Topic: Vesperal Liturgies

[scamandrius]

tonight, I went to church expecting to sing the Vespers service to St. Barbara and St. John Damascene and instead it was the Vesperal Liturgy.  So, not only was I cheated out of the entire second part of Vespers, but also the whole of Orthros and the beginning of the Divine Liturgy. I don't know whose bright idea this whole thing was, but I say it shouldn't be used.  I know I'm probably in the minority on this, but I'm really frustrated with their existence.

[Schultz]

Coming from a Greek Catholic background, these are nothing new to me so they don't annoy me as much as they might a cradle or an Orthodox Christian from another background.  I would prefer not to have them (aside from the prescribed ones) but I can understand their use in today's society.  We have them occasionally at my parish for some feasts, but for more solemn ones (like the Feast of our patron St. Andrew earlier this week), we have both vespers and DL the following morning (we never do Matins).  If they are exceptions to the rule, rather than become the rule, then I think they're fine, so long as the local ordinary is okay with them.

But I can certainly understand your frustration.

[arimethea]

While I am not a big of Vesperal Liturgy being served when they are not called for by the Typikon (and yes there are Vesperal Liturgies called for by the Typikon), I would say they do serve a purpose in parish use.

First there is nothing un-canonical about their use, you can argue that they are a corruption of the tradition but there is nothing in the canons that forbid this service.

As for robbing the faithful of the complete cycle of the service I would argue that the Vesperal Liturgy actually adds to the cycle since were these services are being done the people are not attending Vespers or Orthros. So instead of just showing up for liturgy and missing all of Vespers and Orthros the faithful at least get to hear part of the hymns for Vespers. The serving of these services in the evening also allows for the entire family to participate because of the early start times for schools which prohibit school age children from attending.

These are just some of the pastoral considerations for these services that I hope allow you to rejoice that people are encouraged to celebrate the feast.

[Fr. George]

I think it's actually nice to sprinkle Vesperal Liturgy in a few times per year.  We take the "Matins then Liturgy" thing for granted in the Roman/Greek tradition, when it can be done after Matins, after 6th Hour, or after Vespers.  It certainly is more common than people realize, though: the pair around Christmas & Theophany, the pair in Holy Week, plus every Wednesday, Friday, and non-Annunciation weekday feast in Lent.  It's a nice change of pace.

[scamandrius]

Just to clarify, I am not opposing the presanctified Liturgies in Lent, nor the Vesperal Liturgies for Nativity Eve, Theophany Eve, Holy Saturday.  I am referring to festal Vesperal Liturgies outside of Great Lent.

[Basil 320]

I try not to support variations from what tradition prescribes, but I think an enhanced use of Vesperal Liturgies would be a development to address the needs of the faithful in a society that precludes or significantly impedes access to Liturgical life.  (Admittedly, people could use vacation time from work to attend church services, if they have enough time to use, but they don't.) The people in my parish and others in my area do not have an appreciation for Orthros or Vespers.  They avoid them.  Vesperal Liturgies would help attract more interest in Vespers, exposing them to the beauty of our hymnology, and provide them more access to the Liturgy and the Eucharist.

[LBK]

Or you could follow the Slavic custom of a Vigil (vespers and matins) on the eve of a feast. Sure, it's not a Eucharistic service, but the theological and doctrinal riches are immense.

[SolEX01]

I've been fortunate to have attended Vespers for the feastdays of the 4 Orthodox Churches (plus one in Annapolis) in Central MD.

None of them is performed as a Vesperal Divine Liturgy.  More than 50% of Vespers services is in Greek even in instances when half the Orthodox Clergy present is non-Greek.  I particularly enjoy hearing the Old Testament readings....

[wynd]

My two cents: Our parish priest has a secular job, so if it weren't for vesperal liturgies we wouldn't have any service for feasts.

[mike]

I've never heard about such things.

[Schultz]

You don't do vesperal liturgies, even the prescribed ones (as noted by scamandarius above), mike?

[mike]

I don't know what exactly is a vesperal Liturgy, but if you mean midnight office + matins + hours + Liturgy served at night we do such only on Pascha, Nativity and St. Basil/ Circumcision of Christ Day.

[Fr. George]

I don't know what exactly is a vesperal Liturgy, but if you mean midnight office + matins + hours + Liturgy served at night we do such only on Pascha, Nativity and St. Basil/ Circumcision of Christ Day.

