This is lovely. We used to pray it at the women's retreats I went to at St. John Orthodox in Memphis. In the morning, before anything else began. It is so beautiful, so powerful. Now I'm wondering if I'll ever have the opportunity to pray it together with a group again....I'm so glad you did!
At our church, we prayed it at Wednesday Vespers the night before Thanksgiving...a perfect prayer for the occasion. I believe many churches do the same.
At our parish in Pa. we sing this at least twice a year, once during Lent and once during Advent. Some years, depending on the Liturgical schedule our priest will offer it once during the summer as well. Definitely a service I always look forward to.
By the way, the word "akathist" means "not sitting," and refers to the fact that the congregation stands for the entire hymn.
I would be very interested in having either the Russian/Slavonic words and/or a slightly better English translation. With every verse, they sing "Glory to God for all things" and then the very last line changes, and I just don't know. I'd love to put together an English version of this if it doesn't exist already.)
My father was an Irish-American Catholic, my mother was an eastern Orthodox Christian who became a Catholic to marry my father. So, I have had the benefit of being exposed to both religions. Like my father, I don't see a real difference between the two churches from the perspective of a believer. Yes, there was a schism based on a line in the Creed, but that was really not all that significant, and the Roman Catholic version of the Creed, is now consistent with the Eastern Orthodox version. So what are we "fighting" about? I have gone to communion in an Orthodox church, of my mother and my relatives, and I would expect them to do so in my RC church without impediment.
I think that the Orthodox can take communion at a Catholic church (as in they have Catholic permission to do so), but the Orthodox object to Catholics taking communion at an Orthodox church, while also discouraging Orthodox believers from taking Catholic communion. So if you're not chrismated Orthodox and you took their communion, you would have likely done so contrary to their will.
Basically, then, the Catholic Church now is going, "Come on, we're both the same, right?" And the Orthodox Church says, "No, stop it!—we're not the same."
The most obvious thing that they're still fighting about is the nature and scope of the authority of the Roman bishop. There are also just so many political interests involved at this point that it is hard to see how the schism could ever get resolved.
Like the Second Coming suddenly? That will resolve things, all right.
Also, though, I kinda wonder if Francis is some sort of secret agent man who's working toward destroying ultramontanism forever, and thereby faciliating reconcilation.
There's also the practical issue of divorce which would be a huge impediment as there are many divorced and remarried Orthodox, and Rome would choke on allowing them to commune.
At one point when I lived in Baltimore and was not working I occasionally went to the noon daily mass at the historic St. Vinecnt de Paul (which, alas, has now closed). The priest, seeing me there on several occasions, stopped to talk to me and invited me to start communing, but I said No to that since it's not really kosher to do so on our side.
Well, from what I understand, under Francis the Vatican has taken to giving out annulments like candy, so maybe they could get their heads past that one.
Those who could afford a good canon lawyer have been able to obtain an anullment in lieu of divorce quite freely for decades, even centuries. Henry VIII might have gotten one if the Pope had not been afraid of the military presence of Catherine of Aragon's nephew in Italy. I recall news coverage of a Lutheran couple who civilly divorced, then the husband became engaged to a Catholic woman who wanted a Catholic wedding, and the appropriate Catholic bodies annulled his previous marriage. The wife objected that the Catholic church had no right to declare that she had never been married to her husband, while their daughter asked "Does that mean I'm illegitimate?" All of which, in my mind, highlights how silly all this tangle of legalities is in spiritual matters.
I figure that if a marriage is loveless enough as to result in a demand for separation, then that demand should just be granted, because the spirit that animated the sacrament is already gone. People and churches can conceptualize that basic fact in whatever ways they prefer.
I’d say it’s probably true that a marriage that falls apart never was a marriage in the highest sense of full spiritual fusion (which shouldn’t be able to fall apart), but perhaps it was a marriage in some lesser or provisional sense. Something like that—I don’t know.
