PASTORAL FOCUS

Eschatology and the Byzantine Liturgy

David M. Petras

of mystery, of total immersion in a timeless world. The

schatology as a word immediately invokes
reaction may also be negative, a feeling of irrelevance, of
in our mind something exotic and exciting.
overwhelming pietism and ritual, a failure to connect. No
Eschatos the last, where are we going and
matter what the reaction, though, most will agree on one
how will we get there? The Byzantine Liturgy
point, the Eastern Church is more eschatological, even
also invokes the same feelingit is something exotic and
if this means here only more exotic.
exciting. Of course, it is different for someone who was
born a Byzantine, or has entered the Byzantine world
by conversion (not necessarily by a change of religion
The Byzantine Liturgy Is Eschatological
or faith but even within the same religion or faith), and
Let us start with a basic premise, that the Byzantine
for someone who experiences a Byzantine Liturgy from
Liturgy is, in fact, eschatological. This can be seen
the outside. In a talk to the North American Orthodoxclearly in certain basic texts. In the Anaphora of St.
Catholic Theological Consultation on the occasion of its
John Chrysostom the priest prays, It is proper and just
fiftieth meeting in Milwaukee on October 26, 1996, the
to thank you, to worship you in every place of your
noted theologian Jaroslav Pelikan (+ 2006) suggested that
dominion for you left nothing
at least one of the fundamental reasons
done until you brought us to heaven
for the division between the Eastern
and gave us your kingdom to come.1
and Western churches was fundamenVery Rev. David M. Petras is
Then, in the same anaphora, we pray,
tal differences of spirituality, and that
professor of liturgy and direcRemembering the second comthe schism may date to the fourteenth
ing in glory, and in the Anaphora of
century. Western Christians entering
tor of spiritual formation at the
St. Basil the Great, we pray, we also
a Byzantine Church often have very
remember His glorious and fearstrong reactions to something that
Byzantine Catholic Seminary in
some second coming. However, the
is quite different, a totally different
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Liturgy does not dwell on imaginative
spirituality. The reaction may be quite
and fantastic descriptions of the final
positive, a feeling of connectedness,
Liturgical Ministry 19 (Winter 2010) 2935

Page 29

coming of this future kingdom. Strangely, it is proclaimed as if it were an event that has already happened,
as indeed it has in the divine eternity.
The problem of understanding
Given, then, as a basic datum that the Byzantine Liturgy
is eschatological, we must ask what we mean by eschatology. How do the Byzantine faithful themselves experience their Liturgy? What values would visitors find in
the Liturgy? There is a basic problem here. It is a reality
that Western Catholic liturgy was prayed for centuries in
a non-vernacular classical language not understood by
the average worshiper. The Eastern liturgies were not in
Latin, and were often perceived as vernacular, but this
is not true, strictly speaking. Theodore Balsamon, who
lived in the twelfth century and is the most famous of all
Byzantine canonists, formulated the Byzantine principle
regarding Byzantine liturgical languages: Those who
are wholly orthodox, but who are altogether ignorant of
the Greek tongue, shall celebrate in their own language
provided only that they have exact versions of their
customary prayers, translated on to rolls and well written in Greek characters.2 That all languages had to be
transcribed in Greek characters was totally impractical
and never followed. In the latter half of the seventeenth
century the translation of the Liturgy into Rumanian was
permitted, and among Catholic Byzantines the Liturgy
was translated into Hungarian in the nineteenth century.
However, in 1896 even after the Liturgy was in fact being
celebrated in Hungarian, Rome forbade the translation,
holding again that ancient languages are better for
maintaining the dignity of sacred rites and that living
languages change every day.3
Despite this principle, the two main sections of the
Orthodox Church (the Russian and the Greek) prayed
in liturgical, sacred languages. The Russians worshiped
in Church Slavonic, formulated in the reforms of the
Moscow Patriarch Nicon (1652-1658). This text spread
to all Slavophone branches of the Byzantine Church: the
Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Ruthenians/Ukrainians. The
Greeks faced a different problem. Their Liturgy was in
koine Greek, the common Greek of the Roman Empire
period. It was the language in which the New Testament
was written, and a large proportion of the prayers were
quotations from Scripture. How could these prayers
ever be translated? It would seem to be a betrayal of
the text upon which the Christian faith was established.
Therefore, to this very day, the Russian Church and the
Greek Church have resisted celebrating the Liturgy in the
vernacular.
This, however, has not been true of the Church in the
diaspora. Even earlier in the Orthodox Church, but in
Page 30

