EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 12

INQUIRIES INTO
EASTERN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP
Selected Papers of the Second International Congress
of the Society of Oriental Liturgy
Rome, 17-21 September 2008

Edited by
Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples
and Stefanos Alexopoulos

PEETERS
LEUVEN PARIS WALPOLE, MA
2012

94070_Groen_et_al_Voorwerk.indd III 30/01/12 15:04

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Mark M. MOROZOWICH, Tradition and Natural Disaster: The Role

of Liturgical Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Peter JEFFERY, The Mystical Chorus of the Truth Itself: Liturgy

and Mystery in Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . 19

Susan ASHBROOK HARVEY, Performance as Exegesis: Womens

Liturgical Choirs in Syriac Tradition . . . . . . . . 47

Gerard ROUWHORST, The Celebration of Holy Week in Early Syriac-

Speaking Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Maxwell E. JOHNSON, Baptismal Liturgy in Fourth-Century Jerusalem

in the Light of Recent Scholarship . . . . . . . . . 81

Robert F. TAFT, Reservation and Veneration of the Eucharist in

the Orthodox Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Gregory WOOLFENDEN, The Processional Appendix to Vespers:

Some Problems and Questions . . . . . . . . . . 121

Gabriele WINKLER, Unsolved Problems Concerning the Back-

ground and Significance of the Vocabulary of Praise in Some
of the Oldest Eucharistic Prayers . . . . . . . . . 135

Sebasti JANERAS, Una celebrazione liturgica tutta particolare a

Costantinopoli nel secolo sesto . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chrysostom NASSIS, The Adventures of a Liturgical Commemora-

tion: The Sixth Ecumenical Synod in the Heortologion of the
Byzantine Rite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

94070_Groen_et_al_Voorwerk.indd VII 30/01/12 15:04

VIII CONTENTS

Nino SAKVARELIDZE, Einige Besonderheiten der Deutung der vier-

ten Bitte des Vaterunsergebetes durch Maximos den Bekenner
in ihrer altgeorgischen Gelati-bersetzung (12. Jahrhundert) 209

Stig Simeon R. FRYSHOV, The Georgian Witness to the Jerusalem

Liturgy: New Sources and Studies . . . . . . . . . 227

Andr LOSSKY, Typica manuscrits sabates du 12e sicle: Reflets

dune tradition composite . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Panayotis KALATZIDIS, La disposition intrieure rdactionnelle

des manuscrits liturgiques, Paris, Coislin 213; Grottaferrata
G. B. I; Athnes, Ethnike Bibliothke 662 . . . . . . . 279

Michael ZHELTOV, The Rite of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Oldest

Russian Leitourgika (13th-14th centuries) . . . . . . . 293

Steven HAWKES-TEEPLES, The Descent to the West in the Liturgical

Commentaries of Symeon of Thessalonica . . . . . . . 311

Vassa LARIN, The Bishop as Minister of the Prothesis? Reconsid-

ering the Evidence in Byzantine and Muscovite Sources . . 319

Michael PETROWYCZ, The Addition of Slavic Saints to 17th Cen-

tury Liturgical Calendars of the Kyivan Metropolitanate . . 331

Simon MARINCK, The Ruthenian Heirmologion in the History of

Byzantine Liturgical Music: Status quaestionis . . . . . 345

Hlib LONCHYNA, Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky and Liturgical

Reform: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS, The State of Modern Greek Liturgical

Studies and Research: A Preliminary Survey . . . . . . 375

Nina GLIBETIC, Liturgical Renewal Movement in Contemporary

Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Margot FASSLER, Chanting and Children at St. Marks Coptic

Orthodox Church, Jersey City . . . . . . . . . . 415

94070_Groen_et_al_Voorwerk.indd VIII 30/01/12 15:04

CONTENTS IX

Marcel MOJZES, Introduzione alla teologia e spiritualit dei

Katanyktika dellOktoichos . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Emmanuel FRITSCH, The Altar in the Ethiopian Church: History,

Forms and Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

94070_Groen_et_al_Voorwerk.indd IX 30/01/12 15:04

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT
IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA

Nina GLIBETIC

Introduction1

When on June 5th, 2006, Bishop Jovan (Mladenovic) issued an act in

his diocese (Sumadija) instructing his presbyters to celebrate the Divine
Liturgy with the holy doors open and to pronounce liturgical prayers
aloud, he could not have predicted the far-reaching effect this document
would have on the Orthodox Church in Serbia.2 Not only did some of
the faithful in his diocese, including clergy and monks, express great
protest and dissidence,3 but the Divine Liturgy became a key topic in the
October regular Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade.4 The discussions at
the Holy Assembly resulted in the formation of the Committee for
Research on Liturgical Questions, which includes members noted for
contrasting views.5 Until the findings of the Committee are accepted, the

1
I would like to thank Gabriel Radle and Steven Hawkes-Teeples S.J., for their help
in the writing and editing of this paper. I am also indebted to Professor Nenad Milosevic
who, through his lectures at the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church in
Belgrade, was the first to inspire my curiosity on this subject. All translations from the
Serbian original are my own.
2
Jovan (Mladenovic), Orthodox Bishop of the Sumadija Eparchy, document filed as
E.br. 987, issued on 5 June 2006 in Kragujevac. The unpublished document instructs that
all the prayers, from the First Prayer of the Faithful until the end of the Divine Liturgy,
are said audibly, clearly and articulately.
3
Some disputes have been covered by the Press, for example: A. Milutinovic,
Istina o Venwanima i osveee temea crkve svetoga Nikolaa u Tuleima,
Official Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: http://www.spc.rs/Vesti-2007/04/18-
04-07-c.html#tul (accessed 24 January, 2009); M. Pesic, Ko navlawi zavesu na
crkvene dveri, Politika Online: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Ko-navlachi-
zavesu-na-crkvene-dveri.sr.html (accessed 24 January 2009).
4
Communications of Holy Assemblies are published in Pravoslave, the bimonthly
official newspaper of the Serbian Patriarchate. See Saopjtee za avnost: redovno
drugo zasedae Svetog arhiereskog sabora Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve,
odranog u Beogradu od 4. do 8. oktobra 2006. godine, Pravoslave 950
(Belgrade, 15 October 2006), pp. 2-3.
5
The committee was formed on 6 October 2006. Its members are: the president,
Metropolitan Jovan (Pavlovic), Bishop Georgije (Djokic), Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic),
Bishop Irinej (Bulovic), Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), Bishop Ignatije (Midic).

