Notes in Liturgical Theology
The liturgical rules of the Orthodox Church prescribe that the
Divine Liturgy is to be celebrated after Vespers on certain fast
days. These days are: Thursday and Saturday of the Holy Week, the
eves of Christmas and Theophany and the Feast of the Annunciation.
Likewise the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is always celebrated
after Vespers. If we bear in mind that our Typikon determines the
time for Vespers according to the sun and not by the clock, then the
prescribed time for these evening Liturgies should be approximately
from two to five in the afternoon.
It is well known that these rubrics have become dead letter today,
or rather they are preserved in form, but in such a way that the
Liturgy is not transferred to the evening, but on the contrary,
Vespers is served in the morning. This breach of rule should not be
explained as a mere condescension of the Church to the "weakness
of the flesh," as a desire to curtail the period of abstinence
for the communicants, for we can observe this same practice where the
rubrics are scrupulously respected and where no attempt is made to
defer to human weakness. In this case, we are forced to deal with the
belief, deeply rooted in contemporary ecclesiastical consciousness,
that the Divine Liturgy must always be celebrated in the morning. Its
vesperal celebration would appear to be an unheard of innovation to
the overwhelming majority of Orthodox people, something much more
unnatural and irregular than the well-established practice of serving
Vespers in the morning and Matins in the evening.
It is obvious however, that in uniting the Liturgy with Vespers,
the authors of the Typikon intended more than a purely formal
connection between the two services. They meant a deliberate transfer
of the Liturgy to the evening, a conscious change in the usual order
of services. Again it is obvious that in not fulfilling the rule, or
in fulfilling it only as a formality (i.e., in transferring Vespers
to the morning) we commit a twofold infraction of the liturgical
"typos"; we serve an evening service in the morning which
besides being a "nominalization" of prayer, is a
contradiction to the common sense, and moreover, we completely ignore
the reasons which promoted the Church to order the celebration of the
Liturgy on certain days in the evening and not in the morning. But
perhaps if we investigate these reasons, we will see in them
something more meaningful than a mere detail of rubrics, something
forgotten yet essential for the comprehension of our liturgical
tradition.