Given that Catholicism and Orthodoxy each have divisions within themselves, not holding my breath on reunion of the historical liturgical churches, though that would be a world-historical event of the first rank should it occur.
Yes, whether the Bishop of Rome is simply the 'Western Patriarch' or superior to the historic sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (and the others subsequent) is the promontory, but there's a 1000 years of reefal accretion lurking that could just as well sink reunion efforts - some people are still polemically fighting the Fourth Crusade (1204), after all.
Pope John Paul's 1995 Apostolic Letter 'Orientale Lumen' ('Light of the East') was a nice outreach, expressing appreciation for Eastern Churches, but more aspirational than anything actualized.
Despite the long litany of differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I see each closer to the other than either is to any form of Protestantism. (I'm not judging Protestantism here, just noting that the two major branches of historical liturgical tradition have more in common when traced back into the mists of history)
The two "branches" of Protestantism which have the most in common with the ancient Churches are historic traditional Anglicanism and historic traditional Lutheranism. As one might expect, they are the most liturgical.
Arguably the Mennonites and Moravians are closer. But after everyone puts their limited historical evidence and analysis on the table, it remains a matter of taste, as we really don't know.
I don't know that institutional unity is particularly desirable, much less necessary. There are differences, and that is inevitable. Instead of trying to iron them out, we can agree to disagree, knowing that these differences are of little significance to God.
But the significance of the differences is itself one of the main points under dispute. You believe that the differences are of little significance to God, and others believe otherwise: there is no universal agreement on that front. So you’re begging the question, assuming what is to be demonstrated.
If we can't even agree on the significance of the differences, we definitely have no basis to make one school of thought mandatory. Those convinced that God requires adherence to every jot and tittle of their own understanding in order to be saved will just have to be satisfied with the prospect of seeing their polemical adversaries roasting in everlasting fire.
"If we can't even agree on the significance of the differences, we definitely have no basis to make one school of thought mandatory."
So unless there is 100% agreement on something it cannot be mandated? How then can a line be drawn between what is orthodox and what is heterodox in any given situation? This is illogical in the extreme in that it plays hell with the law of non-contradiction.
If you were baptized and chrismated Orthodox you should not be taking communion in a Roman Catholic church. Ditto the reverse. The RCC may allow it but to the EOC it's still a no-no.
The schism was not based solely on a line in the Creed, but on the understanding of the authority that made that change vs. that which rejected it. By receiving Communion in the "other" church, whichever that happens to be, you are showing yourself to be accepting of its faith and under its authority, and obviously you can't be both.
I realize that both in Europe and the US there has been some freedom in this regard related to the relationship between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. But this is an exception to the normal situation.
Could you clarify that last point? There's some freedom over here? As far as I know, I can't take Orthodox communion as an Eastern Catholic. But I do think that some sort of dual communion arrangement would be cool.
My understanding is that in certain areas in the Eastern U.S. there is a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy among *some* Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I haven't really heard of it in my area (Western Pa.) but maybe Bill Tighe could speak to it regarding points east.
What I have heard is, that it is to a degree "the case" (more "winked at" on both parts than encouraged) among Arab (Antiochian) Orthodox and Arab (Melkite) Catholics in the Near East - but not anywhere here in the USA. The Antiochians here and elsewhere in the diaspora don't encourage it at all; rather, very much to the contrary. In my own Ukrainian Catholic parish it is the custom of our pastor, as it was of his late predecessor, to announce after his sermon when large numbers of people who are not "regulars" are there, that Catholics in good standing who have no serious sins unrepented and unconfessed are welcome to receive communion, as are Orthodox Christians in the same spiritual condition, but Orthodox Christians are urged to be mindful of their own church's discipline on the subject - or words to that effect.
POSTSCRIPT
The case is the same, I've read, between the Syriac (Miaphysite) Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics, and even between both of them and the Antiochians and the Melkites. It seems to be "an Arab Christian thing."
