St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology

Liturgy of the Byzantine Rite

Damaskinos Olkinuora

https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/LiturgyoftheByzantineRite

Citation
Olkinuora, Damaskinos. . 'Liturgy of the Byzantine Rite', St Andrews Encyclopaedia
of Theology. Edited by Brendan N. Wolfe et al. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/
LiturgyoftheByzantineRite Accessed: 17 November 2024

Copyright information
Copyright © Damaskinos Olkinuora CC BY-NC

ISSN 2753-3492
Liturgy of the Byzantine Rite
Damaskinos Olkinuora

The present entry deals with the Byzantine rite, a term employed here in its broad meaning
to refer to the liturgical tradition of Eastern Chalcedonian Christians. These are Eastern
Orthodox and various Eastern rite Catholics, who share a common liturgical tradition
shaped in the Eastern parts of Christian world among those in communion with the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. After a brief exploration of its historical development in the
two main centres of Byzantine liturgical life – Palestine and Constantinople – the current
structure of the received tradition of the Byzantine rite is described. Special attention
will be given to the three eucharistic liturgies in contemporary use of Basil the Great and
John Chrysostom, and the ‘liturgy’ of the pre-sanctified gifts. Finally, some theological
considerations of the character of the Byzantine rite shall be provided, based mainly
on historical Byzantine liturgical commentaries. Sacraments – called ‘mysteries’ in the
Byzantine tradition – are treated only briefly.

Keywords: Liturgy, Hymnography, Orthodox, Tradition, Church calendar, Rites, Eucharist

1
Table of contents
1 Definition of the Byzantine rite

2 History of the Byzantine rite

2.1 Palestinian liturgy

2.2 Constantinopolitan liturgy

2.3 Liturgical synthesis

2.4 After Byzantium

3 Structure of the received tradition

3.1 Liturgical cycles

3.1.1 Daily and weekly cycle

3.1.2 Annual cycle

3.2 Liturgical books

3.3 Eucharistic liturgies

3.3.1 St Basil

3.3.2 St John Chrysostom

3.3.3 Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

3.3.4 Other liturgies

4 Theology of the Byzantine rite

4.1 Eucharistic theology

4.2 Notion of ‘liturgical time’

4.3 Liturgical mimesis

5 Conclusion

2
1 Definition of the Byzantine rite
It seems that during the first centuries of the early Christian church, various local liturgical
traditions were in use. This prehistory of Eastern liturgy must be passed over for two
reasons: firstly, not much is known of these liturgies and, second, their examination would
fall beyond the scope of this article. What is of more interest is what happened afterwards.
Gradually, a process of systematizing these varying local traditions took place, and this
resulted in a small number of more widely employed liturgical rites. One of these is the so-
called Byzantine rite, used by the contemporary Eastern Orthodox Churches (as opposed
to the Oriental Churches, such as the Ethiopian, Armenian, and Syro-Jacobite Churches,
that have their own rites) and the Eastern Catholic churches, including most notably the
Ukrainian Greco-Catholic church and the Arabic-speaking Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
There are also various autonomous groups within the Catholic church that follow the
Byzantine rite, as well as instances in the Lutheran and Anglican spheres. However, the
Eastern Orthodox remain the largest group employing it.

In scholarship, the term ‘Byzantine rite’ is also sometimes used as a historical term
to denote the rite of the East Roman capital, Constantinople, as opposed to the other
Greek-speaking local liturgical rites, such as that of Palestine. However, in this present
article the term is primarily used to describe the received liturgical tradition of the Eastern
Orthodox churches, the result of a centuries-long developmental process in which the
divide between Constantinopolitan and Palestinian practice was largely harmonized.

The ‘Byzantine’ moniker refers to the rite’s origins in Greek-speaking Christian

communities, roughly during the period when the Eastern Roman Empire (commonly
referred to as ‘Byzantium’) existed as an independent state (from the fourth century up
to 1453), and which was the formative period of the received tradition. However, the term
should not be understood as limiting itself to the political borders of Byzantium: rather, it
describes the broader cultural world of Greek-speaking Christianity, even under Muslim or
Roman Catholic rule.

The services of the Byzantine rite were gradually translated into several languages,
the earliest of them being Syriac, Georgian, and Church Slavonic. In the modern age,
the number of translations has radically increased, and the full Byzantine rite can be
celebrated in scores of contemporary languages. Despite some minor local variations, it
is nevertheless characteristic for the followers of the Byzantine rite to adhere to its forms
rather conservatively.

2 History of the Byzantine rite

3
The process of local differentiation of rites and some kind of synthesis around major
centres of worship began in the fourth century, when Christianity began to become a
predominant religion in Rome. There is naturally a pre-history of these rites among early
Christians from the very beginnings of Christianity. Some liturgical evidence for this
exists in the New Testament itself, as well as in many extra-canonical texts and liturgical
instructions included in works such as the Apostolic Constitutions in the fourth century.
These early sources show abundant variation among local liturgical traditions (Bradshaw
1996).

Much scholarly effort has been expended in past decades to offer a convincing narrative
of distinction between ‘monastic’ and ‘cathedral’ liturgical practices, as well as details of
a so-called ‘liturgical synthesis’ that took place between the two main traditions of the
Byzantine East – that of Constantinople and Palestine, each of which will be presented in
more detail below. This version of the history of the Byzantine rite, first written by scholars
such as Anton Baumstark (collected in Baumstark 2010), and later on, perhaps most
influentially, Robert F. Taft (e.g. Taft 1992), has been seriously reconsidered in more recent
scholarship, and new avenues have been pursued.

Limitations of space require me to omit other local traditions from this survey, such as the
important patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, also because of the state of affairs in
scholarship: these traditions require much more research by liturgists in order to reach a
reliable image of their development and influence on Byzantine worship elsewhere.

2.1 Palestinian liturgy

The main centre of Palestinian worship was Jerusalem and was focused intimately
on the Anastasis (Resurrection) Church, consecrated in 335 as a commission by
Constantine the Great, and housing Christ’s tomb. In Byzantine manuscripts, the rite of
the Resurrection cathedral was called Hagiopolite (‘of the Holy City’). Significantly, the
desert monasteries surrounding Jerusalem were also important spiritual centres, and there
is a lot of scholarship dealing with the distinction between the monastic and cathedral
rites of Palestine, but the division seems far from clear-cut. The Resurrection Church had
a significant monastic presence, bringing monastic influence to its liturgical life, but the
cathedral rite here was also distinct from the rites of the surrounding monasteries, even
though the rites of monastic communities also differed (see Galadza 2018: 31–32 and 57–
59 and the relevant bibliography). A good example of common ground is that Hagiopolitan
Psalters, a division of the Book of Psalms into twenty sections of roughly equal length
(kathismata) for liturgical use, were used in both monastic and cathedral surroundings.

A comprehensive history of the early Palestinian liturgy remains to be written, partly

because of the lack of editions and study of source texts. The earliest sources include
the catechetical sermons of Cyril of Jerusalem (313–387), the diaries of a Hispanic nun

4
named Egeria in the late fourth century (McGowan and Bradshaw 2018), and later the
Armenian (Renoux 1971) and Georgian lectionaries (Tarchnischvili 1959), which describe
the liturgical practices of the Holy City (the Greek prototype of these last texts has not
survived).

One of the most notable features of worship concentrated around the Holy Sepulchre is
its stational character. Liturgical celebrations included processions between churches and
holy places, naturally connected with the character of Jerusalem being the centre of the
Holy Land: at times, processions also extended elsewhere in the Palestinian lands. The
eucharistic liturgy described in Cyril’s fifth catechesis closely resembles the structure of the
liturgy of St James. The most important hymnographic collection of the early Palestinian
tradition is the Tropologion. This book, even called the ‘First Christian Hymnal’ (Shoemaker
2018), survives in its (supposedly) oldest form only in a Georgian translation of the lost
Greek original, called the Iadgari, even though its dating remains a matter of dispute.
It includes hymns for the weekly, annual, and fixed festal cycles, and influenced later
Byzantine hymnals. A distinction between the ‘new’ and ‘ancient’ Tropologion was made
by a tenth-century scribe, Iovane Zosime, and thus many scholars consider the ancient
Iadgari to represent the oldest Palestinian layer of the received tradition of Orthodox
hymnography (for example Frøyshov 2013).

The most important sources for Palestinian monastic liturgy are hagiographical texts, since
there are no surviving liturgical manuscripts. The eucharistic liturgy was a Hagiopolite
one, that of St James, but not much else is known about the structure of early Palestinian
monastic liturgy. The dozens of monasteries around Jerusalem and the Judean desert
represented both coenobitic and lavriote traditions. The former consisted of a tightly
connected community, where all monks share a common daily schedule and property,
whereas in the latter communities monks lived in isolation and gathered together in
common services only on Saturdays and Sundays. This naturally affected their liturgical
life, as the practice of private prayer was much more prominent in lavriote monasticism.