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 393 30/01/12 16:11

394 N. GLIBETIC

Holy Assembly has requested that the established, centuries-old litur-

gical tradition of the Serbian Orthodox Church be maintained in every
diocese [drati se ustaenog vekovnog poretka naje Crkve].6
Bishop Jovan subsequently annulled his act and the tension in his dio-
cese somewhat calmed. However, there soon emerged a challenge
regarding a larger liturgical question. Namely, it became clear that in
Serbia the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in different ways and the faithful,
including hierarchy and laity, are not always in agreement regarding
what constitutes the established, centuries-old Serbian liturgical tradi-
tion.
At the risk of speaking too generally, one can discern two tendencies
in these debates with regard to the liturgical question. There are those
who want certain practices abandoned because they see them as contrary
to the Serbian, and more broadly, the Orthodox liturgical tradition
and there are those who oppose these changes, seeing them as contra-
dicting the established Orthodox liturgical tradition. The former have
spontaneously implemented reforms in worship on the parish level, a
move criticized by the latter as, among other things, betraying the tradi-
tion of the Serbian Orthodox Church. What lies behind these debates is
a tension between a spontaneous and still emerging liturgical movement
and a critical reaction against this movement. Our intention in the fol-
lowing pages is to offer a preliminary description. We will do so by
examining the general characteristics of this movement, the specific
liturgical reforms being implemented by it, and the historical circum-
stances that led to it. Lastly, we hope to show that the liturgical reforms
belong to an overall ecclesial renewal, one seeking a more authentic
expression of life in Christ.

1. Sources

Before describing the movement, some brief remarks about the

sources are in order. Because the liturgical movement in Serbia is con-
temporary to the writing of this essay, books and academic studies
on this subject are lacking.7 In addition, unlike the liturgical rebirth

6
Sveti arhiereski sabor Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve: saopjtee za
avnost sa redovnog zasedaa odranog u Beogradu od 14. do 25. maa 2007.
godine, Pravoslave 965 (Belgrade 1 July 2007), pp. 2-3.
7
At the same time, the topic of liturgical renewal is not new in Serbia. For example,
see the discussions at the first and second Catechetical Symposium held in Belgrade in

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 394 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 395

movement in Greece described by Pavlos Koumarianos at the 2006

Society of Oriental Liturgies conference, the Assembly of Bishops of
the Serbian Orthodox Church has not organized conferences nor pub-
lished encyclicals on this subject and the Committee for Research on
Liturgical Questions has yet to issue its findings.8 For someone research-
ing the movement, the sources are limited and often polemical, and the
information is scattered. There are public debates, some of which have
been published on-line or in various journals such as Pravoslave,
the official magazine of the Patriarchate.9 Personal letters, usually of
complaint, have been written and addressed to the Holy Synod.10
One can find a growing number of articles and books published in
Serbia dealing with the liturgy.11 Finally, controversial brochure-type
literature opposed to the renewal is easily available, ever proliferating

1980 and 1981: Parohia kao iva molitvena zaednica: Prvi Katihetski
Simposion Arhiepiskopie beogradsko-karlovawke, Teolojki Pogledi XIII
(Belgrade, 1980) 3, pp. 73-161; Svete tane i ivot parohie: Drugi Katihetski
Simposion Arhiepiskopie beogradsko-karlovawke, Teolojki Pogledi XVI
(Belgrade, 1981) 1-3, pp. 1-79. For a more recent work discussing twentieth-century litur-
gical reform in Byzantine-rite churches see: Marcel Mojzes, Il movimento liturgico nelle
chiese bizantine: Analisi di alcune tendenze di riforma nel XX secolo (Rome, 2003). This
book does not discuss the Orthodox Church in Serbia, but the recently published 3-vol-
ume work of the theologian and liturgist, Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), does: A. Jevtic,
Hristos Nova Pasha: Boanstvena Liturgia, 3 vols. (Belgrade-Trebinje, 2007-
2008).
8
Pavlos Koumarianos, Liturgical Rebirth in the Church of Greece Today: A
Doubtful Effort of Liturgical Reform, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III,
4 (2007) 119-144.
9
For some examples, see the letter written by the editors of Banatski Vesnik:
O Sveto Liturgii i promenama u o, Banatski Vesnik LXVI (Vrsac, Decem-
ber 2006) 3-4, pp. 1-9, and the reply of Bishop Atanasije: A. Jevtic, O Boansko
Liturgii Pashi Gospodo i najo, Pravoslave 961 (Belgrade, 1 April 2007),
pp. 10-12.
10
For example, see the letters of Bishop Jefrem (Milutinovic) and Bishop Georgije
(Djokic) addressed to the Holy Assembly of Bishops and published in Pravoslave:
J. Milutinovic, Narujavae bogoslubenog poretka, Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade,
15 July 2007), pp. 6-8; G. Djokic, Tradicionalno i savremeno bogosluee,
Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007, pp. 9-17. Bishop Atanasije replied to both
these letters: A. Jevtic, O obnovi liturgiskog ivota, a ne promeni ili reformi
Liturgie, Pravoslave 968 (Belgrade, 15 July 2007), pp. 18-26.
11
In recent decades, many works dealing with the history and theology of Orthodox
worship have been published in Serbia. Primary source material important for the study
of Christian worship has also been translated and issued. Additionally, one can find books
opposed to the liturgical movement, for example: V. Dimitrijevic, Pisma o litur-
gisko obnovi (Gornji Milanovac, 2008); Gresni Miloje, Ne pomiwi stare mee:
pisma i razgovori, 2d ed. (Gornji Milanovac, 2008). The latter and similar works are
almost always polemical in tone and content.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 395 30/01/12 16:11

396 N. GLIBETIC

and triggering disagreements.12 To comprehend more fully the situation

as it emerges, one must also engage in active field work by attending
local liturgies and in this way discover what the initiatives are first
hand.

2. Description of the Movement

Contemporary liturgical renewal in Serbia is neither systematic nor an

official, institutional undertaking. Despite some non-spontaneous ele-
ments, such as the previously described act issued by Bishop Jovan, it is
a spontaneous movement, one without a clearly defined program of
implementation.13 This spontaneous quality is partly an outcome of con-
temporary historical circumstances. The Turkish and Austro-Hungarian
occupations, the two world wars and the Communist era have for centu-
ries created difficult situations for the Serbian Orthodox Church, leaving
little room for mystagogical reflection. However, with the collapse of the
Communist government and the growing interest in tradition and faith
identity, the Church has begun to recuperate. In the words of Oliver Sub-
otic, the time in which we live is characterized by a massive rejection of
the previous atheistic ideology and by a great interest in ecclesial-liturgi-
cal life.14 This growing interest has created an impetus for theological
reflection, which has in turn inspired liturgical reforms. Comparing the
situation to the one after the Edict of Milan in 313, Subotic continues:
The question which appeared then, and which also appears now, is the
following: in what way can we preserve the authentic liturgical expression
according to which the Eastern Church lives and breathes, but also satisfy
the religious needs of the great number of the newly converted [novoveru-
uih] who feel that their place is in the Body of the Church, but who still
do not have the necessary spiritual sensitivity [istanwanost] relating to
the Liturgy.15

12
Some examples are: V. Dimitrijevic, Hleb nebeski i waja ivota (Gornji
Milanovac, 2007); Posni Kalendar za 2008. godinu (Lipovac, 2008).
13
For a discussion of spontaneous and non-spontaneous liturgical reform, see the
excellent doctoral dissertation defended at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome:
Thomas Pott, La rforme liturgique Byzantine: Etude du phnomne de lvolution non-
spontane de la liturgie byzanine, Bibliotheca Ephemerides liturgicae. Subsidia 104
(Rome, 2000).
14
O. Subotic, Povratak liturgisko pobonosti, Pravoslave 931-932
(Belgrade, 15 January 2006), pp. 28-29, on p. 28.
15
Subotic, Povratak (see n. 14), p. 28.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 396 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 397