Bill, you may remember on the old 'Mere Comments' blog there was a guy name Stuart K., an Eastern Catholic of some sort, who used to argue about this all the time. Remember, he was the one who always claimed to be "An Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome."
Rob, yes, I remember him. The OCiCwRs, as a friend once abbreviated them, felt that they could be in communion with Rome on their own terms, rejecting anything in Catholic belief and practice that the Orthodox reject, and yet not regarding themselves as under any Orthodox authority.
Stuart, as we discovered at one point, was an undergraduate at Georgetown during my undergraduate years, and we were even students together in one class in the Fall 1972 semester, but neither one of us has a memory of the other from that class.
Those are wonderful lines, Rod, thanks for passing them along to us.
As I read them, I am thinking about a long-form podcast I listened to yesterday that I highly recommend for readers. It's an interview with Cyan Banister, who tells the story of a chaotic childhood on an Indian reservation, being disowned by an abusive mother and being a homeless vagrant, then building skills just to stay alive, and working those skills into business savvy, with things like selling discarded used clothing to buy enough food to survive.
Along the way, she had a number of remarkable encounters, including one while close to death on a highway, when an RV driver picked her up and told her that "God told me to stop and help you." That was just one of a number of pivot points that led to becoming a remarkably productive person--her getting involved with a group of "nerds" that introduced her to computers and dial up modems, and all the possibilities ther.e.
Along the way, she engaged in business activities that I think everyone here would find immoral--she started a pornographic website that was a predecessor of Only Fans, for example. Later she was a ground floor investor in Uber and some other innovative startups and how she's a multi billionaire.
So why would a reader here be interested in Cyan Banister? One, she is an amateur philosopher who reads real philosophers and articulates very clearly some of the ideas that inform much of new age spirituality, meshing that with a philosophy of randomness and providence that to me very much resembles the spirituality (not the doctrine, but the spirituality) of a poetry shared above.
Many here might disagree, and see this woman's influence and the inspirations to which she points as only negative. But I think this podcast is the clearest example of a person who understands something very profound about "living in wonder" and whose insights could very well lead her and others like her to embrace the Christian gospel as lived as a life of wonder.
Meanwhile I think this podcast is a must listen. Those who click on the link might see a podcast about business and investments, but the description hides the fact that she has an unusually perceptive grasp of spiritual realities, an understanding that could be turned toward a demonic gospel or toward the True Christian gospel.
And I guarantee she is and will be influential with a growing subset of the culture, which makes her important to listen to no matter what one makes of the stories she tells.
I remembered that the Orthodox English composer John Tavener did a setting of this Akathist, and there is a 90's-era recording of it, which I've not heard. Given Sir John's style of composing, I'd imagine that his setting would be quite different than what you hear in parish use, but would likely still be lovely, if perhaps a bit challenging/complex.
This is lovely. We used to pray it at the women's retreats I went to at St. John Orthodox in Memphis. In the morning, before anything else began. It is so beautiful, so powerful. Now I'm wondering if I'll ever have the opportunity to pray it together with a group again....I'm so glad you did!
“We give Thee thanks for all Thy mercies, seen and unseen. For eternal life, for the heavenly Joys of the Kingdom which is to be.”
At our church, we prayed it at Wednesday Vespers the night before Thanksgiving...a perfect prayer for the occasion. I believe many churches do the same.
At our parish in Pa. we sing this at least twice a year, once during Lent and once during Advent. Some years, depending on the Liturgical schedule our priest will offer it once during the summer as well. Definitely a service I always look forward to.
By the way, the word "akathist" means "not sitting," and refers to the fact that the congregation stands for the entire hymn.
Thank you for this brother.
https://youtu.be/WmvH0_Lo8A0?si=TK2lW3tUdjNN3Ni7
I was really blessed by this getting ready for my (evangelical) church service this morning. Thanks, J.!
I would be very interested in having either the Russian/Slavonic words and/or a slightly better English translation. With every verse, they sing "Glory to God for all things" and then the very last line changes, and I just don't know. I'd love to put together an English version of this if it doesn't exist already.)
