Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hawkes-Teeples The Liturgical Commentaries of St. Symeon of Thessalonika (C. 1384-1429) and Late Byzantine Liturgy

    Uploaded by

    Andrei Dumitrescu
    241 views10 pages

    Original Title

    Hawkes-Teeples The Liturgical Commentaries of St. Symeon of Thessalonika (c. 1384–1429) and Late Byzantine Liturgy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    241 views10 pages

    Hawkes-Teeples The Liturgical Commentaries of St. Symeon of Thessalonika (C. 1384-1429) and Late Byzantine Liturgy

    Uploaded by

    Andrei Dumitrescu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES A series published by ‘The Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Nijmegen ‘and ‘The Louvain Cenire for Eastern and Oriental Christianity, Leuven Eaited by Joseph Verheyden Heleen Mure-van den Berg Alfons Bring Herman Teule Peter Van Deun Volume 28 EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 28 STUDIES IN ORIENTAL LITURGY Proceedings ofthe Fifth Intemational Congress ‘of the Society of Oriental Liturgy New York, 10-15 June 201 Bilited by Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, ‘Nina Glibetic and Gabriel Radle PEETERS LEUVEN PARIS BRISTOL,CT 2019 ‘THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA (C. 1384-1429) AND LATE BYZANTINE LITURGY Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES, ‘Among Eastern Christan ltugists, its fairly well known that St. Symeon, who was archbishop of Thessalonika from 1416/17 to 1429, was the last Iiturgical eommentator ofthe Byzantine Empire. Symeon of Thessalonilea ‘was bom in Constantinople some time around 1384, becoming a priest monk. There he enthusiastically took up the Hesychastic theology that ‘marked his works. In 1416/17 he was chosen archbishop of ‘Thessalonia, His time as archbishop was turbulent. Seemingly shortly after arriving, Syimeon sent ont a ster letter tothe clergy and people of his new diocese urging obedience and repentance Ina city surrounded by a hostile mili- tary force and struggling to survive, the fone of this opening letter most likely did not endear him to the population, Despite being fiequently il, he somehow found time to write on a wide range of theological topics. Since the city of Thessalonika was under Venetian rule from 1423, Symeon met Italian Roman Catholics. Living in ‘an era before ecumenical dialogue and interdenominational understanding he probably encountered a fairly aggressive version of fifteenth-century Roman Catholicism, It comes as no surprise then that Symeon’s writings strenuously defend Greek Onhoxiox postions and forcefully condemn what he perceives to be the filings of Roman Catholic theology and practice.? ‘As faras we know, he did not know Latin and had not reac any Wester theology. Nonetheless, many of his criticisms of Roman Cathoties do, in fac, reflect the Latin usages of his time. What is more puzzling is his even harsher judgment of the Armenian Church and their liturgy. He seems to ‘know nearly nothing about the Armenians, other than their practice of not * -Emorotitreyoliiog me rig riosom Kigons xo so ang wa siioay sy Ocrelian vai emoxoretsstePlow a Apou Fyrdy dprmentines Grocoionons{H41i17-1429) kya Bourne, Dad Balfour (hessalonica, 198, pp, 160-170" Cl. David Balfour “St. Syneon af Thesaloicn: A Polemical Hesychas SohormoaBastrn Chrches Review 41 (1980), pp. 6-21, her p. (2 David Balfour, The Plico-htorical Works SymeonArcishop of Tesalnica (14167 wo £429) Wises Byzance Stain, 13 (Viena, 159), pp, 228283, 296 S HAWKES-TEEPLES ming e clic, bit is condemnation of them ht 0 he ib cpa sh nm ay nrciton tt al lew Tape ht eden eponter 1429 Simons a he tothe Ts in ity asa on 29 Mach 8 Since Tes td flowed Syncs der ie Tas eee cong Otome ieee cy ore Uns an ened oie eee in poplin Sots sie the acne det oe ber Seon wiht ton ne ears soy ler is ces ofthe reine demand an he stern ht ole. Th well eae ofthe ai wy the Crest Onan Coch sa eae adh in 81s Syme wrote mn air ndpedent rk, cle planation of te Disne Tepes st nich sn exes comet one pa ca Divine tug he cer naon of hen ne ete bat Lam tenes thn th Seon mos kel) let apa le tervals monk and ps in Consanopl It has tere