Introduction

Background

One of the main purposes for making this New Skete foundation thirty-four years ago was to provide for the renewal of Orthodox Catholic liturgical life through an examination of the findings of liturgists and the implementation of those findings in a living monastic setting. Since, historically, it had been monasticism that brought the church to the ill-conceived and truly disorderly liturgical quagmire in which it finds itself today, we hoped that a monastery of today might help point the direction to a renewal. As a matter of fact, monasteries have traditionally enjoyed the right to develop their own usages. Hence, our work here at New Skete.

Although there was no precise step-by-step plan for this renewal we hoped to begin, we envisaged that it would unfold in a gradually progressive manner throughout the community life of the monastery, as the years went on. We intended, therefore, to address each major office of the liturgical day and the seasonal offices as time permitted. As it happened, the course of the succeeding years, we did considerable work first by way of practical experimentation and then by consolidating our findings and the subsequent determinations concretely in a typicon for the various liturgical services as we actually take them. This issue has not been a simple matter only of translations, for the prayer of the communities has to be such that it is renewed in each celebration. The manner of celebration itself must be continually refined and polished, whether concerning clergy, chanters, choir, or people, not to mention the importance of the sacred space wherein this takes place. In a word, it involves the whole celebration, not just a book of texts. The life of the community has in fact to be reflected in the offices and vice versa so that the whole matter is genuine and valid. This has resulted in a revised and simplified form of the eucharistic liturgies as well as the daily canonical hours. A further accomplishment was the actual publication of various proper texts that serve, as it were, to flesh out the structure of the canonical hours.

In the course of these past thirty-four years, then, we have developed a daily, monastic, communal, liturgical life profoundly marked by renewal, reform, and restoration. We have also presented the underlying principles of our work in the introductions to our various liturgical publications. History will have to judge the merits of all this, though we ourselves feel that the results we have produced have been efficacious and worthy of our studies and efforts in this whole area. They have been remarkably apt for our time and conditions and most especially for the particular situation of our three communities. Many others who have participated in celebrating these offices, both here with us and elsewhere, have attested to this.

In touching on all this, however, we feel obligated to say certain things, but we would like to remind the reader that we do so with a heavy heart. It is not our desire to be critical or judgmental, and we certainly do not pretend to lay blame at anyone's door, but neither can we remain silent about what is so clearly visible. We hope, then, that the reader will take the following introduction not only as an attempt to explain our work, but equally as our earnest desire to prod the Church into a better practice of her faith, to bring some light and encouragement at least on the scene of the Church's liturgical life.

So, while there are many, as we have said, who welcome the renewal we have attempted, there are also those who are considerably disturbed by what we have done to the various offices of the church. It seems that they consider Orthodoxy their own private property and therefore not to be tampered with, least of all, by the likes of us. Many obviously maintain a blanket disapproval and condemnation of all our efforts and the results of these efforts. In fact, one might well say that many people generally disapprove of us, period! Some seem to feel that renewal means the restoration of eighteenth century Athonite or Russian usages, though grudgingly permitting the use of old English in the style of the sixteenth century. Others are of the opinion that this or that particular reconstruction we have introduced is unwarranted and therefore undesirable and unacceptable. Still others, in a kind of dismay, simply want to know why our liturgical practices are so different from those of the rest of the church at large. Finally, there are also those few who are knowledgeable in these matters, but who would approach a reform in an entirely different way, if at all. But with regard to all of these, it is curious that most of our critics have never been here to see things with their own eyes, and those relatively few who have been here have never really engaged us in a discussion about the changes we have made and the whys and wherefores of these changes.

In this regard, we might add that some want us to enter into discussion with them on these matters, but in actuality it is evident that very few are of a mind to be open to our ideas. It is we who must resign ourselves to their opinions, while, as a matter of fact, others have made it only too clear that we are not even welcome at such discussions! It is a curious reality of Orthodox intellectual life that one may not really disagree, even in theory, with those who are (obviously!) the zealous defenders of the unchanging tradition! The entire tradition, it seems, is of divine inspiration if not in fact divine authorship! We see things somewhat differently, and, at any rate our life precludes our having the time or the money to go gallivanting around for such encounters. The actual fact of the matter is, we have to say, that the overwhelming majority of our critics have little or no background with which to critique the rationale behind our work. However one describes the situation, it is clear that in the matter of liturgy as also in other matters of monastic life, our communities are considered highly controversial.