Yes, that would be wonderful if we knew Russian , to be able to “get” the deepest meanings and inflections.
As any translation, it can only go so far… I read it in Romanian (another translation) and it’s just as awesome as in the English version.
Glory to God!
Thanks Rod for posting this acatist. God bless you and your loved ones.
How lovely for the Substack app to ring on the way to the airport. Glorious. Back to Budapest February 6.
Safe travels!
I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall be continually on my mouth. My soul makes it's boast in the Lord; let the humble hear and be glad
Oh magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together! Psalm 34: 1-3
https://youtu.be/7RvFETPoLOs?si=-4uEsu5fLz09lzim
Christ is Born! thank you for sharing this Akathist. I never knew it existed. I will certainly print it and add it to the other akathists.
Thank you!
Glory to thee… many thanks and much love.
My father was an Irish-American Catholic, my mother was an eastern Orthodox Christian who became a Catholic to marry my father. So, I have had the benefit of being exposed to both religions. Like my father, I don't see a real difference between the two churches from the perspective of a believer. Yes, there was a schism based on a line in the Creed, but that was really not all that significant, and the Roman Catholic version of the Creed, is now consistent with the Eastern Orthodox version. So what are we "fighting" about? I have gone to communion in an Orthodox church, of my mother and my relatives, and I would expect them to do so in my RC church without impediment.
I think that the Orthodox can take communion at a Catholic church (as in they have Catholic permission to do so), but the Orthodox object to Catholics taking communion at an Orthodox church, while also discouraging Orthodox believers from taking Catholic communion. So if you're not chrismated Orthodox and you took their communion, you would have likely done so contrary to their will.
Basically, then, the Catholic Church now is going, "Come on, we're both the same, right?" And the Orthodox Church says, "No, stop it!—we're not the same."
The most obvious thing that they're still fighting about is the nature and scope of the authority of the Roman bishop. There are also just so many political interests involved at this point that it is hard to see how the schism could ever get resolved.
And sometimes... Impossible things resolve suddenly! :)
Like the Second Coming suddenly? That will resolve things, all right.
Also, though, I kinda wonder if Francis is some sort of secret agent man who's working toward destroying ultramontanism forever, and thereby faciliating reconcilation.
There's also the practical issue of divorce which would be a huge impediment as there are many divorced and remarried Orthodox, and Rome would choke on allowing them to commune.
At one point when I lived in Baltimore and was not working I occasionally went to the noon daily mass at the historic St. Vinecnt de Paul (which, alas, has now closed). The priest, seeing me there on several occasions, stopped to talk to me and invited me to start communing, but I said No to that since it's not really kosher to do so on our side.
Well, from what I understand, under Francis the Vatican has taken to giving out annulments like candy, so maybe they could get their heads past that one.
Those who could afford a good canon lawyer have been able to obtain an anullment in lieu of divorce quite freely for decades, even centuries. Henry VIII might have gotten one if the Pope had not been afraid of the military presence of Catherine of Aragon's nephew in Italy. I recall news coverage of a Lutheran couple who civilly divorced, then the husband became engaged to a Catholic woman who wanted a Catholic wedding, and the appropriate Catholic bodies annulled his previous marriage. The wife objected that the Catholic church had no right to declare that she had never been married to her husband, while their daughter asked "Does that mean I'm illegitimate?" All of which, in my mind, highlights how silly all this tangle of legalities is in spiritual matters.
I figure that if a marriage is loveless enough as to result in a demand for separation, then that demand should just be granted, because the spirit that animated the sacrament is already gone. People and churches can conceptualize that basic fact in whatever ways they prefer.
I’d say it’s probably true that a marriage that falls apart never was a marriage in the highest sense of full spiritual fusion (which shouldn’t be able to fall apart), but perhaps it was a marriage in some lesser or provisional sense. Something like that—I don’t know.
None of us do -- which is a bad foundation for writing laws.