ory Suc than iret commentary Lat he ne i nse ral Doe ix Chet, whic mae up stout sceny poet ofthe Mize eon this wekss Ah does inven ov Gag emer rer tial ean tee Aismaiy sleet telogel vais. Tecoma ot Spe 2 seal condemton offers evil nee ponte ie Raman Cate Church, an en ost commen coal ga ces ofthe Byrne Orion Church Tenens wo coe + ety econ ‘On he ace Lig)? des pinay ie frat te itl pwn tebe and it forte Dea This scton crt ner tn eer tpn cummcnny tees “On the Sacred Ltgy' motion teeter Exponrn 9 e Doe Tene 5) Ths sti toh ite et of ater Dorks ged Seal moe jd tan De car Epon ofthe Dt Tenge + Mecferrtte othe to ssttis comnts wilt ata «xe othe sere seein In The itu! Commentaries of Symean Tee jn Cn Sern Heep Sate es To E indicating quotations in Explanation of the Divine Temple: for those fr the Sacred Liturgy’, fal Sip 18 2 ha POLS 386. Tis e-alon ofthe 165 eon of J, Motvdos done in i, Romani, together wih descent Latin easton, Hawkes-Teepes, Commentaries a m3) pp. 105-265, ¢ : “THe LITURGICAL.COMMENTARIES OF ST: SYMON OF THESSALONTEA 297 jumps back and forth at mes, it has a couple of repetitions, and number lf excursus, which leave behind the central argument. Reading this piece alongside the earlier one, I suspect thatthe later book were the texts di tated by a busy archbishop, finding a free moment here and thereto dictate few addtional thoughts to his reflections. It does not appear tha it was, ‘ever edited to make it more organized or clear and consistent. ‘There is, however, an interesting continuity between the two books. In the earlier Explanation the author said that be intended to discuss the prothesis extensively, but does so only rather briefly inthe closing see- tions (E 106-110). "On the Sacred Liturgy’ retums tothe prothesis and the commentary on it occupies most of that later discussion ofthe Eucharist «1. 30-116). “The key question that I would lke to explore is did Symeon change the Divine Liturgy and if so, how, When he began the work on his Explanarion of the Divine Temple in the early years of the fifteenth century, Symeon ‘was acutely aware that he was following in a venerable tradition of com ‘mentators* Like all Orthodox theologians of the Middle Ages, Symeon is strongly traditional in his orientation, Consequently, he draws extensively fn the earlier commentaries. He mentions Maxims once inthe introdu tory section ofthe earlier commentary (E 14), but his favorite authority is certainly Pseudo-Dionysius. In the two commentaries on the Divine Linurgy, Symeon quotes Dionysius by name eight times directly and refers to his commentaries indirectly many other times (E 12 and 70: L 2, 5-6, 16, 112, and 152), Symeon of course could not have known that his own works would be the conclusion ofthe tradition of liturgical commentaries in the Byzantine Empire. He died in 1429 and twenty-four years later Constantinople would fall. ‘Because Symeon and other later writers accepted the claim that Pseudo- Dionysius was « companion of St, Paul, the writings of this unknown author bad a dramatic influence on medieval Christian writers in both East and West IFhe were seen as a companion of St. Paul, how could Pseudo Dionysius not be authoritative? His Ecclesiastical Iierarchy contains & substantial commentary on the Church’ liturgical services? ® cn the Byzantine commentaries, see Rent Boren, Les Conmeniaesbyantns de Ja Dsne Lrg du VI au XV ele (Pas, 1960) ° ep icc apis Corpus Diomsaca le. Ger Hel Besin ‘and Boston 2012) CI. Jean Levey “lafluence and Nopinchce of Dionysus in the ‘ster Mile Ages nd KatiiedFroclh,Pseudo Dionysius an he Reformation af the Seucenth Century’ in Paes Dion, The Complete Wary ans. Com Laid (ew York, 1987), py. 25-32 and pp 3-46, 298 Naw TEEPLES ‘The commentaries of Symeon, as well as those of his predecessors, pose 4 very interesting and difficult question when we read them as sourass, Did the commentaries noticeably change or develop the liturgy in a par= ticular direction? Iti essentially a version of the old riddle sbout which came first: the chicken or the egg. Obviously, our medieval liturpcel texts have no footnotes as to what came from where, What we know about the development of the liturgy generally points to a