the Eastern Catholic Churches in the United States and

Canada, the Liturgy began to be celebrated in English in
the late 1940s and early 1950s, before Vatican Council II.
At the time people did not yet realize what a difference
this would make in our perceptions of the Liturgy. In this
article, then, we can talk about the liturgical text and how
it manifests the eschatological nature of the Church. In
the older tradition, however, words were not a source of
eschatological awareness. The people perceived their worship through ritual actions, through icons, incense, and
especially through the strains of chant. For example, the
eschatological expectation is actually one of the reasons
the Liturgy is celebrated on Sunday and facing the East.
Our Lord was expected to come again on the day after
the Sabbath and from the East: As the lightning from
the east flashes to the west, so will the coming of the Son
of Man be (Matt 24:27). We are more familiar with the
historical interpretation: Sunday is the day of the Lords
resurrection, and east is the direction of sunrise, symbolic of Christ, the Light of the world. In the Byzantine
congregation, then, the whole assembly, including the
presiding presbyter, prays toward the East. We must then
ask two questions: (1) how does the text tradition of the
Liturgy teach us about the last things, and (2) can we
have an eschatological feeling of the Liturgy simply
through the character of its celebration?
Eschatology in the liturgical texts
Before we can even begin to answer these questions,
we must have a working definition of eschatology.
Imaginative descriptions of a future world (of heaven,
hell, and purgatory) are lacking in the Byzantine Liturgy,
except in liturgies celebrated particularly for the repose
of the deceased, where we pray for the repose of the
departed in a place of light, joy, and peace where there is
no pain, sorrow nor mourning. Purgatory as a place is a
concept completely lacking in Orthodox theology. Here
we shall concentrate on what seems to be the eschatological thrust of the Liturgy, which is the definitive establishment of the kingdom of God. How is Gods dominion
over the created world brought into being? We are not
describing apocalyptic events that will take place in an
undetermined future. Jesus told his disciples, But of that
day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but only the Father (Mark 13:32). This is
not the subject of the Liturgy, though it is a part of the
background.
Our Lord testified before Pontius Pilate that my
kingdom does not belong to this world (John 18:36).
The nature of Gods kingdom is discussed extensively in
speculative theology. It is actually being worked out in
primary theology, which is the Liturgy. For this reason, the
Liturgical Ministry Winter 2010

Byzantine Liturgy begins publicly, Blessed is the kingdom

of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is
where the Synoptic Gospels begin: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt 4:17; cf. Mark 1:15). For
this reason, when the gifts of bread and wine are brought
in for the anaphora, Christ is recognized as the king of all,
invisibly escorted by angelic hosts. When the Liturgy ends,
the priest proclaims, Let us go forth in peace, to which
the people respond, In the name of the Lord. This is the
final future goal, And this gospel of the kingdom will be
preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations,
and then the end will come (Matt 24:14). The Liturgy is
present-future, as noted by Rahner:
The aim is that the Christian in that decision may accept
his present as a factor in the realization of the possibility
established by God in the beginning and as a future
which is already present and definitive in a hidden way.
For that future presents itself as salvation now, precisely
if it is accepted as Gods action [note: deacon privately
to the priest at the beginning of the Liturgy, It is time
for the Lord to act4], incalculable in its when and how,
because determined by God alone.5

The kingdom of God

It is clear, therefore, that the Liturgy is eschatological in
the sense of the kingdom of God. Since this kingdom
does not belong to this world, the entrance into the
Liturgy is the entrance into another world. In the world
of the Liturgy eschatology is already complete in the
sense of the timelessness of the Liturgy. Much is made of
the Cherubicon, the hymn sung in the Byzantine Divine
Liturgy when the gifts of bread and wine are brought
forth.6 Here the faithful chant Let us now set aside all
earthly cares. This has often been cited to manifest the
otherworldliness of the service of worship, and that it is
not concerned with the secular and economic concerns of
the human family, nor with social justice. However, this
would be a mis-reading. This hymn uses the vocabulary
of the parable of the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4-15):
As for the seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones
who have heard, but as they go along, they are choked by
the anxieties [merimnan] and riches and pleasures of life,
and they fail to produce mature fruit (Luke 8:14). The
warning, then, is about earthly cares that would keep us
from the heavenly kingdom, not about cares for the poor
and the needy in this world, which are the duty of every
Christian. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, this parable is
about the kingdom (Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23).
In the end, there is only the kingdom of God. All
power in heaven and on earth has been given to me,
Jesus commissions his disciples, Go, therefore, and make
disciples of all nations (Matt 28:18-19). After this is only
Petras: Eschatology and the Byzantine Liturgy