Certainly, it has never been our intent or desire to be controversial. It has, however, been a fact that from the beginnings of our monastic life, the important of liturgical practice was deeply impressed upon us especially by those who formed us. There was, accordingly, not way in which we could have shoved this aside and pretended that it was not so. So, as a matter of fact, we have seen this whole aspect of our life as a kind of inspiration, a mandate of sorts, if you wish, arising from our very circumstances these past four decades. In the beginning, it must also be said, we were so naive as to think that eastern christians, at least, would generally be in favor of what we hoped to accomplish! Naive, indeed! Nevertheless, we would like to think that in some mysterious way our life's work has indeed been inspired by God. So, the motivation for all this is hardly a desire for controversy but an intense and real love of the church and her liturgy, and for a people in dire need of what the church should be able to provide.

For us, it is just short of incredible that the entire Orthodox world seems unable (or is it simply unwilling?) to recognize the terribly confused and baroque condition of the liturgical offices today. There are even experts in Byzantine liturgy and in the study of its sources who know what might be accomplished in this area and who, for some inscrutable reason, remain opposed to any renewal of the liturgies and offices unless these are first agreed upon by the whole church, whatever this means! And for several decades now, it has also been fashionable for more and more westerners to be attracted and mesmerized by the would-be beauty of Orthodox worship. This has simply made it all the more impossible for the Orthodox themselves to critique their liturgical practices in an honest and objective way. (And this also applies, we might add, to Eastern Catholics, mutatis mutandis.) One is astonished at how perfect Orthodoxy is in all its aspects! Everything Orthodox is ipso facto superior to anything and everything of western christianity! (And, one may suppose, in the other forms of eastern christianity as well!) Can such really be possible? Can it be possible that only western churches need renewal? Can it be possible that nothing in Orthodoxy has to be reconsidered? Can it be possible that only in Orthodoxy is everything perfect? Is this the mission of Orthodoxy? How could such nonsense be so? It is also further disturbing when western aficionados of Orthodoxy unthinkingly buy into and support such ridiculous, emotional, and irrational attitudes! And this does not even deal with the question of how Eastern Catholics have suddenly become so "Orthodox" in the last few years! Regarding these eastern Catholics, it is certainly laudable that they are seeking to recovered their spirit and usages, but let us hope that they can avoid becoming just a Catholic version of so-called "super Orthodox."

There are obviously many reasons for this blindness, for this living in perpetual denial. Part of it lies, doubtless, in some sort of deep-seated insecurity and self-doubt, such that can readily account for all kinds of arrogance, triumphalism, and self-righteousness. Furthermore, the general history of the various eastern christian peoples has certainly contributed to this head-in-the-sand attitude so prevalent especially among hierarchs and other hardliner clergy, as well as the people at large.

The Monastic Influence

A further very important aspect of this whole attitude of intransigence, of paralysis, is its monastic coloration. Anyone familiar with Orthodoxy may readily perceive the psychological stranglehold of monasticism on the Orthodox Church. This has been so not only in the past. It is so even today. Because of the history of monasticism and its influence, the whole church tends to hold it in great reverence, except for those people who have a better understanding of some of the ill-considered influences monasticism has actually had on the church throughout the ages.

Here again, let us remind the reader that we do not make these remarks for the sake of criticism, but because we love monasticism and are proud to be monastics ourselves and to share this state with others. Still, we cannot help perceiving the bad effects perpetrated by monastics throughout history. And while we make no pretense, once again, about the inner spiritual condition of anyone's heart before God, we cannot stand by and pretend not to see these actions and their effects on church life. Monastics who truly seek to enter into the marrow of their vocation, who are determined to be authentic representatives of their state of life realize how necessary true wisdom and understanding are for personal growth and development. But it is precisely such wisdom, coupled with their own authenticity and integrity, that make them able to recognize the great lack of the same in their confreres, no matter how innocent the latter in the eyes of the Almighty. And in these matters, silence is simply an unaffordable commodity that compounds the trouble.