number of social and ecclesiastical currents, rather than to the commentaries themselves as sources of the change. ‘Symeon, however, actually goes beyond the strict limits of commentary and develops his commentaries in a prescriptive line. As the liturgy devel- ‘oped in the Miidle Ages, especially the burgeoning ofthe preparatory rites ofthe prothesis after the year 1100, there emerged prescriptive texts called diataxs, to describe how liturgical actions should be done. The best known of these was written by Philotheos Kokkinos (ca. 1300-1379) and much of its content found its way eventually into the moder liturgical texts as rubrics in books such as the Greek feparucé and the Slavic cxyoceGima, ‘The parts of Symeon's commentaries that have a clearly ‘diataxal’ quality carry on the tradition of Kokkinos and others. For instance, one part of the liturgy which has experienced the most ramatic growth isthe Great Entrance. Inthe earlier period, as witnessed in the writings of John Chrysostom, the deacons took the censer, went ont to the skevophylakion, and brought the eucharistic gilts into the church ‘quietly. There was no accompanying chant and it does not appear that this \was a formal procession, simply a functional going and coming, It appears that et this time the deacons probably prepared the chalice inthe skeuophy- lakion, mixing wine and warm water, so thatthe chalice would be warm at ‘communion time. Undoubtedly, they brought the censer with them because they incensed the gifts in the skeuophylakion, Out of this simple, rather straightforward and functional preparation of the chalice and transfer of the prepared gifts tothe altar, there evalved ‘one of the mos ritually complex moments of the contemporary Byzantir liturgy, with is own chants, prayers, and four incensatons. It now involves ‘everyone serving in the liturgy. Its particularly stiking because today the physical displacement of the eucharistic gifts from the preparation table to the main altar — both within the sanctuary area behind the iconostasis — frequently less than twenty feet, However, the Great Entrance procession takes the gifts out into the nave of the church in procession through one Of the side doors and then brings them back solemnly through the large ‘cettral holy doors into the sanctuary, “TWE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST.SEMEON OF THESSALONICA 299 ‘Although I do not think that we can lay this development entirely a the feet of the commentaries, the Byzantine liturey developed a very strong ccurent of intexpretation, understaading the successive stages ofthe Divine Liturgy to be representations of the life of Carst. Altiough we find a bit ‘of this approach in Maximus" commentary in the seventh century, it really takes off in Germanus’ commentary a century late. By the time of Symeon inthe fiftenth century, the events ofthe life of Christ become clearly the principal interpretive key to the Divine Liturgy. Within this framework, in many commentaries the Great Entrance comes tobe secn as the funeral procession of Jesus after his crucifixion. ‘Chrysostom’s contemporary and friend, Theodore of Mopsuestia ca. 350- 428), spoke with great reverence of the transfer ofthe gifs to the altar asthe funeral procession ofthe Lord, insisting that this procession must be carried cout in total silence, a8 a sign ofthe great respect due to the Crucified King, However, because Theodore was later condemned by the emperor and by church officials in the controversy of the Three Chapters, itis unlikely that his direct influence contributed to the later developments in the Byzantine liturgy. Most of the elaborate ritual of the Great Enirance grew up ina itu tical soft point (Robert Taft) a point when the clergy have something to do at the altar while the laity has nothing to do. ‘Symeon's liturgy isin many ways relatively close fo the contemporary Divine Liturgy of Onhodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians around the world today. There ae only a handful of usages which Symeon describes that would be unfamiliar to people active in these Churches today. The ‘most notable was tha, after vesting in the nave, the bishop went t0 the main door of the