Of Information and Belief

Rule for Reading the Psalter Over the Departed

There are multiple rules in use for reading the Psalter over the departed or chanting it in memory of one who has reposed.  The following is the rule included by David James in his Russian Orthodox Psalter.  Since it does not rely on reciting the kathisma troparia and prayers, it is readily compatible with Holy Transfiguration Monastery's Psalter According to the Seventy.  You may want to note the alternate prayers at the end for praying for those who have departed outside of the Orthodox faith.  The following text was produced by David James; I have made a few formatting changes for the purposes of posting it on this web-log.

Except on certain days established in the yearly liturgical cycle, Saturday's have been set aside to commemorate the departed in the Orthodox Church. 

Russian Orthodox Psalter

I know I've sounded its horn before, but I cannot say enough good things about David James's The Russian Orthodox Psalter.  As I have mentioned previously on the blog, this edition of the Psalter is a revision of the beautiful Coverdale Psalter in line with the Slavonic Psalter currently used by the Russian Orthodox Church.  At the same time, it contains some beautiful reminders about the universality of this great book of worship, including use of Hebrew lettering for the octaves of Psalm 118 and the acrostics of 110, 111, and 144 along with incorporating the Latin incipits of St. Jerome's Vulgate Psalter.  Each kathisma contains the penetential prayers and troparia found in the Slavonic Psalter and rubrics on how one should begin and close the reading of the Psalms is included as well.  Other "standards," such as the Nine Biblical Odes, the Psalm verses and Megalynaria for the Feasts, and commentaries from the Fathers are also part of this edition. 

While I have come to the defense of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery Psalter According to the Seventy before and still believe that it ought to be the "liturgical standard" given its widespread use, were I to go back and "start over," I would start with this book in an instant.  For those new to Orthodoxy or have yet to accustom themselves to a particular prayer book, there is no better volume to have than this.  One can not only pray the daily order of kathismata with it, but also included are rules to substitute for the daily services, including the ancient monastic Rite for Singing the Twelve Psalms and the Rule of St. Pachomius the Great.  Also included is a daily Commemoration which should be recited at least once daily and St. Ambrose's Te Deum. 

You can order a bound copy of the book (and preview it in PDF) here.  I have noticed that since the provisional printed edition James provided me was issued, he has included in footnotes on the rule for chanting the Psalms for the Departed a separate prayer for non-Orthodox.  Given how many converts with largely non-Orthodox families are now in the Church, it's an important and welcome addition. 

Octoechos

Outside of the circle of "liturgical nerds" who lurk in strange places on the Internet or on the kliros, there seems to be some mystification over what some of the service books of the Orthodox Church actually contain.  In talking with a friend recently, they remarked that it would "be great" to have an opportunity to recite many of the daily services of the Church, but the purchase of a 12-volume Menaion is out of reach.  (For the record, the Holy Transfiguration Monastery edition is $1200 and can only be ordered as a complete set; the St. John of Kronstadt Press's 2nd edition--when combined with the reprint volumes from the first--runs approximately $1350, though each volume can be ordered individually.)  The cheapest alternative to purchasing the Menaion is to use the General Menaion.  The most complete and readily available edition in English is available online for free here.  For those not interested in reading off a computer screen, you can have all of the files double-sided printed in B&W and comb-bound at your local Kinkos for relatively cheap (just tell them you're "taking bids" when you walk in).  If you can print the pages yourself or use your workplace's printer, it's even cheaper.

The main drawback to the General Menaion is that it is, well, general--sometimes a bit too general.  Outside of the hymns for major commemorations, such as those of our Lord and His Mother, there is a noticeable lack of flexibility in many of the stichera, sessional hymns, and canon troparia used.  A number of the hymns are directly lifted from specific Saints in the actual Menaion and are therefore difficult to transfer to others who, though falling in the same "class," lived much different lives and performed quite distinct deeds from their fellow friends of Christ.  If you know the life of a particular Saint you are commemorating quite well and you can think on your feet (or read the texts in advance), this isn't a prohibitive problem.  Even persons and parishes who happen to own a Menaion still find the General Menaion useful to cover local or obscure Saints who either don't have a full service or haven't had their service translated into English (yet).  In short, it's worth having around--at least on file.