How does the text tradition

of the Liturgy teach us
about the last things,
and can we have an
eschatological feeling of
the Liturgy simply through
the character of its celebration?

the end (Matt 24:14). The Divine Liturgy has its own
great commission. The priest exclaims, Let us go forth
in peace, and the people respond, In the name of the
Lord. In the end all things converge in the dominion of
our Lord Jesus Christ, And he put all things beneath his
feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all
things in every way (Eph 1:22). The Anaphora of St.
John Chrysostom, therefore, begins, It is proper and
just to bless you, to praise you, to thank you, to worship
you in every place of your dominion. The climax of the
Anaphora is the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is Godwith-us now bringing us to the fullness of this dominion. The Liturgy sees this fullness as a gift of the Spirit.
Just before Communion the priest unites the bread as the
Body of Christ with the wine as the Blood of Christ with
the words,The fullness of the Holy Spirit.
The fullness of the kingdom
The Kingdom of God does not belong to this world.
This was the response of Jesus to the secular authorities
Page 31

at his trial. Jesus explained, If my kingdom did belong

to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep
me from being handed over to the Jews (John 18:36).
Gods kingdom, which finds it fullness in the Liturgy,
is, therefore, not a matter of political or physical power.
Jesus disciples do not lord it over one another (Mark
10:42). This total otherness of the kingdom of Christ was
recognized in the Vatican II Declaration on Religious
Liberty: All men should be immune from coercion on
the part of individuals, social groups and every human
power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act
against his convictions in religious matters in private or
in public, alone or in association with others (no. 2).
The Divine Liturgy directs by its very nature into the
future kingdom of God, but this is done in complete
freedom. We cannot make any meaningful comparison
between the kingdom of God envisioned by the Liturgy
and any human political system, rendering kingdom
language moot. The Byzantines, of course, faced the
imperial system of the Roman State (after the fall of the
Western government in 476, of the Eastern emperors
residing in Constantinople). Though the emperors were
now Christian themselves, the Cherubicon (the hymn
sung at the entrance of the holy gifts) proclaims that
there is only one real emperor: Let us receive the King
of all, invisibly escorted by angelic hosts.
If the kingdom of God is entirely voluntary, then it is
also a fact that it may never be implemented by human
beings in their freedom to reject the will of God. This
leads to a certain eschatological tension, as Gods plan
of salvation must at some point be accomplished. The
Liturgy then is in some way always the fulfillment of the
kingdom. Jesus told people standing about that some
would not see death before the kingdom has come in its
power (Mark 9:1), and his disciples that he would not eat
the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with
you new in the kingdom of my Father (Matt 26:29).
Even if we do not freely choose the kingdom, Gods
will must be accomplished in another way in spiritual
power and might, according to the vision of Colossians
1:19-20: For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making
peace by the blood of his cross [through him], whether
those on earth or those in heaven. Through its timelessness, the Liturgy makes this fullness present now and
impels us toward the future.
Liturgy commentaries
Up to this point we have seen that there is an eschatological theme in the texts of the Liturgy itself. This theme
is becoming more evident in diaspora churches where
the Liturgy is being translated into and celebrated in
Page 32

vernacular languages. It becomes even more evident in

those Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches that have
accepted the reform of the restoration of the presbyteral
prayers for the hearing of the people.7 A second question might be posed: How do observers of the Liturgy,
particularly the theological commentators, interpret the
texts? In consideration here are the classic Byzantine
commentaries on the Divine Liturgy: St. Maximus the
Confessor, Mystagogia8; Germanus of Constantinople,
Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation9; the
Protheoria by Nicholas and/or Theodore, Bishops of
Andidum10; A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by
Nicholas Cabasilas11; and On the Divine Liturgy by St.
Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica.12

