate people who knew the necessary prayers only from memory, although according to the rules it was forbidden to ordain those who could not read. In rural parishes, often only the clerk was considered knowledgeable about the service and literacy - he was also the clerk (who later turned into a sexton). 16 And the patriarchal rule did not bring significant improvements either to science or to deanery. Divine services all turned into external ritual, reaching the point that the service was performed with many voices, that is, everything was read and sung together in different voices, in a disorderly pagan noise - as long as no part of the charter remained unfulfilled. And the church authorities struggled with this disgrace for many years, until the polyphony finally ceased. But along with all this ugliness, the ritual, pomp and length of services, following the Moscow and Novgorod model, increased everywhere in cathedral churches and in bishops’ services. And in Moscow, Patriarch Nikon 17 diligently embellished and increased the rituals of worship, and also introduced into the bishop’s service two so-called “great praises”, interrupting the liturgy 18 with the prolonged thunder of the deacon and the singing choir. The well-known notes on the stay of the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius 19 in Moscow present a detailed picture of the festive patriarchal services, lasting eight or more hours - a picture that amazes with the Asian splendor of vestments and the abundance of rituals. The eighteenth century was a dark time for the Church; True, schools began to be established and the number of trained clergy increased, but the clergy was humiliated before the law, remaining under pressure and violence from secular and spiritual authorities; and the previous imperfections of church life remained uncorrected. Only in the 19th century, especially in the second half of it, did a new spirit breathe in the Church and a reasonable revival of the spirit of churchliness in worship began: the passion for Italian singing passed and there was a desire to study ancient tunes and to harmonize them in ancient Russian modes. This revival of church life became even more noticeable when, with the establishment of parochial schools, reasonable literacy, reasonable teaching of the Law of God, and intelligent, animated church singing began to spread throughout the villages. What ways and means are now offered to us to shorten the service? All are mechanical, that is, the exclusion of certain parts, and there are extremely varied opinions about which parts are essential and necessary, and which parts are unnecessary and insignificant, and all opinions insist on the incomprehensibility of the liturgical language for the people. But it is extremely sad that many of the judgments of the priests and shepherds of the Church reveal not only a complete ignorance of parish life and people’s spiritual needs and alienation from the people’s soul, but also a complete unfamiliarity with the composition of our worship and the significance for the Church and for the people of its individual parts. There are such reviews: why do we need this variety of stichera in the morning and evening services? Why this diversity of voices? Obviously, such reviews can only come from pastors who do not know the content and meaning of stichera at all and have no idea about the osmoglanie 20 of our Church and have not heard meaningful vocal church singing. Whoever is actually familiar with all this knows that stichera are essential for the people, the most precious accessory of our worship and its spiritual beauty, and that the variety of voices, each of which corresponds to the very content of the stichera, harmoniously unites a whole series of chants. Whoever goes through Octoechos 21 and Triodion 22 through the entire series of stichera dedicated to holidays and days of remembrance of sacred events throughout the history of Christianity, can appreciate this treasure bequeathed to us from the Greek Church by its great high priests, the guardians of its dogmas and traditions, the artistic creators of its liturgical order. Indeed, in these stichera there is an inspired depiction of the Gospel events and teachings of Christ the Savior - in the authentic words of the Gospel speech, an explanation of the connection of the New Testament with the images and events of the Old Testament! And they are understandable to the people, because they themselves enter the people’s soul in words and sounds. In many parishes, according to the good old custom, at Sunday and holiday services, the selected stichera and all the dogmas were regularly sung by one old deacon, and whoever had to pray here from childhood among the people knows how these words and this singing were imprinted on the soul of the people. Such are the Sunday stichera of all eight tone, Lenten, especially Holy Week, when they depict the events of each day before suffering, the last parables of Christ the Savior and pictures of tradition and suffering, and in the morning stichera of the 5th tone of Maundy Thursday the last conversation with the disciples is expressed in such touching features. In the stichera of great holidays, the history of the events to which the holiday relates is poetically depicted, and the people's soul draws from them the teaching about