Current scholarship suggests that there was liturgical variation among the monastic
communities of Palestine, as this was witnessed by the abbots Sophronios and John
during their visits to Sinai (Galadza 2018: 32; Longo 1965). The most significant
monastery of the Palestinian desert, Mar Saba, acquired an even more important position
from the eighth century onwards, which has often misled scholars into referring even to
early Palestinian monastic liturgy as ‘Sabaite’ practice. This is not the case, even though
at this later date the liturgical tradition of Mar Saba became a commonly emulated liturgical
standard.

2.2 Constantinopolitan liturgy

5
The ‘Great Church’ of Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, was another major centre of liturgical
worship in the Eastern empire. This church was the See of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
the most important episcopal centre of the Eastern Empire and the first in hierarchy after
the schism with Old Rome. Before the time of iconoclasm in the eighth and ninth centuries,
only a little direct information remains on the liturgical rite of the Byzantine capital, most
importantly in the manuscript Barberini gr. 336 dating from ca 780 CE (Parenti and
Velkovska 1995). However, more information can be deduced from sermons from the
fourth century onwards, as well as the kontakia hymns by Romanos the Melodist from the
sixth century.

More detailed liturgical rubrics can be found in the kanonarion-synaxarion, commonly

known in scholarship by its misleading title ‘Typikon of the Great Church of Christ’ (Mateos
1962). Typikon usually refers to one of three things: a collection of liturgical rubrics, the
foundation document of a monastery, or the oral liturgical tradition of a particular location,
but in this case it refers to a liturgical calendar combined with some liturgical texts,
scriptural readings, and liturgical instructions. Also, manuscripts called Praxapostolos
(‘Acts and Epistles’) include both a lectionary of epistle readings from the New Testament
and a liturgical structure for offices. The tradition preserved in these manuscripts
represents the established tradition of approximately the tenth century (Hanke 2018).

The eucharistic liturgies celebrated in Constantinople were those attributed to St Basil

the Great and St John Chrysostom, described later in this entry. An important source
for the study of the historical development of these liturgies are the abundant liturgical
commentaries which have survived (see Bornert 1966 and Ray 2017), but some of them
still lack critical editions and translations. These are important sources for the theology
of the Byzantine rite, including not only liturgical texts but also movements, gestures,
descriptions of the church space, and other non-verbal elements of the liturgy.

An early monastic tradition of Constantinopolitan liturgy is represented by the monastery

of the Akoimetoi, the ‘Sleepless Ones’, founded in the fifth century by the monk Alexander:
here, the monastic community was divided into choirs tasked with offering unceasing
liturgical prayer in the monastery’s main church, hence their name (see Fountoules 1963).
Later, Constantinopolitan monastic liturgy is best documented at the monastery of Studion,
one of the centres of hymnographic composition in the capital since the time of Theodore
Studite (759–826). The earliest source of the Studite order is the Typikon of Alexios
the Studite, Patriarch of Constantinople (1025–1043), a collection of liturgical rubrics
preserved only in its Slavonic translation (Petras 1991).

As in Palestine, Constantinople had developed Psalters for use in both its monastic
and cathedral surroundings; however, the Constantinopolitan Psalters followed the
ecclesiastical (ekklesiastes) tradition, where the Book of Psalms was divided into sixty-

6
eight antiphons, and included refrains for liturgical singing, as well as other hymnography
and instructions. Individual manuscripts of this type vary greatly in content (Parpulov
2014).

2.3 Liturgical synthesis

Local liturgical practices did not exist in a vacuum as isolated peripheries, but there was
clearly an exchange of influences between monasteries and city churches. From at least
the eighth century onwards, there was an increasing process of synthesis between not
only the liturgical traditions of local monastic and city churches, but between the liturgical
traditions of Constantinople and Palestine as well, resulting ultimately in the so-called Neo-
Sabbaitic Typikon that forms the basis of the received tradition of Byzantine liturgy.

Recent research has significantly revised previous thinking regarding the processes
of liturgical synthesis, and the discussion is an ongoing one. Most twentieth-century
scholarship, taking its cue from comments made by Symeon of Thessalonica (d.
1429), relies on an assumption which identifies Palestinian liturgy with ‘monastic’ and
Constantinopolitan liturgy with ‘cathedral’ or ‘sung’ liturgy. As seen above, monastic and
cathedral rites existed simultaneously in both locations, and there was interaction between
them. Palestinian influence on Constantinople was not only monastic: the Hagiopolitan
office, celebrated in the cathedral of Jerusalem, was a designation also mentioned in
Constantinopolitan sources, showing that the rite of the Anastasis church – including its
attendant monastic elements – was imported to the Byzantine capital.

There is much contemporary debate on the beginnings of this liturgical synthesis,

revolving around the exact time Palestinian liturgy was introduced in Constantinople and
what its early phases looked like. Stig Frøyshov (2020) has argued for at least a partial
employment of the Hagiopolite office in Constantinople even before the seventh century,
but his views have not been universally embraced (Parenti 2022). On the other hand, the
process of ‘Byzantinization’ that Palestinian liturgy underwent was a long one, stretching
over half a millennium due to historical conditions: Palestine falling into the hands of Arabs
in the seventh century, and, later on, the troops of the First Crusade.

What is known explicitly about Palestinian influences in the Byzantine capital is that
some hymnographers – such as Andrew of Crete (650–740[?]), a Hagiopolitan monk who
later on migrated to Constantinople and Crete, and Germanos (c. 634–733), patriarch of
Constantinople (though questions of authorship are problematic), composed hymns titled
canons, a poetic genre with Palestinian origins. This shows that this particular Palestinian
element, at least, became popular in the Byzantine capital. Monks of the monastery of Mar
Saba apparently also had influence on the liturgy of Byzantium, even though many details
of this process still remain speculative.

7
The Studion monastery, mentioned above as one of the liturgical centres of
Constantinople, replaced the older Constantinopolitan monastic tradition of the Akoimetoi
and went through liturgical reforms of its own under the auspices of St Theodore. Earlier
liturgical scholarship has called this ‘Middle-Byzantine synthesis’ (e.g. Taft 1992: 67–77),
where the Palestinian structures of the Liturgy of the Hours – represented by the liturgical
book Horologion (‘Book of Hours’) – were combined with the prayers and eucharistic
offices of the Constantinopolitan rite. Theodore promoted daily communion, and seems to
have preferred the shorter eucharistic liturgy of John Chrysostom as part of the daily office,
relegating Basil the Great’s longer liturgy to a secondary place (Pott 2010). This influenced
the whole Constantinopolitan church, where John Chrysostom’s liturgy came to dominate
by the eleventh century, and its celebration in the Great Church had become daily, while
Basil’s liturgy was used merely ten times a year (see Parenti 2021). The Studion reforms
also gave rise to the numerous hymnographic books of the received tradition.

The Studite form of liturgical life gained ground in Constantinople, even though the
cathedral rite was still celebrated in the city’s main church, Hagia Sophia. After the sack
of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, the cathedral rite disappeared from the
main church, being first replaced by Latin offices and, after the return of Constantinople
into the hands of Byzantines in 1261, wholesale by the Studite office. The cathedral office
survived until the fifteenth century in the Hagia Sophia of Thessalonica, as witnessed by St
Symeon of Thessalonica.

The simultaneous Byzantinization of Palestinian liturgy had several major external events
exerting their own pressures. Jerusalem’s liturgical life was first influenced by the Islamic
conquest of Palestine, followed by the crusades in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
when Greek liturgical life ceased in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Hagiopolitan
liturgical rite disappeared finally in the thirteenth century after a long and gradual process
of liturgical reforms, spontaneously rather than imposed. This led to the disappearance
of the liturgy of St James by the twelfth century, as well as the introduction of many other
Constantinopolitan elements, some of which had, in turn, been formed earlier by exposure
to the Palestinian rite (Galadza 2018).

The monastic peninsula of Mount Athos became from the tenth century onwards another
important liturgical centre, where influences from different local traditions were synthetized.
This interaction, together with developments in Constantinople and Palestine, led to
the ‘Neo-Sabaitic synthesis’, where liturgy throughout the cultural sphere of Byzantium,
including in areas long under non-Byzantine political rule, lost even more of the cathedral
elements of Constantinople. This liturgical tradition reached its peak in the fourteenth-
century spiritual revival of Mount Athos – the hesychastic movement – and its most
important sources are the Diataxis of the hesychast Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos,
including the order of the eucharistic liturgy, the liturgical commentary by another

8
hesychast clergyman, Nicholas Cabasilas (Hussey and McNulty 1960), and the Typikon of
St Sabas that mainly includes instructions for the Liturgy of Hours.

2.4 After Byzantium

No further significant liturgical forms can be found after the fall of Byzantium, but the
liturgical books themselves underwent editing processes, particularly due to book printing.
The earliest Byzantine liturgical books in the Greek language were printed in Italy, where a
part of the Constantinopolitan intellectual élite had migrated after the fall of Constantinople.
These books were created for the needs of both the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as
Byzantine Catholic communities, even though the production of hand-copied manuscripts
still continued under Ottoman rule in the East (this early phase of liturgical book printing is
currently being studied by Samuel M. Bauer).