It seems that ever since the iconoclast controversy, if not even earlier, monastics have been determined to decide and dictate church policy on all levels. Making of themselves self-appointed overseers of Christian life and practice, they have exhibited an unwarranted and exaggerated zeal for the church. Unfortunately, this zeal is rather the mark of the uneducated rather than of those who have truly grown in wisdom and understanding. Inevitably, many monastics were poorly, if at all, educated. This is true even today, to some degree, though today the lack of education is not one on the secular university level so much as a profound lack of understanding of the liturgical, psychological, spiritual and ethical/moral realities proper to church life, in a word, of the very phrónêma of the church. We might describe the resultant ignorance as one characteristic of the "peasant", though we are not here speaking about birth status. This "peasant" frame of mind would certainly account for a great deal of the fundamentalism and rigidity characteristic of Orthodoxy throughout the world and for the absence of solid traditions of self-reform, self-examination, learning, and the wise exercise of power and authority. It is characterized by a certain kind of childishness and myopia. It is, further, marked by an unwarranted and illegitimate kind of pride in both monasticism and the Orthodox faith in general, a pride that is hardly commensurate with healthy, virtuous living. Again, the overtones of colossal self-satisfaction are clearly recognizable, so that one wonders, once again, to what extent has Orthodox monasticism fostered significant growth in authentic christian spirituality throughout the centuries? And what is it fostering today?

In considering the monastic influence, we should not lose sight of the fact that the present usages of the Orthodox world are almost entirely monastic, the results of baroque, indiscriminate retention (and at times elimination) of these myriads of accretions collected throughout the centuries. The parochial typicon that was in use at one time was suppressed in favor of the monastic, which action, in itself, is a colossal indication of misjudgment if not arrogance. How and why are ordinary people expected to observe monastic practices? Is this not ridiculous? This is not only ridiculous, but also a fact that has cost the church considerably throughout the centuries. And of course, there is always the question of the effect on all this of the collapse of the empire.

While we could certainly go on to list several other reasons for this intransigence, it is really not our purpose. However, it is crucial for us to note it explicitly and clearly, for the record. Perhaps some other brave and insightful persons might write an entire volume on this someday. We hope so. Such is certainly needed!

In the meanwhile, we continually remind ourselves that our work lies elsewhere. We believe in the potential of Orthodox liturgy in general and in its power to inspire deeper, more authentic christian living, and so we expend our efforts with a view to what we hope will be the arrival of a new day for Orthodoxy. We want all our efforts to support a much needed new attitude in these matters, what we hope will one day be the emergence of a new openness and honesty in the church (so far nonexistent) regarding her failures, her faults, and her shortcomings, or, shall we say, regarding her overall approach to daily christian living, in general. We look forward to the day when Orthodox will really and actually live by the axiom that the truth will make you free!

With great dismay, however, we note so much of what we cannot help but see as the lack of basic good will: people in positions of authority and leadership who prefer to treat the church as a museum of past glories rather than as the living body of Christ; individuals who lives and ministry are determined primarily by ecclesiastical and ethnic concerns and politics, or by the external of ritualism, or by the presumption of superiority over all others. We find this rampant in people who, for all their education, prefer ignorance to enlightenment, who are influenced by fear, the fear of changing anything that might make them liable before the rest of the church. We see it verified in people who are using church life and their places in the church to amass power and wealth. This all, in turn, makes one wonder about the quality of the inner, spiritual life of such people... Yes it does make one wonder...

So, the face of the unremitting resistance to renewal, we continue our work in the same vein as we have done for more than thirty years.

The Lenten Season

With this volume, then, the fourteenth in our series of liturgical publications, we turn our attention to the season of great lent.