For those who have some money to spend, the best alternative and/or supplement to the General Menaion is a full Octoechos.  The only complete and readily available edition is published by St. John of Kronstadt Press and will run you $160.  They're not physically attractive volumes, but their comb-binding allows them to lay open easily.  Since they are based on the Slavonic Octoechos used in the Russian Church, there are some divergences from the Greek text.  However, until HTM or some other enterprising body gets on the ball, it's the only complete edition around.  Contrary to some misconceptions out there, the Octoechos does not  contain just the eight-tone cycle of hymns for Sundays and supplemental hymns during the week.  (There are, however, a number of Sunday-only Octoechos volumes available, including a beautiful edition from the Church of the Nativity; the longstanding translation from the Monastery of the Veil; and a free online edition here.)  Outside the periods of the Triodion and Pentecostarion, the Octoechos allows you to recite the daily cycle of services in their entirety.  Each day contains hymns which can be substituted for a Menaion service.  The cycle aligns with the daily troparia and kontakia found in most Orthodox prayerbooks (e.g., Monday - Angels; Tuesday - St. John the Baptist; Wednesday - Cross; etc.).  If you own an Horologion which has the yearly cycle of dismissal hymns and kontakia, you can use those or simply default to the daily troparia and kontakia which are widely available.  You can also download the excellent Menologion 3.0 which contains the entire yearly cycle of troparia and kontakia, including ones for a number of lesser-known Western Saints.

One of the practical benefits of relying solely on the Octoechos for a private rule of prayer is that it spares you the hassle and acrobatics of flipping through up to five service books (and perhaps a number of loose-leaf papers) while trying to maintain a prayerful mind and attitude.  If you happen to be interested in learning the eight tones (particularly those who follow the contemporary Slavic tradition), it's much easier to do when you can dedicate yourself to a single tone a week rather than having to switch between two or more tones over the course of a single service.  (If you're like me, however, and only musically inclined in the presence of Angels and little children who don't know any better, then you may just want to intone the hymns.)  If there are certain Saints you have a particular dedication to, you can always use the General Menaion, purchase a single-service from the St. John of Kronstadt Press (though the cost can add up pretty quickly), or search online to see if some magnanimous soul has put a translation up online for free.  For major feastdays, particularly if you aren't able to get to church for whatever reason or have to miss one of the services, the Festal Menaion, translated by Mother Mary and +Kallistos, is readily available from St. Tikhon's Seminary Press.  Given the depth and beauty of these major festal hymns, the General Menaion makes a poor substitute and, in my humble opinion at least, should be avoided for these important portions of the liturgical calendar.

Now, of course, if you go ahead and purchase something like the St. John of Kronstadt Press Order of Divine Services or its yearly liturgical calendar, you'll probably despair that you're not "doing the services" correctly.  Some people let this get to them, but I don't know why.  Make due with what is in your means, at least until Orthodoxy in America gets its act together, duly compensates the laborers engaged in noble translation efforts, and furnishes all of this material online for free.  During Great Lent, you probably will want a copy of the Tridion.  The Pentecostarion is still harder to come by, though unlike the order for Lenten services, it's not nearly as difficult to make the Octoechos "fit."  Nothing, of course, prevents you from adapting hymns from the Octoechos (particularly the canons of Compline and Matins) into a private prayer rule.  Both the Jordanville Prayer Book and the Old Orthodox Prayer Book provide rubrics for inserting canons and/or akathists into their respective morning and evening prayer rules.  But the most important thing is to use the books once you have them and don't get hung-up on rubrics.  Besides, most parishes bungle them all the time.  I doubt St. Peter is keeping score at the Gates of Heaven.

Sex

In light of some recent discussions, these lines from St. Gregory Palmas's "Homily Fifty-Two: Delivered on the Feast of the Entry of our Exceedingly Pure Lady, the Mother of God, into the Holy of Holies," in The Homilies (Mt. Thabor Publishing, 2009):

For the physical impulse to reproduce is involuntary and does not obey the law of our mind, although some do bring it forcibly into subjection, while others chastely give rein to it solely for the purpose of begetting children.  Nevertheless, it brings with it the symbols of original condemnation, and this is what is called corruption, and rightly so, for it obviously gives birth to offspring that will perish, and it is the passionate urge of human beings who did not retain the dignity assigned to our nature by God, but have become like beasts.