One might consider the introduction of printed service books as the last significant phase
of the development of these rites, as their availability slowed down changes in liturgical
structures. Most liturgical innovations were based on jurisdictional differences and local
veneration of saints. New offices were written for newly canonized saints, and only in rare
cases were these new offices translated into other languages. This gradually resulted in
some differences in the liturgical calendar of commemorations between the Russian- and
Greek-speaking churches, for instance. On the other hand, books intended for use by
Byzantine Catholic communities removed saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church (such as
the fourteenth-century theologian Gregory Palamas, canonized after the Great Schism),
and some newly-introduced offices influenced by Roman Catholic theology and spirituality
adapted themselves to the forms of the Byzantine rite, such as Corpus Christi (Takala-
Roszczenko 2013).

The rubrics of offices continued to be based, especially in areas under Ottoman rule,
on the Typikon of St Sabas, whereas in Russia some Studite elements survived until
the seventeenth century. However, in the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1605–
1681), Russian liturgical texts, rubrics, and other liturgical elements were harmonized with
contemporary Greek practices. This resulted in the schism of the so-called ‘Old Believers’
or ‘Old Ritualists’, who fought to maintain pre-Nikonian liturgical forms, thus preserving
more Studite influences compared with the received Greek tradition (for an Old Believer
prayer book, see Simon, Ciuba and Jorewiec 1986).

In the nineteenth century, liturgical books in Greek began to be published in the

newly independent Kingdom of Greece (Alexopoulos and Bilalis Anatolikiotes 2025).
Simultaneously, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople took an active role in
reforming liturgical material, including the typikon, a collection of liturgical rubrics. Whereas
the Eastern Orthodox church had, for centuries, used the Typikon of St Sabas, its monastic
origins resulted in liturgical offices deemed too long for parish usage. In 1838, a typikon

9
titled ‘The Ecclesiastical Typikon according to the Style of the Great Church of Christ’
was published, and later on revised in 1888 by the head chanter of the patriarchate,
George Violakes, titled ‘Typikon of the Great Church of Christ’ (Violakis 2015). This set
of liturgical instructions systematized abbreviations that had become common in parish
use: Psalter and patristic readings were omitted, and the structure of Matins in particular
was reorganized in such a way as to facilitate latecomers to hear what was considered the
most essential part of Matins – the Gospel reading. The Violakes Typikon is still mainly in
use in Greek-speaking parish churches and communities heavily influenced by them, but it
was not adopted in other local churches.

Therefore, there is slight variation in the way the liturgy of the hours is organized in
different contemporary local churches. However, the eucharistic offices (Divine Liturgies)
are practically identical, with only very minor local variations. Most local variation, however,
is related not to rubrics, but rather to movements that are not commonly written down in
rubrics, liturgical vestments, church music, and other church arts.

3 Structure of the received tradition

3.1 Liturgical cycles
The Byzantine rite includes a complex system of overlapping but independent liturgical
cycles. Each day has a cycle of services, beginning from the Vespers office of the
preceding evening; each week also follows a cycle of commemorations; the calendar year
of days and months is a cycle as well; and in the spring season all this is modified by the
movable cycle centred around the feast of Christ’s resurrection, Pascha (consisting of
Great Lent and Paschaltide). Biblical readings, hymnography, and the daily prayer texts
are drawn from all these different cycles within any given liturgical service in a systematic
and highly regulated manner (see also Christian Year).

3.1.1 Daily and weekly cycle

The daily cycle of services consists of Midnight Office, Matins, Hours (first, third, sixth),
Divine Liturgy, ninth Hour, Vespers, and Compline: even though the liturgical day usually
begins from Vespers, the Horologion customarily begins from the Midnight Office. The
Divine Liturgy will be discussed below, and this section shall concentrate on the Liturgy of
the Hours, constituted of the rest of these listed services and designed in such a way that
it can be performed nearly in its entirety without a priest present. Below is an overview of
these services, not a systematic presentation of all possible combinations or exceptions (a
more detailed description of liturgical rubrics of the received tradition is Getcha 2012).

Traditionally, Matins and Vespers hold a prominent position among these offices, and
in monastic churches that preserve the traditional tripartite structure of altar, nave, and

10
narthex (or lite), only Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgy are celebrated in the nave
and altar itself, whereas the other offices are recited in the narthex.

Vespers begins with the recitation of the Psalm of Creation (104), during which the priest
silently reads evening prayers drawn from the Constantinopolitan cathedral rite, followed
by the Great Litany, Psalm reading, and ‘Lord, I have cried’ (Ps 140–141, 129, 116) with
interpolated stichera (a set of monostrophic hymns). After this the vesperal hymn ‘O
Gladsome Light’ is recited or sung, followed by a daily psalm verse called prokeimenon.
After petitions and the prayer ‘Vouchsafe, O Lord’, a vesperal set of Aposticha (a set of
stichera, monostrophic hymns) is sung, after which St Symeon’s prayer (Nunc dimittis,
Luke 2:29–32) and the Trishagion are read. After the singing of the Apolytikion and the
reciting of petitions, there is the final dismissal. On Saturday evenings and feast days,
there is a procession during ‘O Gladsome Light’, and the prokeimenon might be followed
by three readings usually drawn from the Old Testament, except on the feasts of apostles,
when they are drawn from the epistles.

Compline exists in two versions, the Great and Small, the former of which is celebrated
only during weekdays of the Great Lent and the all-night vigils (see below) beginning
with a Compline (Christmas, Theophany, and Annunciation). Both versions consist of
psalm readings, Doxology, and prayers, with an interpolated canon (see the description of
Matins) or Akathistos hymn (a long poem to the Mother of God, consisting of 24 alphabetic
stanzas).

Midnight office is rarely celebrated in parishes, but a standard service in monasteries,

where it is usually combined with Matins and preceded by a brief introductory service, a
thanksgiving for waking up. A central part of the office is the recitation of Psalm 119 (118
LXX [Septuagint]), titled Amomos (‘Blameless’) after its introductory verse. On Saturdays
this is replaced by other psalms of the ninth kathisma, because the Amomos is recited in
the Psalter readings of Matins; on Sundays, the structure of the Midnight office is strikingly
different, and its central part is a trinitarian canon hymn according to the mode assigned
for each week.

Weekday Matins begin with the Royal Office (Ps 19–20), then the Six Psalms (Ps 3, 38,
63, 88, 103, 143), penitential and doxological in their character, during which the priest
silently recites morning prayers drawn from the Constantinopolitan rite. After that, the
hymn ‘God is the Lord’ is followed by the Apolytikion (a brief monostrophic hymn on the
day or celebrated saint) and psalm readings (which are usually omitted in parish usage).
On feast days and Sundays, after the psalm readings there is an interpolation called the
Polyeleos, consisting of psalmody (though the Violakes typikon, described in section 2.4,
omits it), followed by a set of antiphons and the reading of the Gospel. After a recitation of
Psalm 51 there follows the singing of canons, the hymnographic highlight of Matins. The

11
canon is a long hymnographic entity that consists usually of eight odes, numbered one to
nine (with ode two omitted outside of Great Lent) and with interpolations after odes three
and six. Each ode consists of an introductory stanza, heirmos, and followed by troparia,
a set of stanzas that follow the metrical and musical model of the heirmos. Whereas each
ode of the canon is based on a biblical ode (canticle) that are customarily copied as an
appendix of Byzantine Psalters, usually in the received tradition only ode nine (Magnificat)
is sung as an interpolation before ode nine. After this the Lauds are sung, on festal days
interpolated with stichera, followed by the Great Doxology (recited on weekdays and
sung on Sundays and festal days, when it is concluded by the Trisagion [‘Holy God, Holy
Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us’] and the Apolytikion), petitions, and another set
of Aposticha (except when the Doxology is sung), followed again by Trisagion and the
Apolytikion. After the Dismissal, the first Hour is attached to the service.

All the Hours follow a similar structure: they consist of three psalms, a set of prayers that
is partially identical and partially different, with each hour ending with its characteristic
prayer. The first hour is attached to Matins, whereas the third and sixth hours are usually
read together as a service called Trithekte before the Divine Liturgy or as an independent
service. The ninth hour is attached to Vespers; on lenten days, when Divine Liturgy is not
celebrated, it is followed by a service called Typika.

All offices of the Liturgy of the Hours change slightly during Great Lent, the period of six
weeks preceding Holy Week and Pascha. However, this ‘Lenten office’ is historically the
everyday weekday office of the Neo-Sabaitic typikon, whereas the weekday service of the
received tradition represents a simplified festal office.

On the eve of major feast days and Sundays, the Neo-Sabaitic typikon prescribes an
‘all-night vigil’ (agrypnia), consisting of Vespers, Matins, and first hour as a unified office.
Whereas most parishes following the Russian tradition retain this tradition, in other local
churches it is mostly celebrated only in monasteries or perhaps on special occasions.

Superimposed on this daily cycle of services is a weekly cycle that provides a theme
to be commemorated on each day through copious amounts of hymnography. Sunday,
the first day of the week, is the day of Resurrection, Monday is dedicated to angels and
repentance, Tuesday to St John the Baptist and repentance, Wednesday to the Cross and
the Mother of God (Virgin Mary), Thursday to the apostles and St Nicholas, Friday to the
Cross, and Saturdays to all saints and the deceased.