the main tenets of the Christian faith; for example, in the stichera for Trinity Day the entire teaching about the Holy Trinity is set out in clear, songlike lines. If the people did not have this, where would they receive this knowledge of the faith - where there is no school teaching of the Law of God, and the rector (which often happens) is both incapable and lacking the time to be a teacher of the Law of God or a heartfelt preacher of it in the church? – Thus, worship, carefully performed, serves in itself as the only and most effective school of God’s Law for the people. And all this is bequeathed to us by history and tradition! Let us remember that in the first centuries of Christianity these chants served as the main weapon in the fight against the heretical teachings of sectarians, and the great saints established them for this purpose. The sectarian teachers of that time invented this method for disseminating their teachings among the people through hymns and songs in the national assembly (just as teachers of rationalist sects now resort to this same method in our time, composing their hymns in the form of illiterate transcriptions from a foreign model). How can our Church neglect in our time this powerful means that we have in our worship and which is so well known and beloved by the people where it is observed by the diligence and knowledge of the rector of the church in the parish? So, our worship is at the same time a doctrine of faith and a confirmation of faith. Where there is a church and in the church there is earnest worship and singing, there the teachers of Stunda, 23 Molokanism, 24 Pashkovism, 25 etc. with their foreign songs are powerless among the parishioners; and where there is no church or it is silent, there the need for faith in the soul of the people is left without teaching and guidance - to the will of foreign teachers. The main concern in the education of those preparing to be pastors and clergy should be directed to this part of the teaching; but, unfortunately, it is she who is being neglected. Liturgy, taught in theological seminaries, is a dry science without life, a dry list of the components and accessories of divine services, and young people complete the course without acquiring the ability and desire to spiritualize the church service with church songs. It is rare that a boss who understands the matter puts effort into this matter; it happens (as happened in the Moscow seminary under the rectorship of Clement) that the students en masse represent the singing church in the fullness of worship; but few rectors of modern times followed this example. And only people who did not know Russian church life closely and did not pray with the people in church can say that the people do not understand. Where there is a full service and an attentive choir sings the Sunday stichera in vocal chants, you can clearly hear how the soul of the people is participating in this and those standing in the church here and there repeating the words and chants. And for a zealous and pious priest, the content of the festive stichera provides ready-made themes - not for just a sermon, but for a living speech to the people and heartfelt teaching. The soul of the Russian people is a melodious soul and expresses itself in church singing; and our entire divine service, in its content, is not just a verbal prayer and not just a sermon, but in its entirety it is pious contemplation and a heartfelt song to God. It is necessary, they say, that general, popular singing in church should be established everywhere. But one prescription is not enough for this. It is necessary that the pastor, the rector of the church, understand this matter, start it and guide it: this, thank God, is being started in some parishes, and teachers and teachers of parochial schools who know how to sing and lead the choir do a lot of good for this in villages and villages. Then, with the participation of the teacher, a children's choir is formed - and when it begins to sing in church, a general interest in singing and in church services is aroused, and little by little the life of the whole village is enlivened by a new spiritual interest. Unfortunately, recently, both in our religious educational institutions and in the so-called educated society, the knowledge of the Slavic language has become lost and the habit of it has weakened. From here arose the idea, based on nothing, that Slavic speech was incomprehensible to the people in church services. And finally we hear that there are proposals from among the clergy to translate the service into Russian. But in essence this would not be a reform, but an extremely frivolous, aimless and dangerous revolution for the unity of the Church, destroying the entire character and significance of our worship for the people. Our Church Slavonic language is the great treasure of our spirit, the precious source and inspirer of our folk speech. Its strength, expressiveness, depth of thought reflected in it, the harmony of its consonance and structure of the entire speech create its inimitable beauty. And in this language, its inspired creators, brought up on the beauty and power of Hellenic speech, gave us the books of Holy Scripture, gave us the Holy Gospel, and gave us the entire text of our worship. After all, he is dear to our people from time immemorial; the