Vesperal Liturgy is a combined service.  You begin Vespers, and continue through the Old Testament readings.  After the final OT reading, the deacon intones "Let us pray to the Lord," and the Priest say "For you are holy..." and the Choir sings the Trisagion hymn (or its designated replacement).  The Divine Liturgy continues from there (readings, etc.). 

[Schultz]

A vesperal liturgy is usually vespers up to the little litany after the Old Testament readings for the Feast and then the DL of St. John starting from the the Trisagion onwards.  There are no kathisma read at the beginning, either.  It's in the Typikon for Christmas, Theophany and Holy Thursday.

[Schultz]

I just found a fascinating article on the topic by Bishop TIKHON of the OCA Diocese of the West entitled Evening Divine Liturgies. 

While, as noted above, I'm not opposed to these in practice, His Excellency's words are very persuasive that these should not be done outside of the prescribed ones.

[scamandrius]

Thanks, Schultz, for posting those words of His Grace, Bishop TIKHON.  What I found most poignant is despite the justification priests give for serving the Evening Vesperal Liturgies to accommodate the modern working man is that doing this actually does damage to the growth of the parish.  He writes:

Even in parishes that serve the Matins in the morning, the Faithful are not deprived of this beauty and "on-going education" provided by the provisions of our Holy Typikon. To serve a "Vesperal" Liturgy is to suppress that all, or to kill the possibility of the parish ever growing up into its full stature. I believe that nothing worthwhile was ever attained or will be attained by lowering our sights, our expectations.

[Schultz]

I found his comments on life in Soviet Russia to be most inspiring, especially his final comments on how we live in the most prosperous nation in the world and we still find excuses (5b).

It certainly has me leaning now towards actually having a (negative) opinion on vesperal liturgies.

[Fr. George]

I just found a fascinating article on the topic by Bishop TIKHON of the OCA Diocese of the West entitled Evening Divine Liturgies.  

While, as noted above, I'm not opposed to these in practice, His Excellency's words are very persuasive that these should not be done outside of the prescribed ones.

I'd be interested if other hierarchs are of the same opinion.

[Deacon Lance]

The fact that Bishop Tikhon (and Bishop Nikolai), while being a stickler for rubrical exactitude, thought there was nothing wrong in the OCA (when most of the clergy and laity knew otherwise) leads me to discount what he he has to say about the subject.  He comes off like many other converts, fiaxted on ritual without pastoral concern.

One forgets the Typicon was written when the Emperor/King ensured the people could attend all the feastday services and the services had no competition.  The bottom line is we live in America and most people work daylight shifts making it impractical if not impossbile to attend morning services during the week.  One can maintain the Typicon and have empty churches on feastdays as I have witnessed at several churches, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox, or make a pastoral compromise and have Evening Vesperal Liturgies with decent attendance.  At least at Vesperal Liturgies the people get to hear the Stichera which are the most ancient and important of the texts anyways.  As to whether these should be mandated or not becomes a difficult question.  I understand the idea that even if they are allowed they should not be mandated so that a priest/parish can take the full cycle but really one could do that anyway even if the Vesperal Litrugy is taken, taking Small Vespers before Liturgy and Matins the morning of the feast.

[Deacon Lance]

I just found a fascinating article on the topic by Bishop TIKHON of the OCA Diocese of the West entitled Evening Divine Liturgies.  

While, as noted above, I'm not opposed to these in practice, His Excellency's words are very persuasive that these should not be done outside of the prescribed ones.

I'd be interested if other hierarchs are of the same opinion.

Well not the Antiochians as they have mandated Evening Vesperal Liturgies for the Great Feasts that do not fall on Sunday or Monday and allow them for  the Feasts of: Circumcision/St. Basil, St. Anthony, Three Hierarchs, St. George, Sts. Constantine and Helen, SS. Peter and Paul, St. Elias, Beheading of St. John Baptist, The Archangels, St. Philip the Apostle, St. Nicholas, and  St. Ignatius.

I believe some OCA bishops allow them as well.

[Irish Hermit]

A quick internet search shows that Presanctified Liturgy in the evening was something fostered in the US by Fr Alexander Schmemann.
 