cathedral and remained there. ‘This was termed the Descent to the West’. There the bishop waited for the rest of the clergy {o join him as they began the Litle Entrance, the First Procession withthe Gospel” Let us tum more directly to Symeon of Thessalonika and his commen: taries. What were some of the points he pressed more forcefully? Perhaps the frst point we might refer fois Symeon’s heavy dependence ‘on tradition and what he understood of tradition. Historical questions here tre key, but one must remember the era in which Symeon lived and what ° See my “The “Descent oth Wet” in the Liturgical Commons of Symoon of ‘tssloiea in Fis ino Eastern Chistian Woraip: Selected Papers ofthe Second Inernatonal Congest of the Society of Oreil Liturgy, Kame. 17-21 September 2008, (ds Ber Grn, Sten Hale Tepes ad Stefanos Aleopodos, EGS, 12 Leven, 212), pp 3108 300 S.HaWKES-THEPLES history was available o him. 1s all well and good for us i the ewentye fist centary to tate its obvious Pscudo- Dionysius could not possibly have been the firs-century companion of St. Paul, bacause we ean draw on a vast aay of rodem scholarship starting in the European Renaissance that shows this point quite clearly. Inthe fifteenth century Symon had no way’ ‘oT knowing clary that Pseudo-Dionysius was not Dionysius the Areopagt ofthe Act of the Apostles. Next, if one presupposes thatthe church services described in Pssudox Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ze precise descriptions of firs-cemury liturgy. den making sense of the genuine history of Cuistan liurgy would ‘become nearly impossible. This supposedly primitive text presen avery volved and ritually sophisticated liturgy. Other writings fom te third nd ourth century show much more rudimentary celebrations. How would one tal ofthis together in a coherent pattem? Given his convictions thatthe eldest usages are the test and most Orthodox, Symeon set out to establish — and, where necessary, restore — these most ancient and most reliable practices. In the opening section of Explanation of the Divine Temple, be writes, O88E yap wv tapadedosévav wawvs- For we propose nothing newer than what ‘upov ft20 rap’ Ay, ob8' & napeha- is handed down by tradition, nor have Bouey FAkorwequey, reenpicaney 36, we changed what we roeved: rather, We Se wal 10 vg wicweag ofulohov- 50ev have preserved it like the profession of 8 ap" aUto0 cod Beripos kat tv faith. Therefore, 28 handed dawn by. Airootéiov 25607 xi wav nacépa, the Savior Himself, by the apostles and obo iv Lepovpyiay ehoduey- wl by the fathers, vo also we accomplish tv 6 Kipios tepotpyner pera viv the sacred-seevice. As the Lord esl ‘kai roy liproy xhilsas brated the sacred-servce with the disc erabobs wal tO rorfpioy, ples, breaking the bread, ving itt them auolng wat f exvanoia move, rob slong with the chalice, so the Church also epipzou pert wv Lepéay tepoupyo- does, when the hirarch celebrates the vos, Kut not wecabtdovres, # kel. sacred service with the priests, and die- Tepios weve dau. Iibutes itt all ora pist with other, Todo Be kui 6 xa doatShaw jupry~ The successor ofthe aposdes, the sacred pst Suidoz0, 6 Lends gry Atovtatas, Dionus, estes to this teaching tt 10 Gi8henay Lepovpyaiv ds fwsic. the services be clebrted es we do, The ‘cl ol BonyOpe 8 Busitctos wal Xpo- God:-inspired Basil and Chrysostom, boroj0g, shy tis ocaye@ryiag Rha having St forth the order oF the myst ‘izepov Extiuovor rg, oft mapa ogy more fully, have handed down tha Sedaisaow évepyeiv df) x08" fe i should be carried out a6 our Church tecinoia- eal papeoposow aixbv al does. Ther prayers forthe scre-sevie cle nv Lepoupyla etal, su npdmny bear witness, expounding on the Tis eal Bevrépav cloodov éxBiSdoxon- snd second entrances athe ret ofthe tom, ei Rove opi tehewic. Sacro rite (E 11-12), "THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST. SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA. 301 From the perspective of what we know about liturgy today, Symeon’s assertions here are more than a bit breath-taking. He suggests that there is relatively litle change between the Last Supper of Jesus and his inner circle of disciples, the texts of Basil and John Chrysostom, and the