Alongside a dawning ecclesial movement is a growing number of Ser-

bian people who identify themselves as Orthodox Christians but who
have undergone little or no catechetical instruction. Their return is not
infrequently accompanied by an overemphasized sense of national iden-
tity, and results in a narrowly conservative attitude, one aimed at pre-
serving what they consider to be the authentic Serbian liturgical tradi-
tion. Because such a mentality is often paired with little theological
education and infrequent liturgical participation, every perceived change
in worship is experienced as a betrayal of the Serbian tradition and as a
self-willed innovation [novotaria], and rejected on these grounds.16
This, at least in part, explains the controversies surrounding the liturgical
movement.
Those involved in the movement have replied to these and similar
accusations. According to them, the fundamental issue is not change
[promena] or reform [reforma] of the Holy Liturgy, but the
renewal of us all in the Church through the renewal of our Christian,
Orthodox, evangelical, liturgical life and existence.17 Or, in the words
of Bishop Irinej (Bulovic), what is at stake is our [personal] rebirth, the
renewal of our own mind, heart and entire being.18 These writers avoid
using the word reform for seemingly two reasons: firstly, because
it labels the liturgical movement as only implementing formal, structural
changes in the liturgical action without taking into account its broader
scope, including an overall ecclesial renewal.19 Secondly, for the sake
of dialogue, because the word reform is regarded by many as designat-
ing an action that breaks away from the tradition of the Church.20 The
liturgical movement therefore and the term movement is here used
loosely, to connote something not formally organized has as its pri-
mary aim not the reform of worship but the renewal of Christian life. For
this very reason, those involved in the renewal hold that the Liturgical

16
For example: G. Miloje, Ne pomiwi (see n. 11), p. 14.
17
A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18.
18
See I. Bulovic, Introduction to Na putu ka liturgiskom preporodu, by
N. Balasov, trans. K. Koncarevic and K. Simic, 2 vols. (Novi Sad, 2007), vol.1, pp. 1-7,
on p. 3.
19
Ibid., p. 3.
20
The title of Bishop Atanasijes article is revealing. It translates as: The Renewal of
Liturgical Life and Not Change or Reform of the Liturgy (see n. 10). See the use of the
word reform by Bishop Georgije (Djokic): Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 10.
Though the word reform is employed in this article, we use it to designate concrete,
visible changes in the way worship is conducted. In other words, reforms are a part of
a larger movement, which in this case has as its aim the renewal of Christian life.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 397 30/01/12 16:11

398 N. GLIBETIC

Committee can in fact come to a conclusion that a particular change in

worship is desired. Such a change ought to be understood as a renewal
[obnova] of the forgotten, missed or suppressed centuries-old practice
of ecumenical Orthodoxy and not as a self-willed innovation.21 The aim
of such a change would be to bring the faithful closer to the truth on
which the entire Orthodox tradition rests.
Despite its spontaneous quality, it is particular bishops who are at the
center of the renewal, the majority of whom were educated in the Church
Fathers as part of the broader Neo-Patristic movement. These include
the retired Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), from the Bosnian eparchy of
Zahumsko-Hercegovacka. Primarily a patristic scholar, Bishop Atanasije
is also a noted liturgical theologian and historian of the liturgy. He is the
most vocal defender of the liturgical movement and has published exten-
sively on the subject.22 Another important figure is Bishop Irinej
(Bulovic) of the Backa diocese and the dean of the Theological Faculty
of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade.23 His diocese, located in
one of the most multi-cultural regions of Serbia, has seen a number of
liturgical initiatives, including the translation and celebration of the
Divine Liturgy into the Roma Gypsy language. Bishop Hrizostom
(Stolic) of the historical diocese of Zica also has an important role in this
movement. His diocese is the seat of the first Serbian archeparchy,
established by St Sava of the Nemanjic dynasty. Bishop Hrizostom is
responsible for the writing and translation of important liturgical works
and the publication of service books.24 Though not as outwardly vocal as
Bishop Atanasije, Bishop Hrizostoms diocese has struggled with the
most protest and dissidence.25 Another important figure is Amfilohije

21
A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 18.
22
Besides his already cited books and articles (see n. 7, 9, 10) consult: A. Jevtic, O
Crkvi i Liturgii (Vrnjci, 2005); A. Jevtic, Osam Predavaa o Sveto Liturgii
(Vrnjci, 2008). In English: A. Yevtich, Christ: The Alpha and Omega (Vrnjacka Banja,
2007). The same work is available in Greek: A. Jevtic, Xristv, J Xra tn Hntwn
(Athens, 2007).
23
Consult: I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18).
24
H. Stolic, Boanstvena Liturgia Svetoga apostola akova (Belgrade,
1985); H. Stolic, O Hilandarskom Tipiku, Banatski Vesnik 58 (Vrsac, 1998) 1-2,
pp. 11-13; Liturgia Apostolskih Ustanova, trans. and ed. H. Stolic (Kraljevo,
2004). Bishop Hrizostom has also initiated the publication of Menaia containing hymno-
graphical texts for Serbian saints. For centuries and due to difficult historical circum-
stances, Serbia has been using Russian and Ukrainian Menaia. The Srbljak (in Serbrian:
Srbak), a supplementary book containing offices for Serbian saints, filled the gap.
25
Liturgical reform was given as the reason for a hunger strike by three priests from
the small town of Cacak. The priests insisted that they were moved to a different parish

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 398 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 399

(Radovic), the Metropolitan of Montenegro. He supports the liturgical

movement and has replaced Patriarch Pavle during his long hospitaliza-
tion.26 This list is by no means exhaustive and the movement extends to
include other people with diverse vocations in the Church, including
laity, clergy, monks, students and professors.
One cannot talk about liturgical renewal in Serbia without mentioning
the influence of the Theological Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
The faculty was only in 2004 reintroduced into the University of Bel-
grade, following its exclusion by the Communists in 1952. At the fac-
ulty, the lectures on liturgics by Professor Nenad Milosevic are some of
the most popular and controversial, and always fill the lecture hall.27 In
addition to these lectures, Milosevic has introduced the celebration of
the complete daily liturgical cycle in the university chapel, a practice
that has for many become the center of student life. These celebrations,