Also this article shows that in the 70s the Presanctified was being served in the morning in both the US and in Russia.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/theodosius.html   

[Irish Hermit]

The 19th century liturgical textbooks of Nikolsky and Neapolitansky both say that the Presanctified Liturgy should begin at 10 a.m. (while the "full Liturgy" should be at 6 a.m. for an "early" service, and 9 a.m. for the "late" Liturgy).

[Salpy]

Do the EO's ever have regular liturgies in the evening?  In the Armenian Church we have a liturgy on Christmas Eve and Easter Eve.  It starts at 6:00 p.m. and it is just a regular liturgy.  

It follows an hour long service during which Bible passages pertaining to the feast day are read, concluding with the song of the three youths from Daniel.  After that service is done, they just start a regular liturgy.  The funny thing about it is that if Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday, there is no liturgy in the morning, because you can't have two liturgies in a day.  They just do matins.

Anyway, I am just wondering if the EO's ever do regular liturgies in the evenings, or if you just do the vesperal liturgies.

[Andrew21091]

I have mixed feelings about the Vesperal Liturgies. I like them though since I would not be able to go to a morning liturgy on a feast so it is nice to be able to recieve communion for the feasts. At my parish, for major feast days (Transfiguration, Dormition, etc) we do Vesperal liturgies since people cannot come in the morning. I would like it though if we replaced the Vesperal Liturgy with a vigil but for one the Antiochians don't do vigils (at least I've never seen one done in an Antiochian church) so the Vesperal Liturgy is fine with me for the most part.

[Fr. George]

A quick internet search shows that Presanctified Liturgy in the evening was something fostered in the US by Fr Alexander Schmemann.
 
Also this article shows that in the 70s the Presanctified was being served in the morning in both the US and in Russia.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/theodosius.html     

In the Greek monastic tradition they still do Presanctified Liturgies in the morning.  However, I think it's "cheating" w/ regards to the fast.  Evening Liturgies should be in the evening.

[arimethea]

A quick internet search shows that Presanctified Liturgy in the evening was something fostered in the US by Fr Alexander Schmemann.
 
Also this article shows that in the 70s the Presanctified was being served in the morning in both the US and in Russia.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/theodosius.html   

I have been told by people who grew up in the Middle that the Presanctified service is usually celebrated around the noon hour on Wed. of Lent in order to celebrate the "Lord of Host" service (aka Great Compline) in the evening.

[Basil 320]

Notice that this topic began with a poll.

I've noticed that not all of the those commenting on this topic are completing the poll, based on the comments that are being made. 

[ialmisry]

Do the EO's ever have regular liturgies in the evening?  In the Armenian Church we have a liturgy on Christmas Eve and Easter Eve.  It starts at 6:00 p.m. and it is just a regular liturgy. 

It follows an hour long service during which Bible passages pertaining to the feast day are read, concluding with the song of the three youths from Daniel.  After that service is done, they just start a regular liturgy.  The funny thing about it is that if Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday, there is no liturgy in the morning, because you can't have two liturgies in a day.  They just do matins.

Anyway, I am just wondering if the EO's ever do regular liturgies in the evenings, or if you just do the vesperal liturgies.

Only after midnight, i.e. Pascha and Nativity, or New Years (the latter is not original, but has been catching on.  Some do it around 8 ).

We have the same rule on one DL per day per altar.  I think all Orthodox do (I know Copts do).

Fixed the 8 ) smiley thing... Fr. George, GM

[ialmisry]

Notice that this topic began with a poll.

I've noticed that not all of the those commenting on this topic are completing the poll, based on the comments that are being made. 

I voted none,  but had nothing particular to say.

[Fr. George]

Notice that this topic began with a poll.

I've noticed that not all of the those commenting on this topic are completing the poll, based on the comments that are being made.   

I hadn't even noticed the poll... Thank you for the heads-up.

[scamandrius]

The fact that Bishop Tikhon (and Bishop Nikolai), while being a stickler for rubrical exactitude, thought there was nothing wrong in the OCA (when most of the clergy and laity knew otherwise) leads me to discount what he he has to say about the subject.  He comes off like many other converts, fiaxted on ritual without pastoral concern.

the implication that only we "crazy" converts are somehow wrong for wanting to follow the Typicon and that we should listen humbly to the cradles who are so much more wise than we is insulting and ridiculous.