A critical examination of the Orthodox attitude concerning the lenten season will reveal that here, again, there is much room for growth in understanding. The church at large seem to have a very poor understanding of this liturgical season, its purpose, and the methods to achieve its goals. As is the case in many other areas, a kind of not so subtle, perhaps unconscious, idolatry, rather than repentance, characterizes the general attitude toward this season. In the first place, there is an extremely widespread failure to realize the internal dynamic of lenten practice and, as a result, externals take precedence. In many ways, neither the clergy nor the faithful have ever been taught even the rudiments of developing the inner life, or even that such a life exists. Consequently there is an exaggerated preoccupation with fasting, prostrations, and other external forms of asceticism, no to mention an obsession with sexual purity. Yet, other aspects of personal, interior asceticism are completely ignored.

It seems that this is what lent amounts to: a somewhat unbalanced set of negative rules and regulations that end up making the whole experience a kind of exercise in a physical, almost athletic prowess, rather than authentic personal spiritual growth. One is judged by the quality and kind of food not eaten and by the number of prostrations made, not by what really takes place in the inner self. The understanding required for positive personal growth is also overlooked. Very little gets articulated about positive virtue whether in the pulpit or in any other form of teaching the faith. The brunt of all efforts is on a shallow comprehension of the Orthodox faith, once again, most usually concentrating on dogmatics, ritual, and externals, as well as on a rigidly literalist understanding of scripture.

Thus, the general population, to the degree that it is actually conscious of lent at all, enters the season for the most part uninformed, if not actually for the wrong reason. The inner meaning, true repentance and its far-reaching implications, is all but missed completely. And the liturgical texts, in many instances, foster this misunderstanding, incessantly preoccupied as they are with external customs and practices. The human condition is in general given short shrift: it is entirely negative, with little clear appreciation of the possibilities for growth that human nature provides. Finally, the other less sensational faults and failings commonly found in the human condition are also ignored. In addition, though the saints can certainly give us good examples of personal growth and holiness, they are made the focus of the season at the expense of the person of Christ. Thus, it would appear that saints like Gregory Palamas, Theodore the Recruit, John of the Ladder, and Mary of Egypt have more to say to us than the life of Christ!

It is appalling to think that with so much education available to people today there is still so much ignorance in matters of religion. Here, e.g., is an intelligent physicist or medical doctor or one educated in whatever field, possibly close to brilliant, and yet unexplainably ignorant when it comes to religion. Part of this is, of course, the lack of interest in religion manifested by so many people. But what about those who are interested in learning their faith and its implications? What is the nature and quality of the instruction they receive? And, of course, this applies equally to clergy. What kinds of superstitions and belief in magic are interwoven into so much religious teaching? It is true that a great deal of religion concerns mystery, but not everything in religion is, or has to be, a mystery!

At this point we have to note that the majority of the daily services are not celebrated in most parishes. Furthermore, only a small percentage of the faithful go to church when these services are celebrated. Therefore, most people never hear most of what the liturgy of the church has to say. Then, if the Sundays are dedicated to the saints, the lessons presented to them are exercises in hagiographical notes of doubtful authenticity and relevance. Finally, if what they do hear in church is in a foreign language or garbled in enunciation, then once again they gain little from the experience.

The entire season, then, as well as its practical implementation, screams for a serious examination and revision in order to realize the deepest levels of repentance which these days intend.

The Revision

We see this revision in terms of renewal, reform, and restoration.

It is a matter of renewal in that we ourselves are both the subjects and objects of the renewal that occurs or should occur in church life. We require constant renovation of our attitudes and practices, of our moral, emotional, and intellectual living. We require new infusions, as it were, of life at every moment, through our bonds with the deepest sources of life. We require renovation of our deepest selves. By going back to the foundations of our liturgical heritage and struggling to understand their meaning, purpose, and relatedness, we find the fuel whereby we can realize this self-revivification.

Furthermore, this revision is also necessarily a reformation. It would be impossible to revise the received structures, texts, and ceremonial without reforming various aspects of them. It is unfortunate that the word "reformation" tends to alarm so many, but this is what must be part of any sensible renewal. There has been, over the centuries, such a great deal of deformation in the offices at large (e.g., the confusion of symbols, the replication and repetition of various prayers, litanies, and hymns, and the obfuscation of the essential meaning and purpose of texts and ceremonies) that it would be impossible to revise and renew them without finding a new balance, a broader focus, and the reforming them as well.