3.1.2 Annual cycle

There are several overlapping annual cycles. The fixed calendrical cycle, beginning from
September and included in the liturgical books called Menaia (‘Monthly Books’), contains
liturgical texts for each day of each month. There is also the movable Paschal cycle,

12
anchored by the date of Pascha at its centre: this gives the starting point for the Lenten
cycle preceding it and the Pentekostarion, an eight-week cycle following Pascha up to the
feast of Pentecost and its following Sunday, dedicated to all saints. What is typical for this
movable cycle is a different thematic commemoration on each Sunday.

An element that combines the two cycles is the system of twelve major feasts, consisting
of pre- and postfeasts, apart from the feast day itself. Some of these feasts, such as
Christmas and Theophany, belong to the fixed cycle, whereas Palm Sunday, Ascension,
and Pentecost are related to the movable cycle.

The feast of Pascha also provides a starting point for the lectionary system of epistle
and Gospel readings in the Divine Liturgy. Whereas the epistle readings are assigned
continuously until the beginning of next year’s Lenten cycle, the Gospel cycle is
rearranged after the feast of the Elevation of the Holy Cross on September 14. The
Resurrectional Gospels read during Sunday Matins, known as eothina, follow an eleven-
week cycle of their own.

After the Pentekostarion period finishes, there begins another continuous cycle that
affects hymnography and music, called the Oktoechos (‘Eight Modes’). Each week,
beginning from the first service of Sunday (Vespers sung on Saturday evening), is
dominated musically by a musical idiom called ‘echos’, each of the echoi representing a
particular character. The cycle is divided into four authentic and four plagal modes: hymns
to be sung according to these modes are included in the liturgical book of Oktoechos
or Parakletike. Once the cycle is complete, it begins again from the first mode. The
Oktoechos cycle is continued until the last week of the Great Lent.

3.2 Liturgical books

Printed liturgical books used in Byzantine worship are a continuation of the manuscript
tradition that went through an extensive reform from the ninth century onwards. Along
this chronological trajectory, there seems to be a general tendency from textual variety
to uniformity, while at the same time from simpler forms of liturgical elements to more
complicated ones. The printed liturgical books roughly correspond to the structure of
manuscripts from the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries onwards, with some variation in
content.

Even though there are some differences in how liturgical books are named, the Greek
titles of books are most often the standard ones used in Western languages as well,
whereas the Slavonic and Romanian traditions use their own versions. The prayer book
used by the priest to celebrate liturgies and sacraments, traditionally called ‘mysteries’,
is called the Euchologion (Book of Prayers). In contemporary worship, the mysteries are
often separated from the rest of the liturgies, and the book containing the latter is called

13
the Hieratikon (Priestly Book), whereas the former are included in the Euchologion or in
a separate book called Hagiasmatarion (Book of Sanctification). A book including only
the deacon’s parts is called the Hierodiakonikon (Diaconal Book). The Gospel readings,
always recited by the clergy, are included in the Evangelion (Gospel book), organized by
liturgical readings. The Tetraevangelion (Four Gospels’ Book) includes all four canonical
Gospels in their full form, read during the Holy Week.

Another group of books are meant for the use of the reader. These include the
Horologion (Book of Hours), which contains the Liturgy of the Hours, together with some
hymnographic material. The Psalter is organized according to the liturgical way of reading
the Book of Psalms in twenty parts called kathismata, each of them divided into three
parts: thus, the received tradition uses the Palestinian Psalter. The Apostolos (Apostle)
includes epistles, divided into liturgical readings for the whole ecclesiastical year, together
with the preceding and following psalm verses (prokeimena and allelouiaria). Traditionally,
there is also a book called the Prophetologion (Book of Prophesies), which contains Old
Testament readings for festal Vespers, but nowadays these readings are usually included
in the Menaia or the Triodion and Pentekostarion.

There are also several hymnals, corresponding to the different liturgical cycles, providing
material for daily Vespers and Matins, at times also for Compline, Midnight Office, and
Liturgy. The Menaia (Monthly Books) include daily hymnography for each calendar day of
the year, and Old Testament readings for the feasts. The Parakletike or Oktoechos (Book
of Eight Modes) includes daily hymnography for the eight-week cycle of eight musical
modes. This is partly replaced during Great Lent and its preparatory weeks by the Triodion
(Three-Ode Book), which includes Old Testament readings for weekday Vespers, and
from Paschal Sunday to the Sunday of All Saints (the Sunday following Pentecost) by the
Pentekostarion (the Fifty-Day Book), likewise includes Old Testament readings for the
festal Vespers.

Since no book traditionally contains all the texts for a particular office in a systematic
manner, there is also the Typikon that regulates the use of these other liturgical books. In
other words, it is a guidebook, but is not used as a liturgical book itself. Nowadays there
are several local Typika published, and some local churches publish an annual collection
of liturgical rubrics. New digital tools allow collecting liturgical texts to daily full offices more
easily, which has reduced the need of chanters, readers, and priests using the Typikon
itself.

3.3 Eucharistic liturgies

Eucharistic liturgies, usually called Divine Liturgies in the Byzantine tradition, refer to
the services in which Holy Communion is distributed to the faithful. More specifically, all
liturgies, apart from the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, include the consecration of the

14
eucharistic gifts, bread and wine, into Christ’s body and blood, through eucharistic prayers
that are called anaphora. The bread used in all eucharistic liturgies must exclusively be
leavened wheat bread, as opposed to the Latin church, which uses unleavened bread
– this was a matter of heated controversy during the Middle Ages. The wine is always
sweetened, fortified red wine made of grapes. The faithful are enjoined to refrain from
eating and drinking anything from the night before receiving the Eucharist.

As seen above, the early church developed several local liturgies, and among the Oriental
churches there is a still broader variety of eucharistic prayers, but in the Byzantine rite, the
liturgy attributed to St John Chrysostom came to dominate the liturgical year. The liturgy
of St Basil is celebrated only ten times per year. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is
celebrated mainly on Wednesdays and Fridays of Great Lent, and locally the reformed
version of the Liturgy of St James is also celebrated; at times, other revived versions of
ancient anaphorae are also used.

All of these anaphorae in use belong to the Antiochian or West Syrian classification of
anaphorae, and therefore share a common structure, as opposed to the East Syrian or
Alexandrian anaphorae. Regarding the three anaphorae here, earlier scholarship has
argued for a progressive development, where the anaphora of St James would have been
the ‘original liturgy’, then abbreviated into St Basil’s and, after further redaction, to St John
Chrysostom’s – a legend first presented by the eleventh or twelveth-century Synaxarion of
Constantinople – but this theory has been rejected (see Galadza 2018: 157–159).

Both main liturgies of the received tradition, Chrysostom’s and Basil’s liturgies, follow
a similar structure: the only variant element are the prayers recited by the priest after
the Gospel reading. The liturgy itself is preceded by a preparatory rite, the prothesis,
where the priest prepares the prosphoron (communion bread) and wine in their vessels,
accompanied with prayers. The liturgy itself begins with the Liturgy of the Word, following
the structure below:
(1) Initial blessing by the celebrant
(2) Great Litany by the deacon (or celebrant) and its prayer
(3) Three Antiphons (or the ‘Typika’ Psalms 102 and 145 LXX and the Beatitudes)
sung by the choir, interpolated by Small Litanies and their prayers
(4) Small Entrance, where the Gospel book is carried through the nave back into the
altar, and its prayer
(5) Apolytikia (brief hymns on the theme of the day, sung by the choir)
(6) The Trisagion (or its substitute) and its prayer
(7) Epistle and Gospel readings and the Gospel prayer.

The second part of the office, the Liturgy of the Faithful, is originally intended for full
members of the church only, because of the sacrament of communion distributed in

15
its end. Therefore, its initial part includes a dismissal of catechumens, even though
many contemporary churches omit it or do not follow the practice, despite reciting these
dismissal commands. The structure of the liturgy of the faithful is as follows:
(1) Litanies of Fervent Supplication
(2) Litany of Catechumens and their Dismissal, then two prayers of the faithful
(3) Cherubic Hymn (or its substitute), its prayer and the Great Entrance (where the
eucharistic gifts are transferred from the prothesis to the altar table)
(4) The Plerotika (a series of petitions) and its prayer and the Nicene-
Constantinopolitan Creed
(5) The Anaphora (with its opening dialogue, the Sanctus/Benedictus, the Institution
Narrative, Anamnesis, Epiclesis, Intercessions [during which the choir sings an
appointed hymn to Mary, usually ‘It is truly meet’], and a Doxology)
(6) The Lord’s Prayer
(7) Elevation and Fraction
(8) Holy Communion (clergy in the altar, faithful in the nave)
(9) Thanksgiving and Dismissal.

In some rare cases, namely on the eves of Christmas, Theophany, the feast day of
Annunciation (when these fall on weekdays), and on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday,
Basil’s or Chrysostom’s liturgies are to be celebrated as a vesperal liturgy because of the
fasting character of the day and, thus, prolonging the pre-communion fast. Nevertheless,
in some contemporary local traditions these might be replaced by normal liturgies. In a
vesperal liturgy, the liturgy itself is preceded by the first part of festal vespers, but after the
Old Testament readings the liturgy continues from Trishagion (or its substitute) onwards.
It has lately become customary in some local traditions to celebrate vesperal liturgies on
feasts falling on weekdays, in order to facilitate liturgical participation by those unable (or
unwilling) to take time off work during the day, even though this has come under fire for its
liturgical novelty from some quarters.