[Deacon Lance]

Scamadrius,

I did not you were a convert.  The thrust of that post was Bishop Tikhon proved himself to be unpastoral, obsessed with ritual while his Church was falling down around him, insisting nothing was wrong and ultimately retiring rather than be part of the solution.  Therefore, I don't give much weight to his thoughts on the matter.

However, it is a noted trend that some converts tend fixate on rubrics.  Cradles have their own problems tending to not want to change parish practice even if they no longer work for the majority of the parishioners.

As someone with a great interest in the study of the Liturgy, I must admit I myself can easily fall into rubricism.  The Sabbath was made for the man not man for the Sabbath, Our Lord said.  It is good to keep this in mind when discussing the Liturgy.  The Typicon was written in a different time and place and is heavily influenced by monastic rather than parochial usage.  I am not saying throw out the Typicon but pastoral nees of the people must precede exactitude with the Typicon.  What good are keeping all the services according to exact prescriptions of the Typicon if none of the parishioners can attend them?  e needs the services not God.  Evening Vesperal Liturgies are a pastoral concession to allow more to attend.  While not Vesperal my parish had our Thanksgiving Day Liturgy Wed night rather than Thurs morning for the first time this year.  The result was attendance more than double from a little over 20 to well over 50. 

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Schultz]

Deacon Lance,

But why does it have to be a Divine Liturgy?  What is so inherently wrong with Vespers that it simply must be served with a Divine Liturgy rather than as, say, an All Night Vigil service?  I understand that DL is inherently "greater" because that is where we received the Eucharist, but why can't parishes have an All Night Vigil on the eve of a Feast and then DL the next day?  I often wondered this when I was Catholic and I always chalked it up to the now-ingrained concept in American Catholic culture that a service that's not a Mass isn't worth going to.

[LBK]

Deacon Lance,

But why does it have to be a Divine Liturgy?  What is so inherently wrong with Vespers that it simply must be served with a Divine Liturgy rather than as, say, an All Night Vigil service?  I understand that DL is inherently "greater" because that is where we received the Eucharist, but why can't parishes have an All Night Vigil on the eve of a Feast and then DL the next day?  I often wondered this when I was Catholic and I always chalked it up to the now-ingrained concept in American Catholic culture that a service that's not a Mass isn't worth going to.

Hear hear, Schultz! Without in any way wishing to belittle the importance of the DL, I've learned far more, and benefitted immensely, from attending evening Vigils, even if I can't attend the following morning's DL. The DL is indeed the culmination and fulfilment of the liturgical cycle, but the Vigils are our great and all-too-often unknown theological and doctrinal treasures.

[scamandrius]

As someone with a great interest in the study of the Liturgy, I must admit I myself can easily fall into rubricism.  The Sabbath was made for the man not man for the Sabbath, Our Lord said.  It is good to keep this in mind when discussing the Liturgy.  The Typicon was written in a different time and place and is heavily influenced by monastic rather than parochial usage.  I am not saying throw out the Typicon but pastoral nees of the people must precede exactitude with the Typicon.  What good are keeping all the services according to exact prescriptions of the Typicon if none of the parishioners can attend them?  e needs the services not God.  Evening Vesperal Liturgies are a pastoral concession to allow more to attend.  While not Vesperal my parish had our Thanksgiving Day Liturgy Wed night rather than Thurs morning for the first time this year.  The result was attendance more than double from a little over 20 to well over 50. 

Father Deacon,

Whether I am a convert or not should not make a difference with the issue.  As far as the pastoral issue goes, why is it that the definition we associate with pastoral is "flexible, not fixed."  A pastor isn't someone who bends over backwards to accommodate someone.  Where will the bending end?  I, frankly, grow tired that the justification for these Vesperal Liturgies has to with pastoral care for the priest's flock; a priest must not also enforce the church's discipline, right otherwise there would be chaos.

You point to the number of people coming to the Vesperal Liturgies.  That is good.  However, from my experience, at a number of parishes, Antiochian and OCA, there has been no significant increase in attendance at the Vesperal Liturgies as opposed to serving the Liturgy the day of the feast.   But even if attendance were through the roof (and it isn't) there are some serious theological and pastoral concerns as well.  One thing that has not been brought up (as far as I know) is that the fasting discipline for an evening Liturgy would be such that very few people should partake of the Eucharist, as is demanded during the presanctified Liturgies of Great Lent.  Granted, those with medical conditions and other hardships should never be compelled to receive the Body of Christ only after inflicting on themselves hurt.