because they refused to celebrate according to the new rite [novi obred]. See
A. Arsenijevic, Svetosave naspram ekumenizma, Wawanske Novine (Cacak,
5 February 2008), pp. 6-7; N. R., Svejtenici prekinuli protest, Wawanski Glas
(Cacak, 8. February 2008), p. 5; Saopjtee za avnost Eparhie iwke, Wawanski
Glas (Cacak, 8. February 2008), p. 5; S. Markovic, Dokle tako, Vaje Preosvejten-
stvo, Wawanske Novine (Cacak, 11 March 2008), pp. 10-11. In the small town of
Duskovci, a group of people, protesting inside the church building during the celebration
of the Divine Liturgy, attempted to physically prohibit Bishop Hrizostom (Stolic) from
leaving. See B. Kerkezovic, Istinom na la, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July
2008), pp. 12-13; Regent Archpriests of the Eparchy of Zica, Saopjtee Arhiere-
skih namesnika Eparhie iwke, Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008) p. 9; A.
Jevtic, O pagubnim novotariama tzv. revnitea starog nawina sluea,
Pravoslave 991 (Belgrade, 1 July 2008), pp. 10-11.
26
See his homily delivered in the Patriarchate chapel (Belgrade) and quoted on the
Official Website of the Serbian Orthodox Church: O preovladavau sujtine nad
formom u liturgiskom ivotu naje Crkve, 12. August 2008, Official Website of
the Serbian Orthodox Church: http://www.spc.rs/sr/arhiepiskop_amfilohije_o_preovla-
davanju_sustine_nad_formom_u_liturgijskom_zivotu_nase_crkve (accessed 25 January
2009). (Patriarch Pavle died on 15 November 2009; note of the editors.)
27
I provide here a partial bibliography of Milosevics works: N. Milosevic, J qea
Exarista v kntro tv qeav latreav: J sndesiv tn mustjrwn met tv qeav
Exaristav (Thessalonica, 2001); N. Milosevic, Rimska Liturgia, Bogoslove
(Belgrade, 2002) 1, pp. 19-37; Posledovae tritekti ili tree-jestog wasa,
Bogoslove (Belgrade, 2002) 2, pp. 69-89; Posledovae panihide, Bogoslove
(Belgrade, 2003) 1-2, pp. 25-40; Sveta tana ispovesti i pokaaa, Beseda (Novi
Sad, 2004) 6, pp. 111-118; Protoere Lazar Mirkovi kao liturgiwar, Srpska
teologia u dvadesetom veku 1 (Belgrade, 2007), pp. 29-37; Episkop dr. Sava Vuk-
ovi kao liturgiwar, Srpska teologia u dvadesetom veku 2 (Belgrade, 2007), pp.
129-133; Evharistisko bogoslove Svetoga Ignatia Bogonosca
na primeru tane braka, Vidoslov 42 (Tvrdos-Trebinje, 2007), pp. 109-114. I am
grateful to Milan Jovanovic, graduate student at the Theological Faculty of the Serbian
Orthodox Church, who provided me with these bibliographical references.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 399 30/01/12 16:11

400 N. GLIBETIC

including frequent all-night vigils, allow students to go beyond mere

scholarship and enjoy a living understanding of worship. Another key
initiative put forth by Milosevic and inspired by his Greek mentor, Pro-
fessor Ioannis Fountoulis, has been the weekly celebration of diverse
liturgies found in history throughout the East, some of which are rarely
or no longer celebrated by Christians today (an example is a reconstruc-
tion of the Divine Liturgy found in the Apostolic Constitutions). This
initiative exposes Milosevics students to the dynamic pluralism found
in liturgical practice and inspires a deeper reflection on the nature of
Christian worship. Recently, and already celebrating in a spirit similar to
the one existing at the Theological Faculty, a small chapel has been con-
secrated at the University of Belgrades student Residence Hall. One
must also mention the seminary in Kragujevac. Considering that youth
make up by far the largest percentage of practicing Orthodox Christians
in Serbia, the influence of these educational institutions is quite signifi-
cant.28 To the list we can also add specific monasteries, such as Zica,
Kovilj and Gradac, along with parishes throughout the country, where
the liturgical life has been visibly affected by the renewal.

3. Specific Reforms

Having described in broad strokes some of the main characteristics of

the liturgical movement, we now examine the specific reforms in wor-
ship which have already been implemented on the parish level. These
reforms have been primarily restricted to the Divine Liturgy. Due to the
spontaneous nature of the movement, they have not been introduced in a
consistent manner but by partial implementation; various combinations
of specific reforms are evident in actual practice.

a. Holy Communion

A central, visible change inspired by the liturgical movement is the

frequent reception of holy communion. In his thirteenth-century partial
translation of the Evergetis Typicon, from the Constantinopolitan mon-
astery of the same name, St Sava, the first Serbian archbishop, upheld
frequent communion as a Christian ideal.29 Over the centuries however,
28
Subotic, Povratak (see n. 14), pp. 28-29.
29
Saint Sava, Hilandarski Tipik Svetoga Save, trans. L. Mirkovic (Belgrade,
1935).

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 400 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 401

and especially during the Ottoman occupation, this practice fell into dis-
use. The contemporary liturgical movement encourages frequent com-
munion, as is evident in churches affected by the movement.30 Remind-
ing that the Church is first of all a liturgical or an eucharistic community
[liturgiska ili evharistiska zaednica], Bishop Irinej (Bulovic)
cites the Gospel of John to show the centrality of communion in the
Christian life: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).31
In Bishop Irinejs words: participating in the Eucharist and receiving
[priwejivati se] the Bread of life and the True drink means having
eternal life in the present and living in joyful expectation of the future
resurrection.32
Frequent communion is in contrast to common practices in the
Serbian Orthodox Church, such as the faithful receiving only on Easter
Sunday and Christmas, or clergy not allowing the faithful to receive out-
side the four major fasts. In churches affected by the renewal, commun-
ion always takes place at the time prescribed by the Sluzebnik, that is,
following the communion of the clergy, and is never left for the end of
the Divine Liturgy. The latter is an occasional practice in parishes
throughout the country, especially during principal feasts.

b. The Relationship Between Fasting and Communion

Discussing different ways in which the relationship between fasting

and communion is understood by the faithful, Patriarch Pavle writes:
we must save ourselves from every extreme and every one-sidedness.33
The patriarch is referring to different practices evident in the Serbian
Orthodox Church with regard to fasting in the preparation for holy com-
munion. For example, in churches not affected by the renewal, it is com-
mon for a priest to question those approaching the chalice if they have
prepared. This question refers to a week-long fast on water [na
vodi], that is, a week-long abstinence from any animal product and oil
prior to communion. The practice seems to have become widespread in

30
In some monasteries, such as Zica and Gradac, the Divine Liturgy is celebrated
every morning unless otherwise prescribed by the Typicon.
31
The New Jerusalem Bible: Pocket Edition (New York, 1990).
32
I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18), pp. 1-2.
33
Patriarch Pavle, O postu i priwejivau, Pravoslave 953 (Belgrade,
1 December 2006), pp. 2-3, on p. 3.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 401 30/01/12 16:11

