Preparing for Communion

[Br Paul]

"O Lord enlighten by the Light of your Holy Wisdom those who have departed from the Orthodox faith, blinded bye destroying heresies, and join them to your Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church."

Like many of you I too am a 'convert' from the Roman Church. As Fr Averky said in another post, when I entered a Orthodox Church, I felt at home . The problems in the Roman Church are many, but that is not the reason why I left. I came home when entering the Orthodox Church, the true Church and Faith.
But the element of humanity is in it and very ripe. Politics, sectarianism, that keeps the Orthodox Church divided. Looking at the number of Orthodox Churches that are around the world. Old and New Calendar. Russian Church and the Church Abroad and so on, I wont list them all. In the City where I live, we have two Greek Orthodox Churches under two different Bishops. Two Russian Orthodox Churches under two different Bishops. People outside the Orthodox faith must wonder what is going on with these people??
Let us all pray that one day our Church will be united under the Orthodox Banner.
My Spiritual Father said to me recently to "perserve in a Church life which is sincere and proper, and without their sectarian nonsense."

[Justin]

It's hard to have unity when one ignores that there are legit issues to discuss. When one says that the other side is just bringing "politics" and "sectarian nonsense" to the table, it's hard to have a civil discussion and have some hope for unity. I do pray that one day there will be one Orthodox Church in America; in fact, at another forum I've supported such an idea quite a bit over the past few days. For this (ie. unity) to happen, though, we have to stop dismissing the "other side" with over-generalizations, unfair characterizations, and, generally speaking, we have to stop treating each other like the caricatures we've invented; we need to start treating each other like the precious, sincere people, made in the image of God, that they are.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Br. Paul,

As I have mentioned before, I was secretary to our bishop of Chicago for almost three years. During that time, many occasions arose in which we had to have contact with one of the other churches: when Archbishop John of the OCA reposed, we were asked to send a representative. The bishop phoned the semi-retired Archbiishop to as him whom he should choose to attend the funeral. and since I was ony a rassophore at the time, it was decided that I should go, because as the Archbishop put it in his usual blunt way, "Averky is nobody, so no one will complain if he goes." During the funeral, I stood on the kliros next to Bishop Firmilian of the Serbs, At the dinner following the funeral. Metropolitan Theodosius was very gracious to me when I approached him, bringing greetings and condolances from our two bishops. When Valerian Trifa, much -persecuted bishop of the Rumanians died, I was in Clevleand, and was called by Bishop Hilarion in New York to represent our Church. Again, Metropolitan Theodosius was kind and attentive. Last year, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver happened to be in Chicago, and one of the Greek priests offered to take him to visit our new cathedral in Niles. Met. Isaiah told me that when they arrived at Archbishop's Alypy's residence, he met them, and greeted Metyropolitan Isiah as a brother and happily showed them the church, which he had frescoed himself. At the recent consecration of Archimandrite Peter as bishop of Cleveland, which took place in Chicago, Bishop Job of the OCA was present, and Metropolitan Iakovos of the Greek Archdiocese sent warmest congratulations.

The point of all of this is that on the one hand, on some forums there is a lot of bickereing; once I happened to look at a thread coming out of the Midwest, and a woman said cheerily, "Well it's time to do my daily ROCOR bashing." Yet, yet I have had so many wonderful personal contacts with bishops and clergy of virtually every other jurisdiction, except for a few. If we could all approach each other "officially,' as we do unoficially, so many of the very real problems which has caused rifts between us might be healed. It is not just a matter of politics, but a view of what the Church is and what it stands for, especially in the light of the post-modern world. If onlly the powerful bishops of the Church would work on healing the long-standing misunderstandings and divisions within Orthodoxy, rather than making concessions and compromises to Latins and openly praying with those who are not onlly not Orthodox, but in some cases, not Christians. Then we real would be of one heart and one mind, and Orthodoxy could give an undivided witness to the world. I pray for the unity of the churches-the Orthodox Churches. When we cam bear a pure and unadulterated witness, then perhaps we can convince those who look to us that we truly are waht we say we are. A friend of mine who is an Episcopalian priest for a time was seriously thinking about coming to Orthodoxy, but in the end he phoned me and said, "Father, I am so upset by what is going on in my church, and it is becomeing more and more divided. But how can I come to Orthodoxy, when I see almost the same situation? better for me to stay in the one I know. " I had no answer.

Fr. A.