[Deacon Lance]

 One thing that has not been brought up (as far as I know) is that the fasting discipline for an evening Liturgy would be such that very few people should partake of the Eucharist, as is demanded during the presanctified Liturgies of Great Lent.  Granted, those with medical conditions and other hardships should never be compelled to receive the Body of Christ only after inflicting on themselves hurt.

I don't see that as much a problem assuming most jurisdicitions/dioceses require fasting from Noon till Liturgy which is 6-7ish, about the same fast as Sunday, Midnight till 9-10ish. 

[Fr. George]

But even if attendance were through the roof (and it isn't) there are some serious theological and pastoral concerns as well.  

I may agree with "pastoral" and "ecclesiological," but not necessarily "theological."

One thing that has not been brought up (as far as I know) is that the fasting discipline for an evening Liturgy would be such that very few people should partake of the Eucharist, as is demanded during the presanctified Liturgies of Great Lent.  Granted, those with medical conditions and other hardships should never be compelled to receive the Body of Christ only after inflicting on themselves hurt.

This is actually one of my issues with the monastic practice of the morning Presanctified Liturgy.  Vespers & Liturgy are moved to the morning, ruining one of the most beautiful parts of the routine with Presanctified - the greater anticipation that comes with the all-day fast.  In order to keep Liturgies in the morning, we ruin the daily cycle by singing evening hymns in the morning (my only complaint about Holy Week).  

I do not believe that this shifting of services to the morning is what the Church had in mind, either - otherwise, why would Vesperal Liturgies be forbidden on all Saturdays except Great Saturday?  Because you're not supposed to all-food fast on Saturdays!  The communion fast would break this rule.

[LBK]

Fr Alexander Schmemann's book "Great Lent - A Journey to Pascha" has a very good and informative chapter on the whys and wherefores of the Presanctified Liturgy, including when it should be held.

[Fr. George]

Fr Alexander Schmemann's book "Great Lent - A Journey to Pascha" has a very good and informative chapter on the whys and wherefores of the Presanctified Liturgy, including when it should be held.

His opinion on the matter (from that chapter) is very reasonable and pretty logical viz a viz Presanctified Liturgy - and seemingly in line with what I've observed and read elsewhere.  (For those who don't have the book, he ties the issue of time for celebration of the Liturgy to the fast that coincides with that day, arguing that the Liturgy is the completion of that Fast - thus, on weekdays of Lent when the fast is prescribed already, the Liturgy should be in the evening.)

However, I think the principle can be expanded when speaking about other Vesperal Liturgies and feastdays.

[Deacon Lance]

Deacon Lance,

But why does it have to be a Divine Liturgy?  What is so inherently wrong with Vespers that it simply must be served with a Divine Liturgy rather than as, say, an All Night Vigil service?  I understand that DL is inherently "greater" because that is where we received the Eucharist, but why can't parishes have an All Night Vigil on the eve of a Feast and then DL the next day?  I often wondered this when I was Catholic and I always chalked it up to the now-ingrained concept in American Catholic culture that a service that's not a Mass isn't worth going to.

You answered your own question, because it is inherently greater and that is where we receive the Eucharist.  I mean you will always have a few diehards who understand the importance of Vespers/Orthros, but your average parishioner just isn't at that level.  Of course there are sometimes entire parishes where the diehards get concentrated but that is the exception not the norm.  I has always thought that this is a question that is more problematic for Greek Catholics than Orthodox, but from my experince in the Pittsburgh area Vespers is not well attended in any parish I have visited be it Ruthenian Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, OCA or ACROD.  Among the Greeks it isn't any better at Orthros.  The local Greek parish, had Vigil the night before the church was to be consecrated by the Metropolitan.  This was celebrated by the Metropolitan and was during the annual parish festival.  There were hundreds of people at the festival.  Besides the concelebrating priest's wives and cantor's wives I was the only one at Vigil until the artos was distributed, then about 20-30 wandered up from the parish hall for the last 10  minutes or so.  

Fr. Deacon Lance

[LBK]

Fr Alexander Schmemann's book "Great Lent - A Journey to Pascha" has a very good and informative chapter on the whys and wherefores of the Presanctified Liturgy, including when it should be held.