Finally, such a revision also implies a restoration. It necessarily includes restoring certain usages to their earlier, original shape and function without having to inflate and explain everything, for example, by way of trumped-up symbolism. It also means restoring certain elements that have been cast aside through the centuries. Thus rearranging, retrieving, and rejecting certain elements of the offices must be part of the restoration process.

It should go without saying that wise reason and a factual knowledge of the field should be the guides to all this. These two elements must work together with a view to pastoral efficacy. There is no room in any part of this process for chauvinism, emotionalism, and hidden agendas, much less competitiveness. We are supposed to be working, each and every one of us, for the good of the church and not to shine personally! Personal glory should not receive even the slightest consideration in this matter!

Our revision of the lenten observances is not meant to suggest that this is the only possible solution, let alone the perfect revision. But it has worked eminently well for us and eliminates a lot that is basically unsound about the present geography and psychology, or "inner logic" as touted by some, of the triodion. One could certainly do worse than what is recommended here. There are other possibilities, certainly, but we offer this as a model first and foremost for a monastic community, and then for what it might say for a revision of the lenten season on the parish level. It must also be recalled that this revision is within the context of our general renewal of the offices, i.e., we chant or sing the hymns and psalms as a community, and generally to canonical melodies and almost completely in choral arrangements. Thus, the offices are not sung only by one or two and it eliminates the often slip-shod and careless chanting of the office texts in recto-tono fashion, or even the using of unison melody lines, ever faster and faster as if simply to do it and get it over with, with no concern whatever for beauty! Furthermore, our method of taking the offices permits the celebrant to sing the priestly prayers aloud at their proper juncture in the offices for the hearing of all.

Our Approach

Therefore, let us explain what we have done in this matter.

This book is a collection of the hymns we use for the lenten season. The received texts included here come from the Triódion tês megálês tessarakostês as published in 1960 at Athens by the Apostolikê Diakonía, its Slavonic counterpart, the Triód' póstnaja, ciést' tripêsnec published in Moscow in 1897 and reprinted at Graz, Austria, and finally, from equivalent Eastern Catholic editions. In tandem with these volumes, we have consulted numerous other translations in various modern languages.

First of all, we have selected relatively few of the texts found in the triodion. To consider using, without any discretion, the given texts in their entirety would be sheer madness. Our life rhythm at the turn of the millennium does not afford our communities the time for such, even if we thought it desirable. On the contrary, it must be recalled that the liturgical books -- especially those that contain the proper texts of various feasts and celebrations -- are really anthologies. They provide us with a great deal of material from which to chose, from which a sensible and reasonable liturgical life might be developed. For some reason, it is difficult for most Orthodox to comprehend the fact that more does not mean better. In addition, they do not seem able to realize that the liturgical propers represent the work of different times and mindsets that have to be sorted out carefully if they are to serve us today. It hardly seems likely that the liturgical offices are supposed to be exercises in endurance! Still, it seems that this was the opinion in the past and is rampant even today.

Furthermore, we remind the reader that, in conformity with our usages, we do not retain any of the canons at matins. In their stead we have restored the Old Testament canticle counterparts from which they originally derive their meaning. In connection with this, however, it should be pointed out that on certain feasts as well as on each day of the Great Week, we dispense with the eighth canticle at matins and replace it with an antiphon of troparia of our own composition (c.f., e.g., the Saturday of Lazarus in this volume). Thus, we make no use whatever of the poetic canons of the lenten morning service or compline. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann, of happy memory, once quipped: Anyone who translates the canons ought to have a millstone tied about his neck and be thrown into the river! It could hardly have been put better.

The Translation

Regarding the work of translation itself, we have continued to be guided in the main by the principles of dynamic equivalence. We agree, once again, with Father Alexander Schmemann, who was wise enough to grasp the fact that the church's liturgical texts could not simply be translated. He perceived that they had to be rewritten completely. The fact of the matter is, in a word, this: are we to have a liturgical literature of some quality, or are we to expouse a low grade set of translations which, for all their literal faithfulness, are completely unfaithful to the inner substance and purposes of these texts? Accordingly, the selections we retain from the official books, we have in fact rewritten, trying where possible to preserve, distill, and enhance the basic thought of each phrase. At times, it was clear that even this approach would be unrealistic or that such and such a phrase said nothing to our times, and so we have dealt with the hymn in question in a freer way.