Iconoclasm, a Turn in Explanation

After iconoclasm, and in the Western Middle Ages,
interpretations of the Liturgy took a decidedly historical
turn. The victory of faith in icons gave to the Byzantine
Church its present form. Perhaps no single aspect of the
Byzantine Church has aroused such strong emotions as
the icon screen. Deciding the meaning of the whole concept of icon was the single greatest collective traumatic
experience in Byzantine history. (A good account and
analysis of the iconoclast controversy may be found in
Jaroslav Pelikans The Spirit of Eastern Christendom 6001700.13) Taft has shown14 that the period from Maximus
the Confessor to Germanus marked a transition from a
more eschatological view of the Liturgy to a more historical view. In fact, the title of Germanuss commentary
was Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Theoria. As a
result of iconoclasm the evolving Byzantine position that
Christ could not be depicted in symbols (e.g., the Lamb
of God) was confirmed. He could only be depicted historically in icons. The Liturgy became a memory of history, not a preview of the future. Taft says of Germanus:
This shift is betrayed in the very title of his work:
Historia. It is a commonplace to speak of the symbolic
character of Byzantine art and liturgy. But in the struggle
with Iconoclasm what we see is actually the victory of a
more literalist popular and monastic piety, precisely in
favor of a less abstractly symbolic and more representational, figurative religious art.15

Others may have seen this shift from future to history

even earlier.16 In the fourth century when Constantine
became Christian and the church entered imperial politics, the sense of a kingdom to come was dulled.
Constantine himself revived the city of Jerusalem, the
scene of the historical events of our Lords life, and in
time magnificent churches were built to mark the sites.
Liturgical Ministry Winter 2010

The realism of the Antioch school of theology began to

connect specific parts of the Liturgy with the historical
life of Jesus. In Syria Theodore of Mopsuestua in the
fourth century parallels the procession with the holy gifts
with the burial procession of our Lord:
And when they bring it [the offering] out, they place it
on the holy altar to represent fully the passion. Thus we
may think of him placed on the altar as if henceforth in
a sort of sepulchre, and as having already undergone the
passion. That is why the deacons who spread linens on
the altar represent by this the figure of the linen cloths of
the burial . . . and when we see the oblation on the altar as
if it were being placed in a kind of sepulchre after death,
a great silence falls on those present.17

There is certainly much truth to this historical perspective. However, eschatology was not abandoned in the
East in the period between Constantine and iconoclasm.
Christ was still recognized as the only King, the heavenly
King of all, to counter-pose the earthly basileus, as we
have seen above. The church seems to have struggled to
retain its hold on future eschatology as a primary liturgical dimension in the face of its acceptance by worldly
powers. Certainly the seventh-century commentary of
St. Maximus the Confessor is still predominately eschatological. Even a century later, after iconoclasm, the
commentary of St. Germanus remembers the present to
future orientation of our worship. Robert Taft therefore
observes that this worship is indeed a memorial of all
Christ did for us, not in the sense of a ritual reenactment
of a past event in its several historical phases, but as an
anamnesis of the total mystery that is Christ in its present efficacy, the eternal intercession before the throne of
God of Christ our high priest.18
The Mystagogia of St. Maximus the Confessor
In Maximus Mystagogia we do see some historical
interpretations, but his concern is with the eschatological Liturgy. Here I mention only those comments which
clearly point to the future kingdom.
The first entrance with the Gospel Book symbolizes,
he says, the incarnation, the entrance of Christ into this
world, but also his ascension into heaven and return
to the heavenly throne are symbolically figured in the
bishops entrance into the sanctuary and ascent to the
priestly throne(8).19 Through the readings of Scripture
we learn the laws of the divine and blessed struggles
that will win us a crown in the future kingdom (10,
199). He gives two reasons for the gospel, the first is
the sense of leading to God, the second is clearly eschatological, as if proclaiming thereby that after having
preached, as it is written, the Gospel of the kingdom in
Petras: Eschatology and the Byzantine Liturgy

The church seems to have struggled

to retain its hold on
future eschatology as a primary
liturgical dimension in the face
of its acceptance
by worldly powers.

the whole world as a witness to all the Gentiles, at the

end will then appear in the second coming of our great
God and Savior Jesus Christ from the heavens in glory
(14, 201). Later in his commentary he sees the dismissal
of the catechumens after the gospel as clearly the future
judgment: The descent of the bishop from the throne20
and the dismissal of the catechumens signifies in general
the second coming from heaven of our great God and
Savior Jesus Christ and the separation of sinners from
the saints and the just retribution rendered to each (24,
209). The Great Entrance with the gifts of bread and
wine is the beginning and prelude of the new teachings
which will take place in the heavens concerning the plan
of God (16, 201), and then Maximus cites Jesus word
that he will not drink of the cup of the fruit of the vine
until he drinks it in the kingdom of the Father (Matt
26:29). The kiss of peace prefigures and portrays the
concord, unanimity, and identity of views which we shall
all have among ourselves at the time of the revelation
of ineffable blessings to come (17, 202). The Creed itself
is the mystical thanksgiving which perdures through all
eternity (18, 202). The Hymn of Victory (Sanctus) in
the anaphora represents the union and the equality of
honor to be manifested in the future with the incorporeal
and intelligent powers (19, 202).
Page 33

Even the traditional Liturgy,

celebrated in liturgical languages
and with the presbyteral prayers
said in a low voice,
still has the power
to project an
eschatological message.