3.3.1 St Basil

The Liturgy of St Basil, despite the fact that it is a more rarely used eucharistic liturgy, was
the standard eucharistic office of the Constantinopolitan rite, celebrated each Sunday: in
the received tradition, this liturgy is celebrated on the Sundays of Great Lent, as well as
the eves of Christmas and Theophany, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, and the feast of St
Basil on January 1. Even though it today remains a rarity in the Byzantine rite, its centrality
to the Eastern Christian rites in general is demonstrated by the fact that it exists practically
in all Eastern liturgical rites, in all languages.

The attribution of authorship to Basil of Caesarea (Basil the Great) is an established

tradition in the Eastern Church by the sixth century, but for which there is limited
agreement among modern scholars (see, for example, Taft 1990 and Streza 2021).

16
Other more recent scholarship challenges this attribution (such as Parenti 2020). Its core
structure, however, does seem to originate in the fourth century, so it is, at least in its core,
contemporary with St Basil. The earliest Greek text of the liturgy is found in Barberini gr.
336, a South Italian codex dating from around 780 CE (Parenti and Velkovska 1995).

The anaphoral prayer of St Basil is known for its abundant dogmatic expressions and its
extensive commemoration of salvation history and God’s benevolence towards mankind:

For having made man by taking dust from the earth, and having honored him with Your own
image, O God, You placed him in a garden of delight, promising him eternal life and the
enjoyment of everlasting blessings in the observance of Your commandments. But when
he disobeyed You, the true God who had created him, and was led astray by the deception
of the serpent becoming subject to death through his own transgressions, You, O God, in
Your righteous judgment, expelled him from paradise into this world, returning him to the
earth from which he was taken, yet providing for him the salvation of regeneration in Your
Christ. For You did not forever reject Your creature whom You made, O Good One, nor did
You forget the work of Your hands, but because of Your tender compassion, You visited him
in various ways […]. (https://www.goarch.org/fi/-/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-basil-the-great)

Another notable difference to the briefer liturgy of St John Chrysostom is in the

intercessions following the consecration of the eucharistic gifts, where Basil’s is more
extensive:

[…] Remember, Lord, those who are in the deserts, on mountains, in caverns, and in
the chambers of the earth. Remember, Lord, those living in chastity and godliness, in
asceticism and holiness of life. Remember, Lord, this country and all those in public
service whom you have allowed to govern on earth. Grant them profound and lasting
peace. Speak to their hearts good things concerning your Church and all your people that
through the faithful conduct of their duties we may live peaceful and serene lives in all piety
and holiness. Sustain the good in their goodness; make the wicked good through Your
goodness […]. (https://www.goarch.org/fi/-/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-basil-the-great)

3.3.2 St John Chrysostom

The Liturgy attributed to John Chrysostom, the renowned preacher and archbishop of
Constantinople, was native to the Church of Antioch. Whereas this view was supported by
the late Robert Taft, among others, most recently Stefano Parenti (2020) has criticized the
methodology and results of Taft’s views and doubts the Chrysostomian authorship of this
anaphora. Instead, the attribution to Chrysostom seems to appear between the mid-sixth
and eighth centuries, long after Chrysostom’s death in 407. Still, the multi-volume series

17
by Taft remains the most extensive study on the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, whereas
Parenti’s work provides many revised views and significantly enriches this information.

Despite the brevity of the anaphora of St John Chrysostom, it is a work of remarkable

theological and rhetorical quality:

[…] Holy are You and most holy, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. Holy
are You and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave
Your only-begotten Son so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have
eternal life. When He had come and fulfilled for our sake the entire plan of salvation, on the
night in which He was delivered up, or rather when He delivered Himself up for the life of
the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, and, giving thanks and
blessing, He hallowed and broke it, and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:
Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins […]. (https://
www.goarch.org/fi/-/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-john-chrysostom)

3.3.3 Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, rather than a service in which there is a consecration
of bread and wine, is a way to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful on days when
the celebration of eucharist is forbidden according to Holy Canons – critically, the
service lacks an anaphora. Originally, the service could be served on all fasting days
throughout the year – including the fasting days of Wednesday and Friday – as well as
coronations, weddings, and the appointment of civil officials. In the contemporary church,
it is celebrated only on weekdays of Great Lent, usually on Wednesdays and Fridays, as
well as the first three days of Holy Week. There are various other liturgical celebrations
falling on weekdays of Great Lent when it is customary to celebrate the Liturgy of the
Presanctified Gifts. In some monasteries, it might be celebrated on all weekdays of Great
Lent, as ordered by the Council of Trullo in 692.

The first manuscript evidence for the existence of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts
is Barberini gr. 336, though by the seventh century a reference can be found to the
celebration of this office. Even these first bits of evidence provide the basic structure of
the Presanctified Liturgy: the eucharistic gifts, the body and blood of Christ, are preserved
from a previous liturgy with an anaphora, then transferred to the altar table, and then
distributed to the faithful (Alexopoulos 2009: 46–47). The service itself begins with an
extended form of Vespers, and so its place at the very end of the current day’s liturgical
cycle and at the cusp of the beginning of the next day’s means that the faithful have been
fasting strictly throughout the day in anticipation of receiving the Eucharist, offering a
penitential flavour to the proceedings.

18
Over time, the form of this liturgy gradually expanded, adding elements in imitation of
the anaphoric liturgies, preserving some Constantinopolitan elements that disappeared
from other liturgical services, and added some characteristics of its own, resulting in the
present rubric. It begins with usual weekday Vespers, during which the priest prepares
the pre-consecrated eucharistic gifts and carries them to the sacrificial table (prothesis).
However, after the procession and the Old Testament readings following it, the service
continues with the singing of Ps 140:2. After this, the service follows the structure of the
usual eucharistic liturgies apart from the anaphora, with petitions, the hymn ‘Now the
powers of heavens’ (to substitute the Cherubic Hymn usually sung in eucharistic liturgies),
during which the eucharistic gifts are transferred to the altar table, more petitions, the
Lord’s Prayer, the distribution of Communion, and final thanksgiving.

The received form of the presanctified has at times been attributed to St Gregory the
Dialogist (or Great), Pope of Rome between 590 and 604. This attribution was probably
made between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, during the attempts to reach a union
between the Eastern and Western churches. It is not attested to in older manuscripts, and
therefore no reliable attribution to St Gregory can be made.

3.3.4 Other liturgies

Other local rites fell out of use, including the Liturgy of St James, which was celebrated
locally in Jerusalem. Despite the claims for the ancient origins of this anaphora, including
its attribution to the Brother of the Lord and first bishop of Jerusalem, its early history
until the earliest manuscripts from the eighth and ninth centuries remains unclear. By the
eleventh century, Chrysostom’s and Basil’s liturgies had largely replaced the liturgy of
James in Palestine.

In the nineteenth century, however, thanks to scholarly interest in liturgy and the printed
publications of various historical anaphorae, there were attempts at reviving their use
(see Fountoules 1994). The most successful of these cases was the liturgy of St James,
published in various publications for practical liturgical purposes. Indeed, many parishes
celebrate this liturgy on the feast day of St James, the Brother of the Lord, to whom it is
attributed; sometimes it is also used on the Sunday following the Nativity of Christ, when
St James is again commemorated. The form of these revived services nevertheless bears
little resemblance to the historical rubric of this liturgy that fell out of use in twelfth-century
Palestine. Daniel Galadza warns about returning to such ‘old’ liturgies: ‘any celebration
of JAS [the Liturgy of St James] in today’s Byzantine rite should avoid treating the Divine
Liturgy as an exercise in exotic historical revivalism’ (Galadza 2018: 355). Some recent
and more serious attempts of revising this revived form of the St James liturgy have been
made (see Permiakov 2020b).

19
The liturgies of St Mark, once local to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and Apostolic
Constitutions are at times also celebrated, mostly in theological faculties where liturgical
experiments are a part of the liturgical training, but also on other occasions. They remain a
marginal phenomenon.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there have been some attempts at creating
new liturgical forms. The more established of them are the pre-anaphoral prayers inserted
into petitions before the Cherubic Hymn, used regularly at the monastery of St John the
Baptist in Essex, England. Also, Nicholas Denysenko has published a New Order for the
celebration of the Divine Liturgy, but this is not used in Byzantine-rite churches, perhaps
apart from a few exceptions (Denysenko 2021).

4 Theology of the Byzantine rite

The conservatism with which the Byzantine rite has been preserved to the present day,
and the unwillingness of worshippers of Byzantine liturgy to make ‘too many’ changes
in the way it is celebrated, demonstrates well its central position in those churches’
lives. Liturgy is both an expression of the community’s faith and a locus of formation
for the faithful. Therefore, liturgical worship can be seen as theology in various ways.
The scholarly field that deals especially with the theological understanding of liturgy is
commonly known in academia as ‘liturgical theology’ (see Geldhof 2010).