His opinion on the matter (from that chapter) is very reasonable and pretty logical viz a viz Presanctified Liturgy - and seemingly in line with what I've observed and read elsewhere.  (For those who don't have the book, he ties the issue of time for celebration of the Liturgy to the fast that coincides with that day, arguing that the Liturgy is the completion of that Fast - thus, on weekdays of Lent when the fast is prescribed already, the Liturgy should be in the evening.)

However, I think the principle can be expanded when speaking about other Vesperal Liturgies and feastdays.

Fr George, this is why I mentioned Fr Alexander's book. What he writes about the Lenten vesperal liturgies applies just as much to the ad hoc ones.

[scamandrius]

[
You answered your own question, because it is inherently greater and that is where we receive the Eucharist.  I mean you will always have a few diehards who understand the importance of Vespers/Orthros, but your average parishioner just isn't at that level.  Of course there are sometimes entire parishes where the diehards get concentrated but that is the exception not the norm.  I has always thought that this is a question that is more problematic for Greek Catholics than Orthodox, but from my experince in the Pittsburgh area Vespers is not well attended in any parish I have visited be it Ruthenian Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, OCA or ACROD.  Among the Greeks it isn't any better at Orthros.  The local Greek parish, had Vigil the night before the church was to be consecrated by the Metropolitan.  This was celebrated by the Metropolitan and was during the annual parish festival.  There were hundreds of people at the festival.  Besides the concelebrating priest's wives and cantor's wives I was the only one at Vigil until the artos was distributed, then about 20-30 wandered up from the parish hall for the last 10  minutes or so.  

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

Why can, or maybe I should say "do", many of a parish only come to a service if the Eucharist is distributed?  I think there is a mentality among many Orthodox which thinks "If there's no Eucharist, I'm not going."  Whatever happened to worship of our Lord at any of the services, wehther Vespers or Orthros, compline or the the non-Eucharistic services of Holy Week?  Why is it everyone will come on Pascha but only half on Great and Holy Friday?

Again, pastoral reasons are fine and dandy but not at the expense of who we are as Orthodox Christians in BOTH our faith and praxis.

[scamandrius]

However, I think the principle can be expanded when speaking about other Vesperal Liturgies and feastdays.

Fr.,

Forgive me for being a grammar snob, but after reading your first paragraph of your post, it leads me to believe that you wanted a "don't" included after your "however" of the second paragraph, which would make more sense since you used that particular adversative.  Am I correct?  Or am I just being snobbish as usual?

[LBK]

You answered your own question, because it is inherently greater and that is where we receive the Eucharist.  I mean you will always have a few diehards who understand the importance of Vespers/Orthros, but your average parishioner just isn't at that level.  

This is a most patronising comment, Fr Lance, both in your implication that the Vigil is a mysterious, arcane entity, inaccessible and incomprehensible to the "average" parishioner, and in characterising regular attendees of Vigils as "diehards".

A few years ago, a layman at my parish took the initiative (with the priest's permission) to compile and print bilingual vigil texts for many of the feasts in booklet form and make them available to anyone who wanted them. People of all generations and backgrounds (humble and educated) were soon saying much the same thing: For the first time I've had the chance to understand what going to this service is all about! It's a matter of education, not coercion.

[Fr. George]

Fr George, this is why I mentioned Fr Alexander's book. What he writes about the Lenten vesperal liturgies applies just as much to the ad hoc ones.

Really, his discussion of timing in the book isn't actually about Presanctified Liturgies per se, but a general discussion of Feasts-Fasting-Liturgy.  However, his point about other times (outside of weekdays in Lent) is that evening Liturgy is for full fast days or very Major feasts, and that minor feasts/commemorations should be celebrated around noon, and Vigil days (& Sundays) should be in the morning.  But my thought is that our definition of what deserves a big build-up can be expanded.  Vesperal Liturgy for St. Nicholas?  He is one of the 3-5 most revered Saints in Christendom.  If his feast doesn't fall on a Sunday or Monday, why not?  I can understand not celebrating Vesperal Liturgy for, say, St. John the Russian, since there isn't as big a build-up.  How about a general allowance, that if a feastday falls on a Thurs or Sat in your parish, that you can do Vesperal Liturgy the evening before (full day of fasting on Wed or Fri)?