402 N. GLIBETIC

the eighteenth century, though this has yet to be studied in a systematic

way.34 For now, we can hypothesize that the practice developed in order
to enable those who attended the Liturgy infrequently to approach the
sacrament by preparing in such a way. While exceptions are made due
to illness or similar circumstances, the week-long fast is today consid-
ered a mandatory step in the preparation for holy communion by many
Serbian faithful, even by those in church regularly. They defend the
practice as a necessary ascetic dimension of church life.35
According to those involved in the liturgical movement, the week-
long fast betrays the canons of the Orthodox Church, such as those of
the Quinisext council, which forbid fasting on Saturdays and Sundays.36
In parishes affected by the renewal, liturgically active faithful keep the
regular fasts all the while receiving communion at every Divine Liturgy.
Both fasting and communion may be occasionally restricted by the
spiritual father or the parish priest, when a theologically sound reason
presents itself.37 In Metropolitan Amfilohijes words: who am I to deny
the Lord to the one who fasts every Wednesday and Friday and all four
annual fasts, who lives in the spirit of repentance and according to a
Christian life?.38

c. Marriage and Baptism Celebrated Within the Context of the Divine

Liturgy

Insisting that marriage and baptism are not private but communal acts
which involve the entire ecclesial body, when possible, churches affected
by the liturgical movement celebrate both sacraments within the context
of the Divine Liturgy. Their effort has not gone without criticism.
Describing the two sacraments as a private family matter, Bishop Geor-
gije (Djokic) asserts that their celebration within the context of the
Divine Liturgy disrupts the communal prayer of the faithful.39 His criti-
cism seems to be motivated by an unfortunate pastoral reality: because

34
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko i svetotainsko bogoslove u Karlovawko
Mitropolii XVIII. veka (Ph.D. diss., University of Belgrade, 2007), pp. 162-163.
35
For example: V. Dimitrijevic, Hleb nebeski (see n. 12), pp. 29-33//54-56.
36
A. Jevtic, Liturgiski mir i edinstvo u najo Crkvi, Pravoslave 973
(Belgrade, 1 October 2007), pp. 6-8, on p. 8; Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 1, p. 23.
37
Patriarch Pavle, O postu (see n. 33), p. 3. Though Bishop Georgije (Djokic) is
critical of the liturgical movement, on this subject he agrees: Tradicionalno (see
n. 10), pp. 15-16.
38
A. Radovic, O preovladavau (see n. 26).
39
G. Djokic, Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 16.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 402 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 403

many faithful do not personally know those being baptized or married,

they do not experience the celebration of these sacraments within the
Divine Liturgy as belonging to the entire ecclesial Body.

d. The Use of Holy Doors

We mentioned the debates over the use of holy doors in the introduc-
tion of this article, when describing the act issued by Bishop Jovan
(Mladenovic), in which he instructs the clergy of his diocese to keep the
holy doors open throughout the Divine Liturgy. This seems to be the
general practice in churches affected by the liturgical movement. Metro-
politan Amfilohije (Radojevic), in a homily delivered at the Patriarchate
chapel, states: do not the closed doors and the silent reading of [liturgi-
cal] prayers keep the lay faithful from an essential understanding of the
Holy Liturgy? If the curtain was torn in the Jewish temple at the moment
of Christs death, who are we to put it up again?.40
Contrary to the liturgical books of his day, the twentieth-century Ser-
bian theologian, Justin Popovic, spiritual father to many of the bishops
involved in the contemporary renewal, does not mention the use of holy
doors in his 1978 translation of the Divine Liturgy into Serbian, except
at communion.41 It was probably his intention to reduce rubrical instruc-
tions in Serbian liturgical books, because it is clear from video footage
and photographs that he used the holy doors. Rubrics concerning the
doors are listed in the 2001 Church Slavonic Moscow Sluzebnik, used in
parishes throughout the country, whereas the 2007 Sluzebnik in Serbian
does not mention them.42 In churches unaffected by the renewal, doors
and curtains are both employed in non-pontifical celebrations of the
Divine Liturgy.

e. The Prothesis Rite and the Particles for the Holy Angels

In churches affected by the renewal, the practice of taking out parti-

cles for the Holy Angels in the prothesis rite has been restored. Justin
Popovic re-introduced the same in his translation, indicating the practice
in older Slavic liturgical books and arguing that it ought to be used

40
A. Radovic, O preovladavau (see n. 26).
41
J. Popovic, Boanstvene Liturgie (Belgrade, 1978), pp. 72//130.
42
Holy Archiepiscopal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Sluebnik (Bel-
grade, 2007).

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 403 30/01/12 16:11

404 N. GLIBETIC

because it brings to light the cosmic dimension of Christian worship.43

Bishop Atanasije shows that this practice fell into disuse in Serbia with
the introduction of Russian liturgical books in the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries.44

f. Censing

Insisting on the importance for the faithful to hear biblical readings,

those involved in the renewal encourage censing during the Alleluia and
not during the Epistle reading.45

g. Liturgical Homily

Seeking to restore the traditional order of the Divine Liturgy, in

churches affected by the renewal, the liturgical homily, when delivered,
is always done after the reading of the gospel. This is contrary to the
common practice of leaving the homily for the end of the Divine Lit-
urgy. The latter is justified by those opposed to the reforms on pastoral
grounds. For example, though Bishop Georgije (Djokic) does indicate
that the homily was traditionally delivered after the gospel reading, he
argues that for the sake of those arriving late to the Divine Liturgy it is
best that it be left for the end.46

h. Litanies

In some though not all churches affected by the renewal, the litany for
the catechumens and the dismissal that follows are no longer said.

i. The Reading of Liturgical Prayers in an Audible Voice

In churches where liturgical reforms have been implemented, the

general practice is to pronounce liturgical prayers in an audible voice.
A common exception is the so-called Nemo dignus prayer, considered to
be a personal prayer of the celebrant. One of the effects of this reform is

43
J. Popovic, Boanstvene (see n. 41), pp. 230-231.
44
A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 3, pp. 375//379. Also consult: V. Vukasinovic,
Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 225-226.
45
The same is encouraged by those opposed to the renewal: G. (Djokic), Tradi-
cionalno (see n. 10), p. 12.
46
Ibid., p. 12.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 404 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 405

the return to only saying It is right and proper at the opening dialogue
of the anaphora, without the words to worship Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, Trinity one in essence and undivided. Those involved in the
liturgical movement argue that the audible recitation of liturgical prayers
helps reveal the Eucharist as a sacrifice offered by the entire assembly.
In Bishop Irinejs words, the faithful ought to be the royal priesthood
and concelebrants, instead of mere passive observers.47 By pronounc-
ing liturgical prayers aloud, it is thought that the occasional tendency
toward clericalism evident among both laity and clergy in the Serbian
Orthodox Church could at least partly be overcome.48 Opponents of the
practice hold that the silent reading of prayers can reveal the liturgy of
the Church as a communal act which does involve the entire assembly.
Bishop Georgije (Djokic) argues that praying the anaphora in an audible
voice actually impedes the active participation of the lay faithful because
it turns them into passive listeners.49 It is preferable, he concludes, that
the faithful participate in the Eucharistic offering by means of personal
prayer or singing, while the celebrant silently reads these essentially pri-
vate prayers of the clergy.50 Similarly, Father Dusan Kolundzic argues
that the reading of liturgical prayers in an audible voice does not solve
the problem of clericalism. For him, only through catechetical instruc-
tion can the faithful develop an authentic understanding of their role in
the Divine Liturgy.51

j. Troparia of the Third Hour

In churches effected by the renewal, troparia of the Third Hour are no

longer said within the context of the Divine Liturgy. This is because
they are seen as unnecessary fortifications of the epiclesis, interpolated
into the Divine Liturgy for polemical reasons. However, even prior to
the contemporary liturgical movement, there was a growing awareness
of this problem. For example, in his 1942 translation of the Divine Lit-
urgy into modern Serbian, Bishop Irinej (Dobic) shows a more critical