St. Maximus passes over the rest of the anaphora.

(Was this because it already had begun to be said in
a low voice, or because it was the mystery which was
beyond and outside of discussion?) The hymn before
Communion (One is holy) represents the gathering
and union beyond reason and understanding which
will take place between those who have been mystically
and wisely initiated by God (21, 203). In all this we see
St. Maximus insisting over and over again in words of
mysticism and high rhetoric that everything we do in the
Divine Liturgy here and now is a prefigurement of the
unity we will have with God in the future kingdom. The
reception of Communion takes that prefigurement one
step further to the now, for it is the climax of everything
which transforms into itself and renders similar to
the causal good [by which he means God] by grace and
participation those who worthily share in it (21, 203).
St. Maximus then goes through the Liturgy three more
times under different theological rubrics more oriented
to the deification of the believing person.
Deification is a constant theme in Maximus theology.
Holy Communion is again the climax:
Page 34

By holy communion of the spotless and life-giving

mysteries we are given fellowship and identity with him
by participation in likeness, by which man is deemed
worthy from man to become God. For we believe that in
this present life we already have a share in these gifts of
the Holy Spirit through the love that is in faith, and in
the future age after we have kept the commandments to
the best of our ability we believe we shall have a share in
them in very truth in their concrete reality. (24, 207)

While the Liturgy already realizes our deification-union

in God, there is a future to come, and St. Maximus sees
in the Liturgy a call to action (keeping the commandments).
After St. Maximus
The mystery of the Eucharist, therefore, has an eschatological dimension. After Maximus the Liturgy did not
lose this dimension, but it has become more backward
looking. We remember an event in historya historical
fact. The result of this attitude is the paralleling of every
liturgical action with an event in the life of the Lord.
For primitive Christianity this was inconceivable: Why
make parallels when the Lords death and resurrection
is actually happening here and now? It happens now in
a different way than what might be described as rational
or unbloody or of praise, but it is just as real. Liturgy is
not history or drama; it is God loving us today through
his cross and resurrection. St. Pauls liturgy is forward
looking, to the eschatological day when Christ would
come again. For St. Paul, the Eucharist is Jesus who died
on the cross and rose, giving himself completely to us;
who gives himself in the Liturgy; who is coming to fulfill
all things in justice.
The same idea is found in the synoptic gospels. Jesus
tells his disciples that he will not eat of the passover or
drink of the fruit of the vine until the fulfillment of the
kingdom of God. He speaks frequently of the future
banquet. The Divine Liturgy, therefore, is a reality on
three levels: (1) it re-presents the historical presence of
Jesusit is a memorial of the saving events of his life; (2)
it is the presence of Jesus, the Son of God, here and now,
building up the community in love; (3) it is a pledge of
future justice, the fulfillment of Gods promise Behold, I
am with you all days, until the end of the world.

Some Conclusions
The Liturgy is indeed the commemoration of the cross
and resurrection, but the eschatological element has been
badly obscured and needs a definite rediscovery, particularly in our modern technological age, which is very cosmological, seeking a glorious future in which humanity
Liturgical Ministry Winter 2010

will unlock the secrets of the universe. This was Stephen

Hawkings view, that we are on the verge of knowing the
mind of God. A Christian eschatology is also needed,
that the universe will never be completely understood
without its Creator (the mystery of the Trinity).
The texts of the Liturgy are crucial, and with the
return to the vernacular can now be better understood
by the worshiping community. However, what about
the traditional Liturgy from about the sixth century,
when the presbyteral prayers began to be said silently,
until the twentieth century? Even the traditional Liturgy,
celebrated in liturgical languages and with the presbyteral prayers said in a low voice, still has the power to
project an eschatological message. We remember Christ
by appeals to our senses: by taste, he is the food of the
messianic banquet; by the sense of smell, in the clouds of
incense, thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us
in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the
knowledge of him everywhere (2 Cor 2:14); by the sense
of sight, the icons of our Lord present among us now in
power, particularly in the image of the Pantocrator; by
the sense of hearing, in chants and hymns and readings
that arouse in us faith and peace and confidence in Gods
power and might. St. Maximus the Confessor specifically
notes of the chants that the spiritual enjoyment of the
divine hymns signified the vivid delights of the divine
blessings by moving souls [a call to action!]. Toward the
clear and blessed love of God and by arousing them further to the hatred of sin (11, 190).
There is no question that the environment of the
Liturgy summons us into a new world. It is the type
of worship we see in the book of future prophecy, the
Revelation:
The Lord has established his reign, God, the almighty.
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the
wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made
herself ready. She was allowed to wear a bright, clean,
linen garment. Then the angel said to me, Write this:
Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding
feast of the Lamb. (Rev 19:7-9)