Liturgy on its textual level – through the liturgical readings, prayers, and hymns – explicitly
teaches theology to the believers; this is particularly true for hymns and naturally for
sermons that are a ‘quasi-liturgical’ part of the Byzantine liturgy, since the deliverance
of the sermon is not strictly ordered by the rubrics nor is its content predictated by them
(except readings from sermons of church fathers, recited during the Liturgy of the Hours,
even though in the received tradition this has become exceptionally rare). Byzantine
hymnography is full of dogmatic expressions, particularly promoting the Chalcedonian
doctrine of the two natures of Christ. Another strand of theological teaching conveyed
by hymnography is scriptural hermeneutics: hymns often provide comment on the daily
scriptural readings of the lectionary. Therefore, in order to understand the basic liturgical
training an Orthodox believer has, one must comprehend what he or she hears and
experiences in liturgy.

It is essential to understand the importance that is given among the Eastern churches
to Byzantine liturgy as the ‘location’ par excellence of biblical interpretation. In the same
spirit, the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, directed against Protestant and especially
Calvinist teachings, condemned the Protestant practice of all Christians reading the Bible,
but instead – perhaps merely polemicizing against Protestants – exhorted them to hear the

20
Scriptures through their liturgical performance in the original Greek (with Septuagint as the
authoritative version of the Old Testament), not in a vernacular translation.

More recently, much scholarly attention has been devoted to the sensory perception
of liturgy, including hearing (see Permiakov 2020a; Pentcheva 2017 and 2010; and
Harrison 2015). This is, indeed, essential from the point of view of the medieval Byzantine
tradition. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, convened in Nicaea in 787, emphasizes the
parallel between the senses of hearing and seeing, the former being represented in the
liturgical space by the scriptures, and the latter by icons. Therefore, the participation of
a believer in Byzantine liturgy happens through this intermedial whole, where voices,
sounds, images, scents, movements, and most importantly divine presence contribute
to a complex liturgical experience (see Olkinuora 2015 and Larin 2013). Much of this
experience is dependent on the church space itself. The development of the iconostasis/
templon (icon screen) between the faithful and the clergy, depending on its structure,
particularly influences the visibility of the actions performed in the altar space.

On the other hand, liturgical structures, movements, vestments, and vessels convey
symbolic meanings of liturgy that can only be appreciated through liturgical commentaries,
either in their written or oral form, or through spiritual contemplation, theoria (Olkinuora
2015). In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, liturgical customs have been seen even as a
dogmatic authority, and many theologians give strong emphasis to orthopraxy (the correct
way of following the practices of the Eastern church).

Figures in the twentieth century introduced some debate on how much emphasis should
be given to this part of liturgical theology. Alexander Schmemann, an influential liturgical
theologian, harshly criticized allegorical narrative interpretations of the liturgy and
advocated for an ‘original understanding’ of Byzantine liturgy, even though historically
allegory was inseparable from the understanding of liturgy. The past few decades have
diluted and added nuance to many of Schmemann’s views (see, for example, Butcher
2018), though they remain extremely popular in ecclesiastical circles where his works have
circulated.

For a modern reader, Schmemann’s quest for an ‘original’ meaning of liturgy is perhaps
pastorally useful but problematic from the point of view of the history of liturgy, since many
of his views are not based on the current understanding of liturgical history. Moreover,
the problem in such liturgical archeologism is defining the authoritative historical moment
of liturgy, when it would have been in its ‘purest’ or ‘least corrupt’ form. His views can
be traced back to the historical context where he was acting, since he – like many
other Russian emigré theologians – was strongly influenced by the Roman Catholic
ressourcement and the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, an event that he actually attended.

21
Schmemann himself confesses this in his introduction to liturgical theology, where he
states that

even though the liturgical revival as an organized movement arose and developed for
the most part among non-Orthodox people in the West, it has nevertheless a deep
internal bond with the Church in the East, and is therefore of special interest to Orthodox
theologians. (Schmemann 1975: 13)

Greek liturgy scholars, such as Panagiotis Trembelas and Ioannis Fountoulis, did not
remain unaffected by the tendencies to turn to older and historical sources that had
affected the Greek-speaking Orthodox as well since the late nineteenth century, but their
work resulted in less radical changes in parish practice than Schmemann’s reforms.

Both the theology conveyed by liturgy and the theological interpretation of liturgy are
related to its performance practices. Accordingly, recent decades have seen a rising
interest in the performative and sensory aspects of liturgy (see Olkinuora 2021; White
2018; Pentcheva 2017).

4.1 Eucharistic theology

The most essential theological element of the Divine Liturgy is, the eucharist, the most
central of sacraments – mysteries – in the Byzantine understanding. Sacraments allow
the faithful to personally take part in the salvific Economy of Christ and become a part of
salvation history, resulting in their own salvation. Nicholas Cabasilas, in his commentary on
Christian life, describes sacraments as a divine gift coupled with our own zeal, a sentiment
also expressed by the twofold ‘content’ of each mystery: matter and Spirit.

It is hardly surprising then that participation in the Eucharist is essential for receiving
salvation, according to the Orthodox understanding. The bread – which has to be leavened
– and wine are truly transformed into the body and blood of Christ. The term used for
this change in the Middle Ages was metabole, whereas the synod of Jerusalem in 1672
uses the term metousiosis, a Greek semantic equivalent of transsubstantiatio, and first
used by Gennadios Scholarios (1400–1473), the patriarch of Constantinople after its fall,
a theologian influenced by Western Thomism. Participation in divinity itself through the
person of Christ is such an awesome event that, in the liturgical tradition, the unworthiness
of the faithful in this process is repeatedly emphasized.

The Eucharist also has a sacrificial character, in which it is Christ who sacrifices Himself on
behalf of the ‘life of the world’, whereas the celebrant – bishop or priest – acts in His place,
providing his body and actions as a vessel for Christ to act (as shall be described below in
detail in the liturgical commentaries). A prayer shared by the liturgies of John Chrysostom

22
and Basil mentions: ‘For You are the One Who both offers and is offered, the One Who is
received and is distributed, O Christ our God’.

Due to different historical circumstances, frequent participation in the eucharist has

declined in many local churches. Already in the late eighteenth century, the Kollyvades
movement on the Holy Mountain promoted more frequent participation in communion
(Patapios and Chrysostomos 2006), and this was again taken up by the so-called
eucharistic ecclesiology of the Russian emigrés in twentieth century France and America
(e.g. Afanasiev 2019). As a part of the latter, there have been attempts of liturgical reforms
to make the anaphora more accessible to the faithful by, for example, stopping the practice
of keeping the holy doors of the icon screen (separating the altar space from the nave)
closed during the consecration of eucharistic gifts, and reciting the anaphora aloud instead
of reading it ‘secretly’, i.e. inaudibly. Some local communities have adopted this practice,
whereas others still continue to close the doors before the consecration and recite the
anaphora inaudibly.

4.2 Notion of ‘liturgical time’

The timeless character of the mystery of the Eucharist is one of the deepest theological
notions in Byzantine liturgical texts, and the way it connects past, present, and future
with each other into a synchronous reality is sometimes called ‘liturgical time’. If liturgy
is participation in the Divinity, the faithful also participate in its timelessness. The initial
blessing of the liturgy, ‘blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, now and forever, and to the ages of ages’, opens up the eternal kingdom of God:
the same kingdom manifests itself throughout times and places (cf. Andreopoulos 2013:
39–56). Liturgy can actually be seen, according to the Greek liturgical commentaries, from
three different temporal approaches: it is a commemoration of a past event, an image of
a present reality, and proclamation of something that will be fulfilled in the future (Bornert
1966: 36).

Apart from the eschatological character of eucharistic worship, the timelessness of

the liturgical space is expressed by other structures of liturgical life. Byzantine liturgy
expresses simultaneously a linear concept of time, through the commemoration of
salvation history, but also a cyclical concept of time, found in the different liturgical cycles
and their never-ending reiterations. A numerological image for this cyclical time is the
number eight: it is seen to be an image of the resurrection of Christ that took place
simultaneously on the first and eighth day of the week. This is an ancient tradition, spoken
of by Origen in the third century. Many after-feasts of great feasts last a full octave (eight
days); the naming of a child takes place on the eighth day; and the musical system used in
Byzantine worship is called the Oktoechos, ‘Eight modes’.

23
Byzantine rhetoric also contributes to this aim of making liturgy an image of the presence
of past, present, and future together in each liturgical gathering. This is seen particularly
in the textual material of the Liturgy of the Hours. It is often expressed in hymns through
the rhetorical mode of enargia, or making the described event and persons more tangibly
present. Numerous hymns include a reference to the narrative taking place ‘today’, or
semeron. A hymn from the Matins of Palm Sunday is such an example: ‘Today Christ
enters the Holy City seated on a colt, abolishing the wicked folly of the nations, that had
been left dry and barren of old’. A similar effect is created, for instance, in a Palm Sunday
sermon by St Andrew of Crete, where he exhorts his audience:

But come with me and going up on to the Mount of Olives let us meet Christ today as He
approaches from Bethany and advances willingly towards that holy and blessed Passion
that He may reach the goal of the mystery of our salvation […] and let us imitate those who
met Him, not strewing branches of olive or implements or palms in His path, but spreading
out our very selves as much as we are able, with humble soul and correct belief, that we
may receive the Word as He comes and that God may be contained in us, God Who is
nowhere contained. (Cunningham 1983: 387, 389–390).