pon- lifical Divine Liturgy he knew with many ministers and assistants. Today wwe find this hard to take seriously. Cersinly our contemporary Divine Liturgy finds its origins in that frst-century meal of our Lord with his fol- Jowers, but it takes several very large steps to get from thereto fifteenth- century Thessalonika ‘The one liturgical change that Symeon knows of and of which he approves is the custom of receiving communion by a spoon. In the Tater ‘marginal notes added to the Zagora 23 ms, he writes ‘Ng sa toig halkotg xpdrepov £895. So als it was the custom for the laity jv obzo wowovely wal p01 Zayie_ to receive communion thus, receiving it voaw 9 prow, kal at Exe 20 i their hands as the sith Counc sid ‘rovbdav robe5 ono Bacepov 88 40% Later the ators thought that commaunion Frzpion haps wowwovety B8aGe cois. should be given tothe laity by a spoon Frode ba rive tayey0v6r0. ‘cause of some incidents (L 95)" Pott and Muksuris explain that the segment of the modem liturgy, ‘which developed last chronologically is ironically that which is carried out in contemporary usage, the prothesis. During this preparatory ritual 4 roughly square portion is cut out of a small round loaf. The square por- ‘ion is the Lamb, the central bread to be consecrated in the Divine Lit- ‘ergy. Its worth noting that, while Symeon’s usage misrors contemporary liturgy at many points, he does not use dhe modem terminology, in which this portion of bread is usually called the “lamb” (Greek dyvés, Slavoni arneus). In Symeon’s usage and thet of present-day churches, a number ‘of other smaller pieces of bread are cut out and placed on the plate next co the Lansb, There are ten commemorations for the saints and an unspecified number for the living and the deceased. Finally, the gifts are covered and incensed, and a concluding prayer for the preparatory ritual is said. With exception ofthe concluding prayer, which is far older than the rest of the the prothesis began to develop in the eleventh century. ® ° On he use of the spoon foe communion, see chapter 4 of Robert Tat, The Com muni, Thassghing. and Contin Rts, A History of te Divine Lugy of St.John (Ceysosom, 6, OCA, 281 (Rome, 2008), pp. 262-315. Secon 3. Muar, Econ and Eschatology: Lirica Mysagoy nthe By antine Prot Rt, (Brookline MA, 2013} nd Tomas Pot, Bgaine Ltr! Reform, tun Paul Meyer. The Ona Lig Series, 2 (Creniwod NY, 2010), 302 S. HAWRES-TEEPLES 1k certainly appears tha, in ts eariest sat, puting some bread ona plate ‘and pouring some wine into a cup were most likely seen as purely practical functions to be performed by anyone, regardless of rank. These would have ben like opening the door or lighting a candle to be able to see, something ‘done by whoever happened to arrive fist, regardless of his o her eccesiag tical rank. In the arly Byzantine petiod, most of the preparation had become «function of the deacons, who accepted the offerings in the skeuophlakion and then chose which bread and wine to use. A bishop or priest would have ‘come by and said our concluding prayer in the skeuophylakion on his way into the cathedral cis worth noting that although our present ritual involves 8 preparation of both the bread and the wine, the concluding prayer tl in ‘use mentions only the bread. That feature most likely indicates that i origi nated ata point when the chalice was prepared with hot water shortly before being brought into the church? In the middle Byzantine period after the tim of the millennium the preparation of the gifts became more formal and ritualized. With this ‘development, it became more sicerdvalized and considered tobe a priestly function, in which deacons only assisted in secondary role. Symeon comes on the scene toward the end of this process. He writes O8be yp C6y35 RpooeEpsw Staxé- For i isnot permitted for deecons 10 vou 6 Eauriv, éxct yptoua to make offerings on ther own, since they Rpooxonitetv Oc of Exava. duixe- do not have the gift of offering the vot tip slot ch hettoupyeety ABiay proskomidé to God. For deacons have Exovses wsvov. et obv od Bovacdv only the “liturgie’ dignity. So if its lairoig fepanixdy év6éeaeBn fpiov not possible for them even to put a Biya etnorias dpzicpéas f Lepting, priestly