normal, classical structure of the Russian language was formed on it, and the further the language of literature departs from this root, the more it deteriorates, loses its definition and clarity, and the less it becomes native and understandable to the people. All of our church singing is organically, inextricably connected with the word of the liturgical text, it is modeled on this word and is unthinkable without it. To change this text means to destroy this living, age-old connection and destroy, along with the word, all church singing and hideously distort the order of worship. We took our voice melodies from ancient Hellas and developed them, putting into them our melodious Slavic soul, and its life’s joy, and longing, and desire for the heavenly fatherland. Put a Russian made-up phrase in place of the Slavic text - censorship, and the rhythm, and the meaning of each individual phrase, and the whole mode of singing, approximated to it, will disappear; Much cannot be translated without ugly distortion. After all, how many years in distant centuries did people hear these words in prayer, and how many of them entered their souls and remained in their memory! Each of those who pray knows how another word awakened a feeling of prayer in the soul, revived a sacred image, evoked the memory of the past and previous prayer - and all this really can and should disappear!? No, apparently the current reformers of worship did not feel all this. And those who have heard it know how graceful the performance of stichera and church chants can be when sung in a choir, when every word of the song is understood and felt, and every phrase of the sacred song contains a sense of its meaning and meaning. After all, no other Church except the Orthodox has such a treasure as we have! So what? Will we really bury our sources of living water and begin to dig new wells for ourselves according to foreign models? God have mercy! The native Slavic language is understandable to every Russian person. The darkness of some lyrical chants depends not on the language, but on the heavy construction of the Greek phrase, expressing enthusiastic prayerful praise or having a mysterious meaning. To express it in Russian would mean to make it even less understandable. These are some of the verses and a few irmos of the later canons for great holidays, such as the irmos and meritorious of the second Christmas canon: “For us to love.” But the words of this irmos, in addition to the design, have meaning for the one praying, for they contain praise of the Mother of God, of sublime lyrical meaning, and its translation in a Russian phrase would be ugly and incomprehensible, and its execution in singing is impossible; in practice, it is possible to replace this irmos with the irmos of the 9th song of another canon, “Strange Sacrament,” of a different tune. However, in many churches and parishioners they would like the irmos of both canons to be performed in the Christmas service. It is impossible to admit the idea of ​​presenting the mysterious song “Like the Cherubim” in an ugly Russian phrase, and performing it in such a reworking with our inspired and artistic melodies would be unthinkable. And if it were possible to imagine the implementation of the reformers’ idea, proposing that our services be performed in a Russian adaptation of the Slavic text, many Orthodox people, with bitter resentment in their souls, would leave the Church and go to seek services from schismatics and fellow believers. Some reformers in their proposals go so far as to distort the very canon of St. Eucharist, 26 suggesting that the secret prayers of the priest, according to the order of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom about 27 and St. Basil the Great, 28 were read aloud to the people. Would one think that such proposals came from a priest who performed the mysterious sacred rite of the Liturgy of the Faithful? After all, the priest performs a mystery, and his recognition of such action obliges him not only to prepare himself before the liturgy by purifying his thoughts and spiritual concentration, but especially during the sacred rite itself to concentrate his thoughts and direct his prayerful feeling to God, and the entire congregation of believers is called upon to support the shepherd at the litanies and assist him with their prayer for the honest gifts offered! And at these moments he is invited to interrupt his prayerful mood and the very silence of the church’s prayerful mood by proclaiming the most mysterious words of prayer, and at the same time, as it were, to introduce the entire people’s assembly to the sacred act that is granted to him alone by the grace of the Holy Spirit called upon him at the laying on of hands! No! All of us, Orthodox people, must protect and preserve in full the great treasure of our worship, bequeathed to us by our ancient mother - the Church, transmitted by the faith of past generations and generations of the Orthodox Russian people. And may the freedom to use the gifts of this treasure be preserved inviolably, and may every good shepherd, like a “homely man,” continue to bring “old and new” from his treasure into the Church! The writing of this article by K. P. Pobedonostsev is also evidenced by his letter to the manager of the Moscow Synodal Printing House S. D. Voit dated March 18, 1906: “I am extremely indignant at the many nonsense that priests say at Diocesan meetings about the reforms of our worship, and I could not resist writing a short article...”