Prayers as such are offered to God and His saints as if they were present in the church
space – which, according to the Byzantine liturgical understanding, they spiritually are.
Some Byzantine monastic foundation documents aptly exhort the monastic chanters to
perform in the church space with the understanding that God is their audience (Olkinuora
2020).

It has also been noted that the same rhetorical devices affected iconography, where
Byzantine artists aimed at conveying a feeling of the presence of saints in the church
space (Maguire 1981). This is aesthetically achieved by the lack of perspective, unlike
in the religious art of the Western European Renaissance. The Byzantine icon opens
up a space between the icon and its beholder, thus allowing for a dialogue to happen
between the person depicted in the icon and its beholder (Kordis 2010). The enargia is,
then, actualized by the prominent presence of icons in the church space, as well.

4.3 Liturgical mimesis

Byzantine liturgical commentaries of the Constantinopolitan tradition that form the basis
of the contemporary mystical understanding of liturgy have much to say about the
idea of mimesis, or imitation, that happens through various elements of the liturgy. The
church building itself, it is seen as a mimetic image in Maximos the Confessor’s (d. 662)
Mystagogy, one of the most influential liturgical commentaries (Berthold 1985: 181–226):
he interprets the church building as an image not only of God himself but also of the

24
universe consisting of visible and invisible substances, the sensible world as such and,
finally, man with his tripartite soul. In other words, mystical contemplation of a liturgical
element can lead to results on various levels and with dramatically different interpretive
trajectories.

A commentary attributed to Germanos of Constantinople also assigns connections

between locations related to the salvific work of Christ and particular locations in the
church: the apse represents the birth cave in Bethlehem; the holy table is an image of
the spot in the tomb where Christ was placed, but also the throne of God; the ciborium
corresponds with the place of crucifixion and the ark of the covenant; the altar as a whole
is an image of the tomb of Christ (Meyendorff 1984: 58–63).

The liturgical commentaries also give emphasis to the performative roles of the liturgy.
It is common for the commentaries to see the celebrant as an image of Christ and the
deacons as images of the angels, thus imitating the invisible heavenly liturgy. Despite the
occasional modern criticism towards this view as being ‘clericalist’, it is deeply rooted in the
thought of ecclesiastical hierarchy, first systematically represented by Pseudo-Dionysios
the Areopagite. It is up to the higher levels of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the clergy, to
transmit divine glory to the lower levels of the hierarchy during the liturgy.

There is nothing fake or pretentious in this process of imitation. Instead, Terence Cuneo
has aptly pointed out that this process of full immersion into the target roles, as he calls
the process, means that the priest does things on behalf of Christ and tries to become
like Christ. The Byzantine commentators, according to Cuneo, ‘found something like
the dramatic representation theory, with its emphasis on role-playing, to be the natural
interpretation of important elements of the liturgy’ (Cuneo 2016: 75).

Finally, the liturgical movements themselves are a mimetic imitation of salvation history.
The mystical interpretation of movements finds its first ontological explanation in the
teaching of Pseudo-Dionysios, more precisely in the concepts of movement and stillness,
drawing inspiration from Neoplatonic philosophy. Liturgical movements aim to instil an
inner stillness in the faithful, reached through the cyclical structure of liturgical life – as
shown above – and the numerous repetitions of liturgical elements on a daily, weekly, and
annual basis. The circular movement in censing the church by the hierarch, for example,
is an image of the cosmological concepts of procession (proodos), reversion (epistrophe),
and remaining (mone). According to Pseudo-Dionysios, this circular progression in liturgy
is also an image of the incarnation:

We must look attentively upon the beauty which gives it so divine a form and we must
turn a reverent glance to the double movement of the hierarch when he goes first from the
divine altar to the far edges of the sacred place spreading the fragrance and then returns

25
 to the altar. For the blessed divinity, which transcends all being, while proceeding gradually
outward because of goodness to commune with those who partake of him, never actually
departs from his essential stability and immobility. He returns to his own starting point
without having any loss. (Luibheid 1987: 211)

The strict observance of the movements dictated by rubrics is, according to Maximos the
Confessor, a tool to unite the congregation:

[God] leads all beings to a common and unconfused identity of movement and existence,
no one being originally in revolt against any other or separated from him by a difference of
nature or of movement. (Berthold 1985: 186)

Liturgical commentaries also connect particular movements with moments of salvation

history. For example, the commentary attributed to Germanos sees the Small Entrance as
an image of the incarnation:

The entrance of the Gospel signifies the coming of the Son of God and His entrance into
this world, as the apostle says: ‘When He’, that is the God and Father, ‘brings the first-born
into the world, He says: “Let all God’s angels worship him”’ (Hb 1:6). Then the bishop, by
his stole, manifests the red and bloody stole of the flesh of Christ. The immaterial One and
God wore this stole, as porphyry decorated by the undefiled blood of the virgin Theotokos.
(Meyendorff 1984: 73–75)

Again, this kind of reading of the liturgy should not be understood as a ‘fake’ performance,
but as a deeply transformative mimetic experience. As Christina Gschwandtner has
recently argued, Byzantine liturgy creates a ‘fit’ between the corporeal and incorporeal,
the body and the soul, the visible and the invisible: participation in the invisible requires
visible images, through the invisible being ‘instantiated in space and time, in bodies and
materiality’. She concludes:

Earth does not just mirror heaven in the false sense of mimesis as mere shadow or
deceptive imitation, but it becomes imbued with it as the two are transformed in a union
without confusion where they match up, where the ‘feasting above’ is entirely comingled
with and occurs in the ‘feasting below’. (Gschwandtner 2017: 22)

5 Conclusion

26
It is impossible to distil the complex richness of Byzantine worship into a survey as short
as this, but what is described here is enough to demonstrate the multi-faceted approach
a scholar of Byzantine liturgy must necessarily employ. The multiple historical influences
and layers synthesized in the simplest of services of the daily office points to the nuance
required in delving into any one of its elements merely on a textual level. Quite inseparably
from this, recognizing the necessity for these liturgical texts to be realized in an actualized
liturgical performance provides the only means by which their study can be contextualized
in any satisfying way. The numerous desiderata for future scholarship include matters of
not only manuscript history, but also deep immersion into liturgical theology and praxis.

Attributions

Copyright Damaskinos Olkinuora (CC BY-NC)

27
Bibliography
• Further reading
◦ Bunta, Silviu, and Matthew-Peter Butrie (eds). 2019. Ieratikon According to the
Simonopetra Tradition. 3 vols. Translated by Silviu Bunta and Matthew-Peter
Butrie. Dayton, OH: Cherubim Press.
◦ Eastern Orthodox Church. 2017. The Great Horologion, or Book of Hours.
Boston: The Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
◦ Gschwandtner, Christina M. 2019. Welcoming Finitude. Toward a Phenomenology
of Orthodox Liturgy. New York: Fordham University Press.
◦ Taft, Robert. 1993. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the
Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
◦ Wybrew, Hugh. 2013. Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic
Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. London: SPCK.
• Works cited
◦ Afanasiev, Nikolai. 2019. The Church of the Holy Spirit. Translated by Vitaly
Permiakov. Alexandria: Alexander Street Press.
◦ Alexopoulos, Stefanos. 2009. The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite:
A Comparative Analysis of Its Origins, Evolution, and Structural Components.
Leuven: Peeters.
◦ Alexopoulos, Stefanos, Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, Stefan Royé, and Andrew
Wade. 2025. Byzantine Liturgical Books: An Introduction. Catalogue of Byzantine
Manuscripts in Their Liturgical Context: Subsidia 2. Turnhout: Brepols.
◦ Alexopoulos, Stefanos, and Dionysios Bilalis Anatolikiotes. 2025. ‘Towards
a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: An Initial
Survey’, in Byzantine Liturgical Books: An Introduction. Catalogue of Byzantine
Manuscripts in Their Liturgical Context: Subsidia 2. Edited by Stefanos
Alexopoulos, Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, Stefan Royé, and Andrew Wade.
Turnhout: Brepols.
◦ Alexopoulos, Stefanos, and Maxwell E. Johnson. 2022. Introduction to Eastern
Christian Liturgies. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press Academic.
◦ Andreopoulos, Andreas. 2013. Gazing on God: Trinity, Church and Salvation in
Orthodox Thought and Iconography. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.
◦ Baumstark, Anton. 2010. Denkmäler Der Entstehungsgeschichte Des
Byzantinischen Ritus (Monuments of the History of the Origin of the Byzantine
Rite). Analecta Gorgiana 467. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
◦ Berthold, George C. (trans.). 1985. Maximus Confessor: Selected Writings. New
York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