Eastern Others

The Ochlophobist brought to my attention an upcoming conference, "2010 Orthodox Constructions of the West," from Fordham University's Orthodox Christian Studies Program.  He makes some poignant remarks about the conference's abstract here.  One part of the abstract which Och didn't specifically focus on, but which caught my eye, was the following:

By creating this opposition to the “West,” do Orthodox communities not only misunderstand what Western Christians believe but, even more egregiously, have they come to believe certain things about their own tradition and teachings that are historically untrue?   The importance of addressing these questions is not simply limited to the theological realm.  There is evidence of anti-democracy and anti-human rights rhetoric coming from traditional Orthodox countries that have recently been liberated from communism, and this rhetoric often associates liberal forms of democracy and the notion of human rights in general as “Western” and, therefore, not Orthodox.  In other words, the self-identification vis-à-vis the “West” is affecting the cultural and political debates in the traditional Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe.

I won't get into whether or not Orthodox communities--either abroad or right here in the United States--misunderstand Western Christianity and what Western Christians believe.  I suspect that a great many Western Christians living in the U.S. misunderstand what their confession-of-choice actually holds to be true and probably have only a vague grasp of what the five people living next door to them actually believe.  I don't believe Orthodox are automatically exempt from misunderstanding other confessions or even their own, though Orthodox Christians may be in a better position than Christians of other stripes to understand their tradition if they are able to participate fully in the liturgical life of the Church.  (Of course, I won't pretend for a moment that there will be people speaking and/or attending this conference who would hold that the liturgical life of the Church contributes to the misunderstanding and ought to be "purified.")  As for the matter of "historical truth," there are more tales than evidence; any colorful anecdote can upset a monotone portrait.  I wonder: Does Orthodoxy, nay, does the world need another gathering of scholars to parade the momentary as momentous and the accidental as epochal?

To be honest, what struck me more about the abstract was its implicit horror that "[t]here is evidence of anti-democracy and anti-human rights rhetoric coming from traditional Orthodox countries."  So what if there is?  No matter how you creatively reinterpret history from Athens to the Americas, liberal democracy and the attendant human rights discourse are of relatively recent vintage.  Both were fertilized by the decayed corpse of Western Christian civilization and neither, intellectually speaking, tenable on its own.  Naturally, calling either construct "Western" is not enough on its face to undermine their veracity; but what is commonly thought of as "the West" has done a sufficient job in dispelling both.  It may be politically expedient for some political leaders and social thinkers in States which have traditionally had large Orthodox populations to resort to rhetorical shortcuts like decrying "the West" to cast dark clouds of suspicion over liberal democracy and human rights, but noting that fact doesn't rehabilitate either.  It simply retells some basic truths about information costs and the dissemination of knowledge.

Despite the air of scholarly detachment which surrounds the abstract, there is little reason to suppose that the conference's organizers and most of the attendees are not friends of liberal democracy and the human rights discourse.  But even assuming Orthodox Christians in States which traditionally have had large Orthodox populations are "re-educated" on their own history, it may--though will likely not--lead to some Orthodox accepting ideological constructs which are not only intellectual untenable but still remain divorced from the Christian tradition (broadly understood).  This is not to say that there are not avenues within the Christian tradition (again, broadly understood) which could lead to a successful construction of a democratic society where rights have a role to play.  But that would be something distinct from these outgrowths of secularization.  But is that really what's at issue at this conference or is it not rather a revulsion at the notion that there are "Eastern Others," those rabidly nationalistic, backwards, superstitious and fearful lot, with their poor dental hygiene and alcohol addictions, ready to perform abortions en masse and engage in ethnic cleansing at the drop of a hat, who simply cannot accept Western values?  I wonder...