. 29 Kathisma is the name of each of the twenty sections into which the Psalter is divided for reading according to the rite of Orthodox worship. psalms are prayer chants performed in the Jerusalem Temple of Yahweh during various ritual ceremonies. Among the psalms, those performed during the enthronement of the king and during the annual ritual of “the enthronement of Yahweh” stand out, as well as collective and individual prayers and repentant hymns, poems of historical content. parimaya - passages from the Old or New Testament that are read in the Orthodox Church during evening services, mainly on the eve of church holidays. irmos is the name of a liturgical song that is part of the morning canon and serves in it as a connection between the songs of Holy Scripture and the troparia. stichera - church hymns, usually preceded by verses from the psalter. clergy - the general name of the clergy of a church; church parable Litany is the name of a series of prayer petitions that form an essential part of church services in Orthodoxy. “Apostle” is a liturgical book containing the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, dividing them into chapters that are read in church during the liturgy. deacon (deacon) - a clergyman of the lowest (first) degree of the Christian church hierarchy. His duties include co-serving the bishops and presbyters during their sacraments, rites and worship, but he does not perform any of them independently. protodeacon - the first or chief deacon in a diocese, usually attached to a cathedral. The title of protodeacon can also be awarded as a church award. Macarius (1482–1563) – Russian political and church leader, writer of the 16th century; Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' since 1542. An adherent of the idea of ​​centralization in the state and church, a supporter of the Josephites, who considered autocracy a necessary support for Orthodoxy. Macarius helped strengthen the power of Ivan IV and was the inspiration for his Kazan campaigns. Ivan IV the Terrible (1530–1584) – Grand Duke from 1533, first Russian Tsar from 1547. The Stoglavy Council is a church council with the participation of Tsar Ivan IV and representatives of the Boyar Duma, held in 1551; received its name from the collection of his decrees, divided into one hundred chapters - “Stoglav”. Maxim the Greek (in the world Mikhail Trivolis, ca. 1475–1556) – writer and educator. This refers to a book of resolutions of the church council of 1551, divided into one hundred chapters, held in Moscow with the participation of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible. sexton - a clergyman in the Orthodox Church, whose duties include reading Holy Scripture and singing in the choir, church office work. Nikon (in the world Nikita Minov (1605–1681)) – the seventh Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' in 1652–1666. Liturgy is the main Christian service at which the sacrament of communion is celebrated. See: The journey of the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius to Russia in the middle of the 17th century, described by his son Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo. Vol. 1–5. M.: University Printing House, 1896–1900. Osmoglasie is a system of 8 voices (tunes) existing in Orthodox church singing: every week a voice with its texts is sung, after 8 weeks (weeks) the entire cycle (circle, pillar) of singing is repeated. Octoechos is a book of hymns of the Orthodox Church for 8 voices. Triodion - liturgical books in the Orthodox Church: Lenten Triodion and Colored Triodion. The Lenten Triodion contains chants and prayers for Lent. The colored triodion is dedicated to the glorification of Easter and subsequent holidays. Stundists - the name of a number of sects of the 60s–90s of the 19th century. In Russia. The name (from the German stunde, as evangelical circles in the German colonies of southern Russia were called at the end of the 18th century) was given by missionaries of the Russian Orthodox Church; the first sectarian communities, called Stundists, called themselves “spiritual Christians”, “evangelical Christians”, etc. The doctrine and rituals of the Stundists are Protestant in nature. Molokans are a movement in spiritual Christianity that took shape in the 60s and 70s of the 18th century. and spread intensively at the beginning of the 19th century. Pashkovites - emerged in the 70s. XIX century in Russia, a religious sect caused by the preaching of the Englishman Lord Redstock. It got its name from a supporter of the Redstock Guard, Colonel V. A. Pashkov. The Eucharist is one of the sacraments of the Christian church, which consisted in the fact that during the service believers eat bread and wine, in which, according to doctrine, the “body and blood” of Christ are embodied. John Chrysostom (c. 350–407) – Byzantine church leader, preacher, Patriarch of Constantinople in 398–404. Basil the Great (c. 330–379) - one of the church fathers, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Melgunov S.P.K.P. Pobedonostsev in the days of the first revolution (Unpublished letters to S.D. Voit) // On the other side. 1924. No. 8. P. 195.