28
◦ Bornert, René. 1966. Les commentaires byzantins de la divine liturgie du VIIe au
XVe siècle (Byzantine Commentaries on the Divine Liturgy from the 7th to the
15th Century). Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 9. Paris: Institut français d’études
byzantines.
◦ Bradshaw, Paul. 1996. Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction to Ideas and
Practice. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
◦ Butcher, Brian A. 2018. Liturgical Theology After Schmemann: An Orthodox
Reading of Paul Ricoeur. New York: Fordham University Press.
◦ Cuneo, Terence. 2016. Ritualized Faith: Essays on the Philosophy of Liturgy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
◦ Cunningham, Mary B. 1983. ‘Andreas of Crete’s Homilies on Lazarus and
Palm Sunday: A Critical Edition and Commentary’, University of Birmingham.
Unpublished doctoral thesis.
◦ Denysenko, Nicholas. 2021. ‘The Divine Liturgy – A New Order’, Worship 95: 12–
33.
◦ Fountoules, Ioannes. 1963. Ἡ εἰκοσιτετράωρος ἀκοίμητος δοξολογία (The Twenty-
Four Hour Sleepless Doxology). Athens: Aster.
◦ Fountoules, Ioannes. 1994. Κείμενα λειτουργικῆς (Liturgical Texts). Volume 3.
Thessaloniki: Θείαι Λειτουργίαι (Divine Liturgies).
◦ Frøyshov, Stig Simeon R. 2013. ‘Rite of Jerusalem’, in Canterbury Dictionary of
Hymnology. https://hymnology.hymnsam.co.uk/
◦ Frøyshov, Stig Simeon R. 2020. ‘The Early History of the Hagiopolitan Office in
Constantinople: New Perspectives on the Formative Period of the Byzantine Rite’,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 74: 351–382.
◦ Galadza, Daniel. 2018. Liturgy and Byzantinization in Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
◦ Geldhof, Joris. 2010. ‘Liturgy as Theological Norm: Getting Acquainted with
‘Liturgical Theology’’, Neue Zeitschrift Für Systematische Theologie Und
Religionsphilosophie 52: 155–176.
◦ Getcha, Job. 2012. The Typikon Decoded: An Explanation of Byzantine Liturgical
Practice. Translated by Paul Meyendorff. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press.
◦ Gschwandtner, Christina M. 2017. ‘Mimesis or Metamorphosis? Eastern Orthodox
Liturgical Practice and Its Philosophical Background’, Religions 8: 92.
◦ Hanke, Gregor Maria. 2018. Vesper und Orthros des Kathedralritus
der Hagia Sophia zu Konstantinopel: eine strukturanalytische und
entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der Psalmodie und der Formulare in den Euchologien (Vespers and Orthros of
the cathedral rite of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: a structural-analytical and
developmental-historical study with special consideration of the psalmody and the

29
 forms in the euchologies). Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 21, 1–2. Münster:
Aschendorff.
◦ Harrison, Carol. 2015. The Art of Listening in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
◦ Hieromonk Patapios, and Archimandrite Chrysostomos. 2006. Manna from Athos:
The Issue of Frequent Communion on the Holy Mountain in the Late Eighteenth
and Early Nineteenth Centuries. Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies 2. Oxford:
Peter Lang.
◦ Hussey, J. M., and P. A. McNulty (trans.). 1960. Nicholas Cabasilas: A
Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
◦ Kordis, George. 2010. Icon as Communion: The Ideals and Compositional
Principles of Icon Painting. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
◦ Larin, Vassa. 2013. ‘“Active Participation” of the Faithful in Byzantine Liturgy’, St
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 67, no. 1: 67–88.
◦ Longo, Augusta. 1965. ‘Il testo integrale della Narrazione degli abati Giovanni e
Sofronio attraverso le Hermineiai di Nicone (The Complete Text of the Narration
of the Abbots John and Sophronius Through the Hermineiai of Nicone)’, Rivista
degli Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 12–13: 233–267.
◦ Luibheid, Colm. 1987. Pseudo-Dionysios: The Complete Works. New York/
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
◦ Maguire, Henry. 1981. Art and Eloquence in Byzantium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
◦ Mateos, Juan. 1962. Le Typicon de La Grande Église. Ms. Sainte-Croix No.
40. Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction Et Notes (The Typicon of the Great
Church. Ms. Sainte-Croix No. 40. Introduction, Critical Text, Translation and
Notes). 2. vols. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum.
◦ McGowan, Anne, and Paul F. Bradshaw. 2018. The Pilgrimage of Egeria.
Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.
◦ Meyendorff, Paul (trans.). 1984. Germanus of Constantinople: On the Divine
Liturgy. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
◦ Olkinuora, Damaskinos. 2020. ‘Visible and Invisible, Audible and Inaudible Chant
Performance in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents’, Journal of the
International Society for Orthodox Church Music 4, no. 1: 1–13.
◦ Olkinuora, Damaskinos. 2021. ‘Byzantine Liturgical Commentaries and the Notion
of Performance’, Studia Patristica 130: 353–370.
◦ Olkinuora, Jaakko Henrik. 2015. Byzantine Hymnography for the Feast of the
Entrance of the Theotokos: An Intermedial Approach. Studia Patristica Fennica 4.
Helsinki: Societas Patristica Fennica.

30
◦ Parenti, Stefano. 2020. L’anafora di Crisostomo: Testo e contesti (The Anaphora
Of Chrysostom: Text and Contexts). Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 36.
Münster: Aschendorff.
◦ Parenti, Stefano. 2021. ‘La “vittoria” nella chiesa di Constantinopoli della liturgia di
Crisostomo sulla liturgia di Basilio (The “Victory” in the Church of Constantinople
of Chrysostom’s Liturgy over Basil)’, in Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after
Anton Baumstark (1872–1948): Acts of the International Congress, Rome, 25–
29 September 1998. Edited by Robert Taft and Gabriele Winkler. Rome: Pontifical
Oriental Institute, 907–928.
◦ Parenti, Stefano. 2022. ‘The Beginning of the Hagiopolite Liturgy in
Constantinople: New Narrative Or Historical Novel? About an Article by Stig R.
Frøyshov’, Medioevo Greco 22: 399–427.
◦ Parenti, Stefano, and Elena Velkovska. 1995. L’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (ff.
1-263). Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche.
◦ Parpulov, Georgi R. 2014. Toward a History of Byzantine Psalters Ca. 850–1350
AD. Plovdiv.
◦ Pentcheva, Bissera V. 2010. The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in
Byzantium. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
◦ Pentcheva, Bissera V. 2017. Hagia Sophia: Sound, Space and Spirit in
Byzantium. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
◦ Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2021. Hearing the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old
Testament in Byzantine Orthodox Hymnography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
◦ Permiakov, Vitaly. 2020a. The Divine Liturgies of the Holy Apostle James, Brother
of the Lord. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Publications.
◦ Permiakov, Vitaly. 2020b. The Divine Liturgies of the Holy Apostle James, Brother
of the Lord. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Publications.
◦ Petras, Daniel M. 1991. The Typicon of the Patriarch Alexis the Studite: Novgodo
St. Sophia 1136. Cleveland University. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
◦ Pott, Thomas. 2010. Byzantine Liturgical Reform: A Study of Liturgical Change in
the Byzantine Tradition. Translated by Paul Meyendorff. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s
Seminary Press.
◦ Ray, Walter D. 2017. ‘Understanding Liturgy: The Byzantine Liturgical
Commentaries’, in Aural Architecture in Byzantium: Music, Acoustics, and Ritual.
Edited by Bissera V. Pentcheva. London/New York: Routledge, 78–100.
◦ Renoux, Athanase. 1971. Le Codex Arménien Jérusalem 121. Volume 2.
Turnhout: Brepols. Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscrits. PO
36.2.
◦ Schmemann, Alexander. 1975. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Translated
by Asheleigh E. Moorhouse. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 2nd
edition.

31
◦ Shoemaker, Stephen J. 2018. The First Christian Hymnal: The Songs of the
Ancient Jerusalem Church. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
◦ Simon, Pimen, German Ciuba, and Theodore Jorewiec. 1986. Old Orthodox
Prayer Book. Erie, PA: Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ (Old
Rite).
◦ Streza, Ciprian I. 2021. ‘Modern Theological Research: The Authorship of the
Byzantine Anaphora of Saint Basil Under Investigation with the Thesaurus
Linguae Graecae Database’, HTS Teologiese Studies 77, no. 4
◦ Taft, Robert F. 1978. A History of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Orientalia
Christiana Analecta. 6. vols. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium.
◦ Taft, Robert F. 1990. ‘The Authenticity of the Chrysostom Anaphora Revisited:
Determining the Authorship of Liturgical Texts by Computer’, Orientalia Christiana
Periodica 56: 5–51.
◦ Taft, Robert F. 1992. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press.
◦ Takala-Roszczenko, Maria. 2013. The ‘Latin’ Within the ‘Greek’: The Feast of the
Holy Eucharist in the Context of Ruthenian Eastern Rite Liturgial Evolution in the
16th–18th Centuries. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology 50.
Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.
◦ Tarchnischvili, Michel. 1959. Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve-
VIIIe siècle) (The great lectionary of the Church of Jerusalem [5th-8th century]).
Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO.
◦ Violakis, George. 2015. Typikon: The Ritual Order of the Services of The Great
Church of Christ. Highlands Ranch, CO: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver
Church Music Foundation.
◦ White, Andrew Walker. 2018. Performing Orthodox Ritual in Byzantium.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32