We feel it necessary to underline our conviction that slavish translations and exclusively literalist renditions should be zealously avoided. While many more now see the need to drop the Old English forms of the pronouns and verbs, there are still those who consider modern English a contamination by the world that should be avoided assiduously! It should go without saying that such is utter nonsense! We are, after all, in the world and evangelism and witness require that we speak to the world in language that it can understand, that doesn't further obfuscate and confuse the meaning of things. We must stay with the language that people today can clearly and powerfully hear, with due respect for a certain formality and proper decorum required by these sacred, public, sung texts. But they should not be hieratic and, therefore, artificial and stilted.

New Compositions

Included here are also compositions of our own -- again, something monastics have always done. These compositions attempt to highlight the less sensational though by no mean less important pitfalls of christian living. We have composed these as a counterbalance to the incessant and preponderant preoccupation of the received texts with fasting and sexual behavior. For convenience, we list the incipit of each of the hymns we have composed for the season in alphabetical order:

And each response given for the daily morning canticle, as well as the entire antiphon for matins of the Saturday of Lazarus.

We should also note here that the troparia used as responses to the verses of Psalm 51(50) at weekday matins are inspired by the practice of the Great Church of Constantinople as indicated in the Typicon de la Grande Église, Tome II: Le Cycle des Fêtes Mobiles as edited by Fr. Juan Mateos, S.J., Rome, 1963.

Major Specific Changes

Before dealing directly with each Sunday of the lenten season, we would once again remind the reader that, originally, Saturdays and Sundays were not lenten days in the sense that the penitential practices of lent were expected to be performed on these days. On the contrary, Sundays were special in that they were a celebration of the Resurrection. Saturdays were also nonpenitential, as evidenced by the fact that one of the major complaints against the Latins was that the latter fasted on Saturdays, a practice the Byzantines found intolerable. This would, of course, have also applied a fortiori to Sundays.

Things have changed. Today, the custom is to continue the lenten penitential practices though each weekend. In view of the original perception that only weekdays were lenten in the strict sense of the term, we do not here at the monastery treat weekends as days of lenten penitential practice, though, of course, they come during the lenten season. Still, as we have already mentioned, there is the need of reminding the faithful of this important period of the church year and since most would hear nothing about it since they go to church usually only on Sundays, it is appropriate to have some sort of theme commensurate with the lenten season celebrated on these Sundays. The reader will see below how we have dealt with this problem. [The reader may also consult Sighs of the Spirit, New Skete 1997, pp. xxxiii to xxxv, for a more detailed account of this point.]

As for the actual layout of the season, however, the tradition dedicates each Sunday of the fast to a specific theme. In reviewing this, we have revised these Sunday celebrations by eliminating the individual hagiographical commemorations and rearranging the entire season in the following way:

1. The received tradition celebrates the festival of Orthodoxy on the first Sunday. Historically, this was a one-shot observance that soon took on a life of its own. Today, there does not seem to be any relevant reason for continuing this office, especially in view of its having become the occasion for much self-righteousness and the blanket condemnation of others. We, from the monastery, have had the sad experience of being present for vespers of Orthodoxy in some parish churches where there were many non-Orthodox present, and these good people were subjected to hearing the anathemas at the conclusion of the office! And the clergy naively consider this something for which God would bless us! In this day and age, who would believe such a thing could take place? Accordingly, we suppress the office entirely.

In place of the celebration of Orthodoxy, we have instituted an office commemorating the testing of Christ in the desert, just prior to the beginning of his public life. We have composed completely new hymns for this celebration, being convince that the character of that testing of Christ is particularly apropos of the lenten season and should be commemorated at the beginning of great lent. This celebration brings our attention to the actual purpose of the lenten season, rather than filling our consciousness, as does the office of Orthodoxy, with all sorts of self-righteous thoughts, using the faith, as it were, as a battering ram against those who do not profess it as members of the Orthodox Church.