47
I. Bulovic, Introduction (see n. 18), p. 2.
48
S. Dobic, O Sveto Liturgii i witau liturgiskih molitava na glas,
Pravoslave 981 (Belgrade, 1 February 2008) pp. 6-9, on p. 9. See the reply of
D. Kolundzic, O witau liturgiskih molitava na glas, Pravoslave 984
(Belgrade, 15 March 2008), pp. 16-17.
49
G. Djokic, Tradicionalno (see n. 10), p. 14.
50
Ibid., pp. 14-15.
51
D. Kolundzic, O witau (see n. 48), p. 17.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 405 30/01/12 16:11

406 N. GLIBETIC

assessment of the Serbian liturgical practice by indicating that these

troparia are not said in the Greek Church.52 Some years later, Justin
Popovic in his translation placed these troparia in brackets, reasoning
that while it is not up to us at this time to omit them, it is also not up
to us to include them without indicating their more recent introduction
into the Liturgy.53 Today, Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic) argues that the use
of these troparia within the Divine Liturgy is not witnessed in Serbian
liturgical manuscripts and early printed books and is also not authentic
to Orthodox liturgical theology.54 For these reasons, he concludes, the
troparia should be removed from both the Chrysostom and the Basil
anaphoras.
Other practices seen as isolating one section of the anaphora as having
particular consecratory power, have also been abandoned by those
involved in the reforms. Some examples of these practices include the
lay faithful kneeling during the Words of Institution and/or during
the epiclesis, the ringing of small bells during the anaphora or the priestly
gesture of blessing the holy gifts during the Words of Institution. How-
ever, these gestures were not universally present even before the reforms.
With all these reforms and various reactions to them, we can gener-
ally observe two tendencies being revealed in the Serbian Orthodox
Church today. On the one side and the word side is here used reluc-
tantly, for it is never helpful to speak about sides when describing the
Church there are those who want liturgical reforms brought about
because they see the reforms as authentic to Orthodox worship and
theology. On the other side, there are those, such as Bishop Georgije
(Djokic) and Bishop Jefrem (Milutinovic), who describe the reforms as
betraying the established Serbian Orthodox tradition. Both hold that they
are abiding by the Holy Assemblys wish to celebrate in line with the
spirit and centuries-old tradition of Serbian Orthodox Church.55 How
can this discrepancy be explained?

52
Nedea Svete Pedesetnice: prazniwne slube, trans. Bishop Irinej Ciric
(Ujvidek, 1942), p. 320.
53
J. Popovic, Boanstvene (see n. 41), p. 229.
54
A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 2, pp. 134-148//360-373. Consult also Serbian
manuscript evidence: V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 226-228.
55
J. Milutinovic, Narujavae (see n. 10), pp. 6-7; A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see
n. 10), p. 18.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 406 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 407

4. Metropolitanate of Karlovci

According to Bishop Atanasije (Jevtic), the most vocal supporter of

the liturgical movement, what his critics consider to be the established
liturgical tradition in Serbia is a more recent development in Serbian
worship, which came about between the seventeenth and the nineteenth
centuries.56 This development, which was originally limited to the Met-
ropolitanate of Karlovci, gradually became standard Serbian practice.
Unfortunately, the changes in worship introduced at Karlovci, though
explainable given the historical context in which they developed, have,
according to Bishop Atanasije, led Serbian worship away from a liturgy
that most authentically expresses the Orthodox faith. The transformation
that he and others involved in the contemporary liturgical movement
in Serbia are referring to will occupy us for remainder of this article.
For without understanding this historical context, the liturgical renewal
taking place in Serbia today cannot be understood.57
The history of the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, located in northern
Serbia in the region today known as Vojvodina, is intimately connected
to the large exodus of Serbs fleeing Ottoman rule following the Austro-
Turkish war.58 Though this migration began as early as the fourteenth
century, it was in 1690 that Patriarch Arsenije III (Carnojevic, 1674-
1706) led 40,000 people over the Danube River and into the Austro-
Hungarian Empire. By that time, a significant number of Serbs were
already living in that empire and this ethnic continuity allowed the refu-
gees to adapt more easily to their new surroundings.59
However, the circumstances in which Serbs found themselves also
brought new challenges. For the first time, the Serbian people were
confronted with the ideas and prejudices of enlightenment rationalism
and with the polemics of post-reformation Europe.60 Deprived of their

56
A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), pp. 19-22; A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7), vol. 3,
pp. 382-384. Consult also Bishop Atanasijes important article: A. Jevtic, Razvo
bogoslova kod Srba, Teolojki Pogledi XVI (Belgrade, 1982) 3-4, pp. 81-104.
57
For a general study of Serbian Church history consult Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria
Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, 3 vols. (Munich, 1966). For a general history of Serbia,
consult the well-known work: K. Juricek, Istoria Srba, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Belgrade,
1952).
58
Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), vol. 1, pp. 373-374; V. Vukasinovic, Bib-
lisko (see n. 34), p. 7.
59
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 7. For a general study on Serbs in
Vojvodina prior to the 1690 migration, consult R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot u Vovod-
ini:1. do Velike Seobe od 1690. god. (Novi Sad, 1939).
60
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 7-12.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 407 30/01/12 16:11

408 N. GLIBETIC

political and with the cancellation of the Serbian patriarchate in 1766

religious autonomy, they felt the need to defend their identity.61 This
task was made especially difficult living in a heavily Catholic empire
and confronting explicit pressure toward union with Rome.62 All these
circumstances resulted in what is sometimes described as a process of
Russification of Serbian Church and culture.63 Realizing that the pres-
ervation of their spiritual identity demanded higher education, Serbs
turned to Russia for help.64 Because even basic conditions for educa-
tion, such as good schools, adequately trained teachers and books, were
lacking, Orthodox Russia, sharing a similar language and alphabet with
Serbs, was seen as an ideal ally.65 Soon, promising students were sent
north, especially to Kiev, to study theology at the well-known Kievan
Academy.66 By the eighteenth century this trend would result in the
systematization of Serbian education and the opening of the first Sla-
vonic-Latin schools.67 In 1727, Metropolitan Mojsije (Petrovic) opened
a new primary school [osnovna jkola] and the Russian Maxim Suvo-
rov, sent by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, became its first
teacher.68 Six years later, Metropolitan Vikentije Jovanovic opened a
High School [sreda jkola, or gimnazia] leaving another Russian,
Emmanuel Kozacinski, in charge.69 The primary schools opened during
this period taught the Slavonic alphabet along with fundamentals such
as arithmetic, grammar and simple spiritual works.70 In the High
Schools, students were taught theology from the so-called Slavonic-
Latin manuals and catecheses, brought to Serbia from the east.71
Russian works, including liturgical books, were imported and already