vestment without the blessing ‘of évipSuoba cir lepas eeheriz of a bishop ora pres, nor to begin any Given apeopurépon f ethozlas rod xpe- sacred rte without a priest ora Bessing ‘oPorépov, nis dpa obcos 81" bavtod how then could he offer pooxopiet, kat el 8 wavy dnaye- i by htmselF? Ana ifthe pete Butcovov np roU epéws wexa- canon orbids a deacon to consume ‘ozziv wai cv ripley Sépav cehua- the holy consecrated gifts before the éveoy, Tax sypoin sh Eavrod 261 priest, so that each one might keep to xuaros, ng BV sols Bpors epooKe- his own order, how will deacon offer ices Séxowos the proskomidé ofthe gts? Aw 1 xplv yweyevov ty @caauha- Therefore, what formerly occured in ving, eal viv ev 79 dig pe x8ABg, Thessalonika and now occurs on the 16 Braxévo0s xpooweper, ote eta oly mountain of Athos, that isthe de ‘tov 08" dpiSdiov. ai xpooextéoy cons making offerings, does not fellow ® Robert Tall The Precommunion ies, A soy of the Liturgy of St.John Cys ‘om, 5.OCA, 261 (Rome, 2000, p. 441-472 ("The Ze) {THE LITERGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST SYMON OF THESSALONIEA, 303 so mpi eita, et 1g sy Suaxbvor god ode nis ot appre. And Spangupat osteo Ou ners one ought o pay atnton boot dis Tee Soeur bur sob epeobecpov It aay of the deacons wishes out of Sih Boel: meceyortes hiv cot duty fo offer 4 particle to God, te Spuapettpas ev mpoogoply nl yf do i hoagh the pst wih che Jeegnv val beep Eeayenene pepe. priest hong the prophore and the retattoe uttpcesetat, Kies chy lane, sying sx be remove the patie dgiov saben trap. tod Belvoer, “Rectve, Ln, thn sc for Na in sighe uv nal mvgpmg ses a honor and memory of SUN. in prop Ml acqon Se tel igurae tes tation ané remission of the Ting. Se viveanh ebvesrone: rob bun or te devessed Nhe deacon S68 Sou\Gb ov dor hepds heyoreoy foreach pre, "Remember, Lor “Sion Kip nb “heel No al enon af wl iunge ob otkest fiona he wise, o forte romisson sree: Gkancou by zpela’ Eger each one having howd orale 0 ty SSinov'o nal dxprBloropor Reyew” more procly, “Remember, Maser “Mods: Béoneuon, Crip &y Bos N°, fr whomever he wishes, Fr is ‘bea oO8 yap tbe tote vey nothing erie foe hint offer uP perv apbs O1oy tag Sunes mapas 10 God sich words wih a rest present Too topes Liste, So deacons had been performing the prothesis in Thessalonika and ‘were apparently continuing to do so on Mi. Athos, the venerable monas- tic republic. Symeon then goes on to say that preparing the gifts is clearly and plainly a priestly function, Thus obviously the tradition ofthe Church from ancient times on has always been that priests perform the prothesis. Allowing deacons to do this is according to Symeon a later corruption of the pristine practice of the Fathers and of the ancient Church. Here Symeon is wrong, In fact, the developments were s0 close to his time tha it s hard to understand how he did not know otherwise. Here one might be inclined to conclude that Symeon’s writings influ- ‘enced the liturgy in its subsequent development. In contemporary usage ‘bishop ora priest always does the ritual with a deacon assisting if pos- sible. However, I fear that we might be giving Symeon too much eredit here. The increasing priestly character ofthe prothesis started long before ‘Symeon and it was moving the liturgy in an unmistakable direction of preater ritualization and more emphasis on te priest and his role. On this point, the history would have probably been quite the same even if Symeon had never weitten a word about the liturgy. ‘Symeon was very concemed about the roles in the liturgy. He wanted to-make sure that priests, deacons, eaders, and lay people carried out their Appointed liturgical roles and only their own appointed roles. The tem for this in Symeon's Greck vocabulary would be irord or subordination, 308 SMW TEAL ‘The word only occurs once in these commentaries (L 25), but Symeon. frequently speaks in other words of maintaining the appropriate order in church services. Among other passages, Symeon's lengthy discussion of the order of those coming forward for communion ean seem to a contene porary reader excessive (L 139-155). Unfortunately, Symieon does not tell Ls exactly what problems he encountered leading to this