The Liturgy summons us into a new world, but the

question remains: Is it a world only of refuge, a moment
of peace and detachment from this present world to
which we must return, or is it the beginning of a new
creation, the inchoate new heaven and new earth (Rev
21:1), the beginning of a transformation in the name
of the Lord? I suspect that for many it remains only the
first, but it has the power to be the latter.

Petras: Eschatology and the Byzantine Liturgy

1. All quotations from the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom

and St. Basil the Great are from the official texts of the Pittsburgh
Metropolia: The Divine Liturgy of Our Holy Father John Chrysostom
(Pittsburgh, PA: Byzantine Seminary Press, 2006) and The Divine
Liturgy of Our Holy Father Basil the Great (Pittsburgh, PA: Byzantine
Seminary Press, 2006).
2. Cyril Korolevsky, Living Languages in Catholic Worship: An Historical
Inquiry (London ; New York : Longmans, Green, 1957), 15.
3. Ibid., 29.
4. Quoting Psalm 118 [119]:126. I choose this as the title for my catechetical commentary on the Divine Liturgy, Time for the Lord to Act
(Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, 2005).
5. Karl Rahner, Eschatology in Sacramentum Mundi 2: 244.
6. There are alternate hymns for the Presanctified Divine Liturgy and the
Divine Liturgy on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday.
7. Cf. Robert Taft, Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited Secretly or
Aloud? The Ancient Tradition and What Became of It in Worship
Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, ed. Roberta
R. Ervine (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2006), 15-57;
P. Trembelas, Laudition de lanaphore eucharistique par le peuple,
The Hearing of the Eucharistic Anaphora by the People, originally
in Lglise et les glises. Collectio Irnikon. Etudes et travaux sur lUnite
Chrtien offerts a Dom Lambert Beaudin (Collections de Chevetogne
1955, Vol. 2, 207-20) translated from the French in Eastern Churches
Journal 8, 2 (2001), 81-96; David Petras, The Public Recitation of the
Presbyteral Prayers, Eastern Churches Journal 8, 2 (2001), 97-106.
8. English translation of The Churchs Mystagogy by George C.
Berthold, Maximus Confessor: Selected Writings (Classics of Western
Spirituality, New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 181-225.
9. English translation: St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine
Liturgy, trans. Paul Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs
Seminary Press, 1984).
10. There is no English translation. For a description of the work see
Ren Bornert, Les Commentaires byzantins de la Divine Liturgie (Paris:
Institut Franais dtudes Byzantines, 1966), 181-206.
11. English translation: A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, trans. J. M.
Hussey and P. A. McNulty (Original edition, London, SPCK, 1966,
reprinted by St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1997).
12. English translation forthcoming: St. Symeon of Thessalonica: the
Liturgical Commentaries (Rome: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies Publications, 2009).
13. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974: chapter 3, 91-146,
Images of the Invisible.
14. The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure
and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm, Dumbarton Oaks Papers
34-35 (1980-81), 45-775.
15. Taft, The Liturgy of the Great Church, 72.
16. Thomas Talley deals with this from the point of view of the Feast of
Pascha; see his History and Eschatology in the Primitive Pascha,
Worship 47 (1973), 212-21.
17. Taft, The Liturgy of the Great Church, 64-65; he quotes Minganas
translation.
18. Taft, The Liturgy of the Great Church, 58.
19. Mystagogia, 198 (all quotations are from Bertholds translation, cited
above).
20. The bishop (celebrant) would have listened to the readings from his
synthronon (kathedra) behind the altar (holy table) at the wall of the
apse. After the readings he would descend (the chair was up some
steps) and go to the holy table for the eucharistic Liturgy, from which
the catechumens were excluded (at least theoretically, though by the
seventh century there may not have been many).

Page 35