 

Uranopolitism

My friend Jacob, at his web-log Incendiary, has an English-translation of the final interview with Fr. Daniel Syosyev up.  Fr. Daniel was martyred two weeks ago for his attempt to fulfill Christ's Great Commission.  From the interview:

Where is a Christian’s homeland, the cares of which his heart must be overflowing with? Where is the place that Orthodox can call home? In recent years, I have heard a lot of discourse on this subject. As a homeland we have been offered Russia, the Soviet Union, and America, the “the land of liberty.” In the name of the people or the state, we are offered to consent to a crime or dedicate our life to the service of the fatherland, the nation. It is suggested that we consider the well being of that land where we were fated to be born or where our ancestors were born to be the greatest value, and we are reproached with the question of why the Church “does not fight for the rights of the people,” or, on the other hand, they write that “the Church always served Russia” (from the banner of a suburban Moscow church). Instead of all of this I suggest to return to words of Scripture which have been forgotten by many, “…here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come” (Hebrews 13:14). Our only and eternal Homeland is heaven. Our Father lives there, our fellow citizens, the saints, are there, the Church will find there eternal peace after a long war with the devil.

. . .

Uranopolitans are members of the Body of Christ, which exceeds kinship of language and unity according to citizenship by state, and that is why the interests of the Universal Church are more important for us than any remaining interests. Only the one who has become a true citizen of heaven is capable of true freedom, about which the Savior said, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Saturday

I'm not one for literary criticism, mostly because I vowed to myself I would have no more to do with the scholarly study of literature after enduring two awful courses in American and British literature during my freshman year of college.  (At the time this was a "bold move" on my part since I had every intention of majoring in English and trying to teach it to high schoolers.)  Even so, I have been trying to give some thought to Richard Peaver's remark in the introduction to his and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation of The Idiot that the novel "is built on [an] eschatological sense of time," i.e., "the desolate time of Holy Saturday, when Christ is buried, the disciples are scattered and--worse than that--abandoned."  One connection which came to mind was what Biblical scholars tell us was the "original ending" to the Gospel of Mark:

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. 

That is not the triumphant ending of canonical Mark, with Christ's appearance to Mary Magdalene and His admonition for the Apostles to "go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature."  Rather, it is bewilderment and sorrow giving way to fear.  Without engaging the multifaceted question over what St. Mark might have intended by such an ending if, indeed, such an ending was ever really his and not an academic construct, the time captured in verse 16:8 seems to be the time we now live in.  For like the women who came to Christ's tomb, we have heard "He is risen" and "we shall see Him" (cf. 16:6-7).  But it appears to me that when we look for ourselves, we are more afraid than joyful; confused rather than heartened; and preferring to tell no one what we have or have not seen.

Is there something to this?  There is a common tale that the modern world has tried, convicted, and executed God.  It is believed by many--so many that it has become something of a "fact."  There is a more plausible view that though God was put on trial, He was not so much convicted as he was mocked out of court.  Cf. Leo Strauss, Philosophy & Law pp. 29-30 (Eve Adler trans., 1995).  Whether convicted or simply jeered, it hasn't altered the reality that we live in a world which at least treats the latter as true and, in its nomos, accepts the death story as final.  If Friday has passed, then it seems we remain suspended in Saturday: there is mourning; there is anger; there is hostility and confusion; and in it all there are rarely signs of hope or, rather, notice of hope.  The Promise is forgotten--perhaps even willfully abandoned in the face of such maddening uncertainty. 

In The Idioit, Ippolit's "Explanation" contains a meditation on the (in)famous Christ painting by Holbein.  It speaks of the marks of suffering on the face, the bruises, the swelling--all attached to a body beaten, broken, and bloodied.  After being taken down from the Cross, Christ was placed in the sepulchre; the images of his death were surely imprinted on the minds of His immediate followers; but for most--even the Apostle Paul when he "preached Christ crucified"--it was His Resurrection that remains most immediate.  Neither the Romans nor the Jews paraded Christ's body through the streets or attempted to put it up on display so that His death would have a final and lasting impression.  Today, the fable of God's death is proclaimed loudly, accompanied by horrific tales and images to ensure that not only every one accepts this death as true, but so absolutely final as to remain unquestionable.  If a body were available, it would be paraded, hung up, and given further strikes post mortem.  Death is not enough; the eradication of hope is the true end. 