discussion, so we ‘cannot judge how appropriate or otherwise his rexction may have been. ‘Thore ae, however, definitely two liturgical usages for which Symeon argued strenuously, and those two did not endure: the ancient sung eathe- ral office and the bishop serving without a miter. ‘The original cathedral liturgy of the hours in Hagia Sophia in Constan- linople was the dxokontia dcutsue roughly the ‘Sung Office”. This local ‘tradition was subject wo a iong process of change and evolution and event: ally disappeared, being replaced by a largely monastic office." However, surprisingly the old solemn Sung Office did continue to be celebrated in ‘Thessalonika. Symeon seems to have loved it and even composed some. ‘hymns to be used in it. There is a lengthy section of Symeon’s Diae logue in Christ, in which be discusses the older offic." As the chaos of the Frankish occupation doomed the Sung Office in Constantinople, so the destruction of the Turkish conquest of Thessalonika months after Syme- ‘on's death sadly finished it off inthis city as wel, In the earlier commentary, the archbishop speaks of episcopal headgear and says, ‘Anepuxuhinnp 63 tA kegel of cig All th priests and hierarchs ofthe East, avatonii tepdpam ravers cai tepets, except that of Alexandra, perform the wav soli cig. AnesavSpoiac, chy sacred-service with the head uncovered, Iepoopriay telotw, ob eur" dee This snot because of some neglect, Bl iy va, dd wart hSpov bynAdsepov indeed, fora very lnty and divine reason, ta at GerSeepov. a) & 6 Bery6- 1) Paul he speaker about-God, set dows eg Fabio; ioviOnox wut SidHoxsx, as e principle and taught that Crist s See Stefan Puen, “The Catbedal Rite of Corstainople: Evolution of & Los ‘Tatton’, OCP 77 2011}. pp 49-460; Alevaner Lng, How Masia wash “Sing (Otiee”? Some Obseriton on the Eos of the Byranine Cathal Rien The Tae tion of Orthodox Mase: Proceedings ef th First Inerational Conference on Orthos (Carch Mus, Universi of foensua, Finland, 15-19 June 2005, eds. fan Moly a ‘Marin Talal Roseczenko (loenso, 2007, yp 217.24 ' Eu dppumoninoo roocloleys vi cipack erp, 1; Big xa ‘ery Joan's Foumols, ep grok eal Ocohoyh, 10 Tasaonk, 1968). "Tepe rpoctuy ha" PO, 133: 536669, cspecily 6248-5190: Teag ‘on Prayer: An Bplanrian of he Servicer Conducted in the Orthodox Carchby Soo of Thesslonik, ins. HN. Simons, Archbishop lkovos itary of eke and Pastoral Soices, 9 (Brookline MA, 1984, especially pp. 7-88. ‘THE LITURGICAL COMMENTARIES OF ST SYMEON OF THESSALONIKA 305 pu ya Av bv Xprov 6yo- our hed and we ae His limbs, o itis saw wn Bb ig aot, nat neces) Tor those honoring Chest out ei eyivas fyv sv sega Ov ead to have heads uncovered when Xpioniv depiieroug Eyetv vas prying. 2) And not for this reason touhig fv npooeizecta.f xa lone, but also becuse the oe being ob fib oito pbvow. did" Ga xa yur orded recevesornation with his sisegoaf uv aziporoviay 8 zeipoco- head bar, a one ordained obliged 0 votuevos Bix, wut oft deter pray and to cele the srred-seric, Ss Exe1por0 via Rpoosizcea eal 3) The horarch mot of ll should have Uepovotie. 1 8 tpt ike, no other covering on his ead whence fet yexporovotyevos én negate shang the most divin screen ic, yet sh Osoraphibore hey, Heot 70 for when ordi, has the Gos given lepov Btrrtitov, ox iho dniBina Wor that isthe sacred Gospel, paced {now éxi egag Soc ty np on his hed lchoopyety ee Berar ‘AIX tows épet ug, Kal 2owdv éxl But perhaps someone wil ask, ‘So are zpaailsFyew 6 Aiedavipcing lepov the Alexandrian patnarch, and Very xu xa 2201 G8 wicioror many others who according to ancient ati sup dpzuioy, obx elds uadition leave @ secre covering on 0.06 O8 rod pnp mdnevo je thet head stn na manne te Ot vip dunia spd tovs Eveprobvece hay?" donot say this for ta as) apaooi, dai vounoxépa pA.ew an ancien titi fo those who do 0, fospe repeat 6 vou Opytepes Ext bu ts moe typeof th lewis ‘ii xagoh ig ibapy fv oh wt plgpav fer he high pies ofthe Law wore on Sxuaow, xb vol ol epnblne- his head & "Riaris', which was indeed vow Tepdpym todto eihotar eakv. also called a miter, ined the net 1 #Sopoobv Ezovew alzo wai aTchs wearing it pofr to eal Pe 405 Aorta» deevsing ovelv, fas they resemble the Land's crown of

    You might also like