Each looks at the other as the one who 'left'.
Given that Catholicism and Orthodoxy each have divisions within themselves, not holding my breath on reunion of the historical liturgical churches, though that would be a world-historical event of the first rank should it occur.
Yes, whether the Bishop of Rome is simply the 'Western Patriarch' or superior to the historic sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (and the others subsequent) is the promontory, but there's a 1000 years of reefal accretion lurking that could just as well sink reunion efforts - some people are still polemically fighting the Fourth Crusade (1204), after all.
Pope John Paul's 1995 Apostolic Letter 'Orientale Lumen' ('Light of the East') was a nice outreach, expressing appreciation for Eastern Churches, but more aspirational than anything actualized.
Despite the long litany of differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I see each closer to the other than either is to any form of Protestantism. (I'm not judging Protestantism here, just noting that the two major branches of historical liturgical tradition have more in common when traced back into the mists of history)
The two "branches" of Protestantism which have the most in common with the ancient Churches are historic traditional Anglicanism and historic traditional Lutheranism. As one might expect, they are the most liturgical.
Arguably the Mennonites and Moravians are closer. But after everyone puts their limited historical evidence and analysis on the table, it remains a matter of taste, as we really don't know.
There you go throwing your modernist template onto the past again.
How so? Its not self-evident.
I don't know that institutional unity is particularly desirable, much less necessary. There are differences, and that is inevitable. Instead of trying to iron them out, we can agree to disagree, knowing that these differences are of little significance to God.
But the significance of the differences is itself one of the main points under dispute. You believe that the differences are of little significance to God, and others believe otherwise: there is no universal agreement on that front. So you’re begging the question, assuming what is to be demonstrated.
If we can't even agree on the significance of the differences, we definitely have no basis to make one school of thought mandatory. Those convinced that God requires adherence to every jot and tittle of their own understanding in order to be saved will just have to be satisfied with the prospect of seeing their polemical adversaries roasting in everlasting fire.
You're glossing over the point that unity would be more important to people who believe the differences are significant: it's not exactly symmetrical.
In any event, I don't believe we were talking about the political question of what should or should not be mandatory as a matter of law.
"If we can't even agree on the significance of the differences, we definitely have no basis to make one school of thought mandatory."
So unless there is 100% agreement on something it cannot be mandated? How then can a line be drawn between what is orthodox and what is heterodox in any given situation? This is illogical in the extreme in that it plays hell with the law of non-contradiction.
If you were baptized and chrismated Orthodox you should not be taking communion in a Roman Catholic church. Ditto the reverse. The RCC may allow it but to the EOC it's still a no-no.
The schism was not based solely on a line in the Creed, but on the understanding of the authority that made that change vs. that which rejected it. By receiving Communion in the "other" church, whichever that happens to be, you are showing yourself to be accepting of its faith and under its authority, and obviously you can't be both.
I realize that both in Europe and the US there has been some freedom in this regard related to the relationship between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. But this is an exception to the normal situation.
Could you clarify that last point? There's some freedom over here? As far as I know, I can't take Orthodox communion as an Eastern Catholic. But I do think that some sort of dual communion arrangement would be cool.
My understanding is that in certain areas in the Eastern U.S. there is a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy among *some* Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I haven't really heard of it in my area (Western Pa.) but maybe Bill Tighe could speak to it regarding points east.
What I have heard is, that it is to a degree "the case" (more "winked at" on both parts than encouraged) among Arab (Antiochian) Orthodox and Arab (Melkite) Catholics in the Near East - but not anywhere here in the USA. The Antiochians here and elsewhere in the diaspora don't encourage it at all; rather, very much to the contrary. In my own Ukrainian Catholic parish it is the custom of our pastor, as it was of his late predecessor, to announce after his sermon when large numbers of people who are not "regulars" are there, that Catholics in good standing who have no serious sins unrepented and unconfessed are welcome to receive communion, as are Orthodox Christians in the same spiritual condition, but Orthodox Christians are urged to be mindful of their own church's discipline on the subject - or words to that effect.