2. Turning our attention to the received texts for the second Sunday, we remove the commemoration of St Gregory Palamas, whose office, to begin with, is somewhat esoteric in its theological suppositions, and which also smacks of triumphalism and self-righteousness. These latter qualities seem somewhat foreign to the spirit and purpose of the season. No offense intended against St Gregory who, we think, might possibly agree with us from his present residence.

Accordingly, we replace the Palamite office on the second Sunday with the new office we have composed in honor of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, inspired by the substance of the New Testament letter to the Hebrews. This continues the emphasis on the person of the saviour, bringing before our eyes, once again, the centrality of Christ and his message for our lives.

3. For the third Sunday, we retain the commemoration of the holy cross. This is obviously also a focus on Christ and fits very nicely with the thrust we began on the first Sunday of this season.

4. On the fourth Sunday, we eliminate the celebration of St John of the Ladder, and replace it with an office in honor of Christ as the image of the Father, again, a theme we think especially apropos of the season.

5. For the fifth Sunday, we have replaced the office for St Mary of Egypt with a general office honoring all ascetics and monastics, basically the service set for cheesefare Saturday in the received texts. Of course, this commemoration, too, seems in harmony with what lent says about us during these days, and follows logically and comfortably from the emphases during the preceding weeks placed on Christ and the example he gives us.

The office, in its origins, underlines the asceticism expected of all the followers of Christ, but especially of monastics, mutatis mutandis. Since the whole purpose of the season is an emphatic renewal whereby we lay aside our old selves and make ourselves more truly like Christ, the office for today presents us, so to speak, with a synopsis of all that is celebrated in the person of Christ as developed, lived, and manifested by the ascetics and monastics.

6. We suppress the offices for the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete on the fifth Thursday and the Akathistos Hymn on the fifth Saturday. As we have already stated, we do not use any of the canons for matins or compline, a sufficient reason for eliminating the Great Canon. Those who wish may use this latter office privately. As far as the Akathistos Hymn is concerned, this office started out simply as the celebration of the Annunciation that took on a life of its own as the Saturday of the Akathistos Hymn. Since the feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos (usually) falls during lent, it seems needless to duplicate this celebration with another similar office during the season, especially when so much of that office comes from the Annunciation feast.

Conclusion

We cannot hope that this work will escape criticism, for we are only too painfully aware of our own limitations. Still, we can hope and pray that it will inspire others with the courage to move in the right direction. If we wait for the higher authorities to initiate such a program, renewal will never see the light of day. Nevertheless, it seems ineffably better to attempt some sort of positive renewal, even at the expense of making mistakes, rather than to sit back and let the status quo, both in theory and practice, continue to poison our wells. Unless individuals are ready to attempt such a task, it will, as we have said many times in the past, remain undone and nothing will change. For its own welfare, the Orthodox Church must, somehow, break out of its lethargy and inaction if there is to be any church left! We have to cease this nonsensical and God-offending superstition that the Holy Spirit will solve our problems for us. This would seem to be a grossly presumptuous and sinful attitude, certainly offensive to God in view of what he has made us able to accomplish.

So, we repeat once again: This is a revision of the lenten offices that we have made for the benefit of our own communities. It might well be used by other monastics. However, its value for monastics is one thing; its possibilities and necessary variations for parish life may be quite another matter.

Before concluding this introduction, we would like to express our indebtedness in a special way to Fr. Juan Mateos, S.J., formerly professor of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, who was the first to start us on this pilgrimage of renewal, reformation, and restoration. What we owe this priest, gentleman, and scholar is beyond our power to describe. Furthermore, we also wish to single out these others for their help: Our special thanks to Fr. Paul N. Harrilchak, of Holy Trinity Church in Reston, Virginia, for his many ideas and suggestions during our several discussions of the lenten season. We also want to cite the volume on The Sundays of the Lenten Triodion: The Sundays Without a Commemoration penned by Fr. Gabriel Bertonière, O.C.S.O., a monk of St Joseph's Cistercian Abbey at Spencer, Massachusetts, as well as other works by authors here and abroad. To all those in our own monastic communities who have assisted in the preparation of this volume by giving so much of their time and attention to its realization, and to those who have made its publication possible -- to these, also, our sincere appreciation. As usual, any errors are the fruit of our own limitations.