61
A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 97-98.
62
Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), vol. 1, pp. 414-429.
63
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 198.
64
Ibid., pp. 8//197-200. For a general historical discussion on Serbian-Russian rela-
tions, consult Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), pp. 402-414.
65
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 198; A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56),
p. 100.
66
Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 412.
67
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 201-211. For an overview of educa-
tion at Karlovci, see R. Grujic, Srpske jkole u Beogradskokarlovawko mitropolii
(Belgrade, 1908).
68
Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 412; R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot (see
n. 59), pp. 31-41.
69
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 201.
70
Ibid., p. 201; R. Grujic, Duhovni ivot (see n.. 59), pp. 82-90.
71
V. Vukasinovic extensively discusses the history, contents and use of catecheses:
Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 50-91.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 408 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 409

by the middle of the eighteenth century a relatively short amount of

time the Russian version of Church Slavonic, today simply known as
Church Slavonic, had replaced the previously used Serbian recension in
worship.72 The wide-spread introduction of Russian liturgical books,
such as the Minej, Trebnik and Sluzebnik, meant also the introduction
of liturgical elements specific to Russia, such as feasts commemorating
Russian saints, or peculiarities in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy
previously unused in Serbia.73 A parallel process of Russification was
evident also on the level of general culture, where Russian literature, art
and music quickly began to dominate.

5. Contemporary Renewal Movement

Until recently, most historians described the above-mentioned period

in the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church in positive terms. The so-
called process of Russification was seen as the only way Serbia would
be able to overcome pressures toward union with Rome.74 Russian pres-
ence at Karlovci was seen as inspiring a new intellectual dynamism in a
culture severely weakened by the Ottoman conquest and by the exile
into a foreign empire.
However, in the twentieth century and especially during the Commu-
nist era, the Serbian theological community initiated what would become
a widespread theological awakening. This awakening led to a critical
re-examination of the changes brought about at Karlovci and has resulted
in the contemporary liturgical movement. Like well-known Neo-patristic
theologians in both East and West, Serbian theologians gradually became
disillusioned with the manualist tradition that had been introduced at

72
Ksenija Koncarevic, Lingvistiwki komentar in Balajov, Na putu (see
n. 21), vol.1, pp. 259-285. Consult also J. Milanovic, Bogoslubeni ezik Srpske
Crkve: savremeno stae i perspektive, Logos (Belgrade, 2006), pp. 189-208. For
a discussion on the use of the vernacular in Serbian Orthodox worship, see R. Bajic,
Bogoslybeni ezik u Srpsko pravoslavno crkvi: projlost, savremeno stae,
perspektive (Belgrade, 2007).
73
V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko (see n. 34), pp. 215-240. A well-known work dealing
with the history of Serbian literature including liturgical works is by D. Bogdanovic,
Istoria srpske kievnosti (Belgrade, 1980).
74
For example, see: Dj. Slijepcevic, Istoria (see n. 57), p. 415. Vukasinovic chal-
lenges this assumption: Biblisko (see n. 34), p. 3. He cites the following work:
I. Tarnanidou, T problmata tv mjtroplewv karlobkwn kat tn ij ana ka
Jovan Rajic 1726-1801 (Thessalonica, 1972), p. 170.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 409 30/01/12 16:11

410 N. GLIBETIC

Karlovci. It was notably Bishop Nikolaj (Velimirovic. 1880-1956), and

especially Archimandrite Justin Popovic (1894-1979), who turned to the
Church Fathers in search of a more authentic expression of Orthodox
theology75. In an article published in Pravoslave, Sava Dobic writes:
The two of them [Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic] have started a
general spiritual-ecclesial renewal, whose fruits we are reaping today and
which is crowned by the liturgical renewal. Their work demands that we
not discontinue this renewal.76

Besides writing numerous books, including theological, historical and

poetical works, Nikolaj Velimirovic was the spiritual leader of an earlier
existing Serbian renewal movement, the so-called Bogomoljci [Bogo-
moci], meaning the God-Beseechers.77 An indirect relationship
could possibly be established between this lay movement and the con-
temporary liturgical movement, though we leave this task for another
time.78 For now it suffices to say that the writings of Bishop Nikolaj
continue to inspire Serbian theology, and in this way also the liturgical
movement.79
Justin Popovic is more directly related. In his theological writings, we
see a clear return to the Fathers, and a strong influence of Neo-patristic
authors.80 His search for a more authentic theological expression also
inspired him to introduce concrete liturgical reforms. These include
translating the liturgies into modern Serbian, re-introducing particles for
the holy angels in the prothesis, placing Third Hour troparia in brackets,

75
Bishop Atanasije mentions others who have contributed to the overall renewal, such
as Radoslav Grujic, Lazar Mirkovic and Dragi Anastasijevic. He also indicates the
theologians connected with the following Serbian periodicals: Bogoslovski glasnik,
Hrijanski ivot, Hrijansko delo, Bogoslove, Glasnik Patriarjie,
Hrijanska misao, Svetosave. See A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), p. 102.
76
S. Dovic, O Sveto Liturgii (see n. 48), p. 9.
77
For a study on the Bogomoljci movement and Nikolaj Velimirovic, see D. Subotic,
Episkop Nikola i Pravoslavni Bogomoawki Pokret (Belgrade, 1996). Bishop
Nikolaj also wrote a book on the Bogomoljci: Divan: nauka o wudesima (Munich,
1953).
78
For some initial discussions on the influence of Bogomoljci on Serbian worship,
see D. Kapisazovic, Pevae bogomoawkih pesama u hramovima Vesnik 392
(Belgrade, 15 October 1965) p. 3; S. Ratkovic, Pevae bogomoawkih pesama u
hramovima, Vesnik 395-6 (Belgrade, 1-15 December 1965), pp. 3-4; D. Kapisazovic,
Odgovor, Vesnik 397 (Belgrade, 1 January 1966), p. 8; A. Jevtic, Hristos (see n. 7),
vol. 3, p. 382.
79
A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 102-103.
80
An English bibliography of Father Justins works is available in Wovek bogowoveka
Hrista: spomenica 110-godijici blaenog prestavea Prepodobnog Oca
ustina Novog eliskog, ed. A. Jevtic (Belgrade, 2004), pp. 352-382.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 410 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 411

and insisting that it is people and not choirs who ought to sing liturgi-
cal responses.81 Both his theological writings and his liturgical initiatives
influenced the current liturgical movement. This is especially evident
when one takes into account that Justin Popovic was the spiritual father
to the most active bishops involved in the renewal, such as Irinej
(Bulovic) and Atanasije (Jevtic).