POSTSCRIPT
The case is the same, I've read, between the Syriac (Miaphysite) Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics, and even between both of them and the Antiochians and the Melkites. It seems to be "an Arab Christian thing."
Bill, you may remember on the old 'Mere Comments' blog there was a guy name Stuart K., an Eastern Catholic of some sort, who used to argue about this all the time. Remember, he was the one who always claimed to be "An Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome."
Rob, yes, I remember him. The OCiCwRs, as a friend once abbreviated them, felt that they could be in communion with Rome on their own terms, rejecting anything in Catholic belief and practice that the Orthodox reject, and yet not regarding themselves as under any Orthodox authority.
Stuart, as we discovered at one point, was an undergraduate at Georgetown during my undergraduate years, and we were even students together in one class in the Fall 1972 semester, but neither one of us has a memory of the other from that class.
My comment made its way to the end of the comments rather than a reply here.
"the Roman Catholic version of the Creed, is now consistent with the Eastern Orthodox version"
This statement is factually incorrect.
Those are wonderful lines, Rod, thanks for passing them along to us.
As I read them, I am thinking about a long-form podcast I listened to yesterday that I highly recommend for readers. It's an interview with Cyan Banister, who tells the story of a chaotic childhood on an Indian reservation, being disowned by an abusive mother and being a homeless vagrant, then building skills just to stay alive, and working those skills into business savvy, with things like selling discarded used clothing to buy enough food to survive.
Along the way, she had a number of remarkable encounters, including one while close to death on a highway, when an RV driver picked her up and told her that "God told me to stop and help you." That was just one of a number of pivot points that led to becoming a remarkably productive person--her getting involved with a group of "nerds" that introduced her to computers and dial up modems, and all the possibilities ther.e.
Along the way, she engaged in business activities that I think everyone here would find immoral--she started a pornographic website that was a predecessor of Only Fans, for example. Later she was a ground floor investor in Uber and some other innovative startups and how she's a multi billionaire.
So why would a reader here be interested in Cyan Banister? One, she is an amateur philosopher who reads real philosophers and articulates very clearly some of the ideas that inform much of new age spirituality, meshing that with a philosophy of randomness and providence that to me very much resembles the spirituality (not the doctrine, but the spirituality) of a poetry shared above.
Many here might disagree, and see this woman's influence and the inspirations to which she points as only negative. But I think this podcast is the clearest example of a person who understands something very profound about "living in wonder" and whose insights could very well lead her and others like her to embrace the Christian gospel as lived as a life of wonder.
Meanwhile I think this podcast is a must listen. Those who click on the link might see a podcast about business and investments, but the description hides the fact that she has an unusually perceptive grasp of spiritual realities, an understanding that could be turned toward a demonic gospel or toward the True Christian gospel.
And I guarantee she is and will be influential with a growing subset of the culture, which makes her important to listen to no matter what one makes of the stories she tells.
Cheers,
https://tim.blog/2024/11/28/cyan-banister/
Glory to Thee, ceaselessly watching over me
Glory to Thee for the encounters Thou dost arrange for me
Glory to Thee for the love of parents, for the faithfulness of friends
Glory to Thee for the humbleness of the animals which serve me
Glory to Thee for the unforgettable moments of life
Glory to Thee for the heart's innocent joy
Glory to Thee for the joy of living
Moving and being able to return Thy love
Glory to Thee, O God, from age to age
Thank you for this. I'm familiar with the Akathist to the Theotokos that is done regularly during Lent, but this was new.
Beautiful, thanks
I remembered that the Orthodox English composer John Tavener did a setting of this Akathist, and there is a 90's-era recording of it, which I've not heard. Given Sir John's style of composing, I'd imagine that his setting would be quite different than what you hear in parish use, but would likely still be lovely, if perhaps a bit challenging/complex.
This is living in wonder.