Liberal Tolerance Redux

There has been some poignant criticism of the Manhattan Declaration, not all of which I agree with.  While I may be accused of being bias toward a friend, I would say the Ochlophobist's remarks come the closest to calling the declaration's purpose and intent into question.  (Heck, he even got a nod from the "Crunchy Con" for it.)  Not surprisingly, there are far more indignant remarks coming out of both Christian and secular Left circles.  Most of the criticism is paint-by-numbers fare: ideological and unintelligent.  I am sure that was expected by the initial signers of the declaration and all of the subsequent signatories as well.  In fact, the dissent was probably welcomed.  As the old saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity (especially in this day and age).  But sometimes the publicity itself contains a great deal which is bad. 

Last Friday's edition of the L.A. Times ran an op-ed entitled, "Christian Leaders' Stance on Civil Disobedience Dangerous."  This rather incoherent piece of dribble starts off by telling us first that the debate concerning "civil disobedience" has "acquired a new complexity with the advent of societies such as the United States, in which laws were enacted by elected representatives and not decreed by a monarch or dictator" before reminding its readers that "civil disobedience is rightly regarded as the exception that proves that the proper redress for unjust laws lies in legislation or in court rulings based on the Constitution."  How?  But, more fundamentally, why is there greater complexity in a liberal democracy than in a monarchy?  The "tyranny of the majority" is no more egregious in principle than the tyranny of the one and, in the case of both abortion and same-sex marriage where judicial imposition not democratic elections have determined the laws governing these matters, something more akin to the latter is at issue.  It closes out by admonishing Christian leaders who vocalize "civil disobedience" and informing the public at large that when said leaders do so, they lose their authority to help shape the rules.  (Where in the Constitution it says this I know not.)

The op-ed piece reminds me of an online piece from Commentary by Jonathan Tobin entitled, "ADL Crosses the Line with Report Bashing Obama Critics."  While Tobin recognizes that there has been a great deal of unmeasured rhetoric concerning the President, he notes the similarities between it and epithets the Left mustered against G.W.B.  More importantly, however, Tobin brings to the fore the troubling trend toward trying to silence dissent.  The new "consensus" being that if one disagrees with the present Democratic regime and its liberal policies, you're not so much being "un-American" (because that is a Right-wing polemical category) so much as dangerous or a threat to Democracy. 

By this point in my life, I ought to resign myself to the fact that these types of attacks are "business as usual" for the Left.  I've come to the point where I can't help but make light of it, warning my class once that I am the worst sort of conservative because I'm religious.  (The only acceptable conservative in legal academia is the fiscal sort.)  People laughed when I said that, but that's because people have a strange habit of giggling over the obvious.  I have been involved in more than one conversation with relatively intelligent persons who sincerely believe that any criticism levied against Obama is tantamount to a racist diatribe.  The close parallels come from those who, in all sincerity, believe that "pro-life" means "misogynist" and support for "traditional marriage" (or even the State taking itself out of the marriage business altogether) being rooted in "homophobia."  I don't doubt for a second many on the Right trade in equally opprobrious epithets and hyperbole, but at least they are called to account for it.  When the Left does it, it's always in the service of some greater project of socio-cultural engineering--one which is supposed to finally give us that enlightened polity people have been bantering about for centuries.

Icon

Since his repose in May, I have made a point to visit my grandfather's grave every time I get back home to Michigan.  On one of the hills overlooking the cemetery there is a reproduction of the Lady of Częstochowa icon.  For what it's worth, the fact that the most revered object in Poland is an icon which is equally venerated by both Catholics and Orthodox has always heartened me.  What divides "West" from "East" is not illusory; but in places the curtain is quite thin.  In this case, it makes perfect sense.  Even brothers who violently hate one another still love their Mother.

Out With the New, In With the Old?

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is contemplating a return to the Julian Calendar starting next year.  See here.  While the report only focuses on the Feast of the Nativity, surely the decision would mean a full realignment of the ecclesial calendar.  The Bulgarian Church has been on the "Revised" Julian since 1916.  The OCA, on the other hand, has (mostly) been on the "Revised" calendar since 1982.  [*cough* *cough*]