When reading the writings of Father Justins disciples, one often encoun-
ters the concept of pseudomorphosis [psevdomorfoza], used to
describe the developments at the Metropolitanate of Karlovci we exam-
ined earlier.82 According to these authors, the theological-liturgical life
at Karlovci during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries underwent a
process similar to the pseudomorphosis described by Georges Flo-
rovsky, a father of the Neo-patristic movement in the East.83 Generally
speaking, what is meant by the use of this word in the Serbian context is
the visible transformation of Serbian theology, worship and popular
liturgical piety. This transformation came about especially through the
introduction of Russian theological and liturgical books, heavily influ-
enced by Moghilan Kiev and the theology of the Manualist School.84
For example, referring to those opposed to the liturgical movement,
Jevtic writes:
For some of them, the centuries-old tradition is in fact the Karlovci
practice, introduced a few centuries ago, not witnessed in our manuscripts
and first printed Sluzabnici but appearing through [those books] brought
from Kiev, Lvov, Vilnius and Moscow, or in those reprinted at Karlovci85

81
J. Popovic, epilogue to Boanstvene (see n. 43), p. 232. I hope to soon publish
an English translation of this text, important as it is for the study of twentieth-century
worship in the Serbian Orthodox Church.
82
For example: A. Jevtic, Razvo (see n. 56), pp. 98-101; A. Jevtic, Epilogue to
Veliki post by A. Schmemann, trans. J. Olbina (Vrnjacka Banja, 1999), pp. 164-174,
on pp. 164-165; A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), pp. 19-22; V. Vukasinovic, Bib-
lisko (see n. 34), p. 61. Bishop Irinej (Bulovic) alludes to this process: Introduction
(see n. 21), pp. 1-7. Consult also S. Dobic, O Sveto (see n. 48), pp. 7-8.
83
See G. Florovsky, Westliche Einflsse in der russischen Theologie, Procs-
Verbaux du Premier Congrs de Thologie Orthodoxe Athnes, ed. H. S. Alivisatos
(Athens, 1939), pp. 212-232; G. Florovsky, Collected Works, 4 vols. (Belmont, Mass.,
1975), pp. 157-182.
84
Theological books introduced during this period, the so-called confessions of faith
[ispovedaa vere] and similar works, are described in: V. Vukasinovic, Biblisko
(see n. 34), pp. 56-61.
85
A. Jevtic, O obnovi (see n. 10), p. 19.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 411 30/01/12 16:11

412 N. GLIBETIC

Even though we may attribute the adoption of this predominantly late

Scholastic theology86 to historical circumstances, Jevtic indicates that
Neo-patristic theologians, such as Justin Popovic, have already exposed
this theology as an inadequate expression of the Christian ethos, both
eastern and western. It follows that this theology, and the liturgical
reforms implemented under its influence, should be abandoned.
However, those involved in the contemporary liturgical movement do
not seek reforms simply to rid the Serbian liturgy of Russian or Roman
Catholic influences that came about at Karlovci. Neither do they seek to
return Serbian worship to an imagined, idealized liturgy as once cele-
brated by the Fathers.87 Rather, the re-discovery of a theology centered
on the liturgical dimension of ecclesia has prompted an evaluation of
established Serbian liturgical practices, which in turn inspired concrete
reforms in worship. For example, in his epilogue to the Serbian transla-
tion of Father Schmemanns The Great Lent, Jevtic agrees with Schme-
manns criticism of the Scholastic tradition. However, he reminds that
Manualist theology, and its adoption by the Orthodox, is an expres-
sion of a more profound crisis, and one repeatedly witnessed in Christian
history; that is, it is a crisis of faith.88 The solution, therefore, is not
simply to abandon practices in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy
because they have come about in more recent centuries, and in this case,
also under foreign influence. The implemented reforms, and the theol-
ogy from which they derive, instead seek a more authentic epiphany of
the Christian life of faith in Christ. Although patristic theology is a sure
test of profound and authentic theological expression, the Fathers are
not limited to a particular historical epoch. One can speak of twentieth-
century Fathers, for example Popovic and Velimirovic. It is Christ who

86
We specify late Scholastic so as not to disregard the entire Scholastic philosophi-
cal-theological tradition, but to refer to a particular development within this tradition, and
one that has been heavily criticized by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike. This
specification is our own.
87
We write this partly in response to the following important essay, which criticizes
the use of the concept of pseudomorphosis by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike:
Dorothea Wendebourg, Pseudomorphosis: Ein theologisches Urteil als Axiom der
kirchen- und theologiegeschichtlichen Forschung, in The Christian East: Its Institutions
and its Thought. A Critical Reflection, ed. Robert F. Taft, Orientalia Christiana Analecta
251 (1996), pp. 565-589. In English: Pseudomorphosis: A Theological Judgment as
an Axiom for Research in the History of Church and Theology, trans. Alexandra Riebe,
The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43 (1997) 321-342. I am indebted to Sister
Vassa Larin and Father Robert Taft who showed me this article and inspired a more
critical evaluation of this concept.
88
A. Jevtic, Epilogue (see n. 82), pp. 165-166.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 412 30/01/12 16:11

LITURGICAL RENEWAL MOVEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIA 413

is the true source of theological reflection and of the Churchs liturgy,

and He promised to be with His Church in every epoch.

Conclusion

Although we have examined some of its main characteristics, intro-

duced the persons most intimately involved, listed concrete reforms
being implemented, and described the broader historical context, our
study of the current liturgical movement in Serbia has only touched the
surface. Not only would we have to follow up with a more systematic,
historical examination of Serbian worship, but more importantly, we
would have to seek a deeper understanding of the theology on which this
movement rests. Alexander Schmemann rightly notes that the Churchs
leitourgia is the full and adequate epiphany of that in which the
church believes.89 The deepening in faith and in theological understand-
ing that has accompanied the Serbian Church in recent decades has
begun to manifest also in the liturgical life of the Church. Given the
especially difficult political and social circumstances in recent Serbian
history, it is remarkable, or perhaps only natural, that a search for Ortho-
dox faith and its genuine expression in worship should arise. This search
was especially inspired by the Neo-Patristic movement, and in particular
by the writings of Nikolaj Velimirovic and Justin Popovic.
However, spiritual renewal is never an easy task, and resistance, isku-
jee, is always encountered. There are radical differences among the
Serbian faithful on the level of education, exposure to other cultures and
liturgical traditions, in theological understanding and in the experience of
ecclesia and it is here, more than anywhere else, that we find our expla-
nation for the criticism the movement has received. Here we also dis-
cover an explanation for the divergences in liturgical practice evident in
the Serbian Church today. In the words of Emilianos Timiadis, worship
too bears the seal of history, that of the pilgrimage of the chosen and
redeemed people struggling to remain loyal to their Savior and to partici-
pate in His glory.90 Historical tensions have a way of showing their face
in the liturgy of the Church. At the same time, liturgical divergences

89
A. Schmemann, Liturgical Theology, Theology of Liturgy, and Liturgical Reform,
Saint Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 13 (1969) 217-224, on p. 218.
90
E. Timiadios, The Renewal of Orthodox Worship, Studia Liturgica 6 (1969)
95-115, on p. 95.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 413 30/01/12 16:11

414 N. GLIBETIC

ought not to be feared, for diversity in liturgical practice has always been
present in the life of the Church.
The Serbian liturgical movement is a new movement, one still
predominantly acting on an intuition, albeit one rooted in vigilant theo-
logical reflection. Though this intuition has judged particular historical
developments in Serbian worship critically, more detailed historical
analysis has yet to substantiate these assumptions. While a distanced
evaluation of the fine points must still stand the test of time, the current
situation should be seen as expression of hope. This is because it reveals
our liturgy as indeed living, and us, pilgrims, as struggling to remain
true to our Lord.

94070_Groen_et_al_22.indd 414 30/01/12 16:11