[V. Rev. Fr. David B. Sedor]

The prohibition against women with periods receiving the Holy Eucharist, or venerating icons (although I'm not familiar with that custom), is certainly not meant as a punishment or as a humiliation. Quite the contrary.

The Jews of the Old Testament regarded blood as making one unclean, but not unclean in a "dirty" way. Even to this day, Jews regard the Torah scrolls as "making the hands unclean" -- that is, unfit for "normal," every-day usage until they have been ritually purified. They regard blood in the same light -- as something that represents the very essence, the "stuff" of life. Until one is ritually cleansed, then, one should not do anything that one might "normally" do -- such as, for example, receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Also, we obey this dictum because the Church tells us to! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

I hope this helps -- again, this tradition is not meant as an insult or as a means of humiliating people, but as a sign of respect and awe toward that which makes our earthly life possible.

The Priest David Sedor

[Elizabeth]

Dear Father David:

Father Bless:

You mentioned being ritually cleansed. Precisely what do you mean by that. I only know of special "ritual" prayers that are said after a miscarriage or birth of a child.

When I experienced a very early miscarriage, I wasn't allowed to receive any of the Holy Mysteries of the Church for a period of time until after the flow stopped, then the Priest read special prayers over me. Next he heard my Confession and permitted me to once again partake of Holy Communion.

Pray for the unborn child I lost. I named it "Lynn."

Respectfully yours in Christ,
Elizabeth Hanson

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 02 August, 2003)

[A Dezert Aspirant]

Fr. D, Glad I checked in here before ending the day. Thank you for your kind explanation. Of course it is important to respect church rules - but in Christianity this one is unique to Orthodoxy. Only once before - in India with a particular Hindu sect - have I come across that tradition.

[dianne marie debs]

In the Name of Our Lord,

Here in the Middle East this custom is found,I believe in Eygpt. There was a woman who lives in Eygpt who was visiting her sister who asked me about this custom in Lebanon. She told me apparently in her Cairo parish they were quite strict about this.

Here in Lebanon however, our parish priest described this practice as a people's custom. Our Lord cured the woman who was stricten with this for years. (one of Jesus's many miracles ) Father Augrabious has told us many times that women should be looked upon entirely differently according to Jesus.

Here in Lebanon some older women may still cover their heads but I have never heard of anyone ,today, not excepting the Holy Communion because it is her time of the month.
Excuse me for my contribution to this discussion.

I feel, as our parish priest also does, that such customs have a tendency to distant people and in this evil century; that is the last thing we need! Let us bring all to Christ even if we break old "customs" sometimes.

I again thank you for your patience.

A humble servant,
Dianne

[Elizabeth]

Dear Fathers:

Father Bless!

Please forgive me a sinner.

When I had my miscarriage, my priest told me that I needed a time to recover spiritually and physically. When a woman has a miscarriage or a child, she is losing a lot of blood. Therefore, she is weakened and if exposed to the community, she could come down with diseases, which could also affect the newborn child, who doesn't have a fully developed immune system. She needs to be home with her newborn child, not out exposing him to the world.

At that time, I was weeping, grieving for the child that I would never be able to hold. How right would it be to receive Holy Communion with tears streaming down my face? Some women curse God during that time, I didn't, but the priest asked me to refrain from receiving Holy Communion, so as not to scandalize others. By my obedience, I was giving a good example.

When the Priest prayed those special blessings over me, I felt renewed and healed.

I hope this explanation helps.

Lovingly in Christ our God,

Mrs. Elizabeth Hanson

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Elizabeth,

Allow me to offer these insights regarding "ritual (rather "ceremonial") impurity".

In the world of our daily living, this world which God has made, their are clear lines of demarcation, boundaries between what is in, and what is out, what good, what bad, what to accept and what to reject. These boundaries God has made, and it is clear what is on one side of them, and what the other.

What are not clear, however, are the boundaries themselves. The line, for example, that separates what we know as human from what not.

These lines themselves confuse us. They are called "limins" (a word related to "limit"), and things that are on them are said to be "of liminal character."

As all, including human life is a series of changes which occur on account of growth, it has various places of transition: specifically birth, puberty and death, and of course a transition of a sorts is always happening when eating and drinking, but let that be another story. To grow from one to another stage is to cross a limin or boundary. Because we humans are confused by the ambiguity of that line we automatically associate it with an unreasonably exagerated sense of some feeling, such as dread, or awe. We attribute things and people in such liminal conditions as at the height of holiness or the dregs of untouchableness. It is a reaction we have from our confusion.

Another boundary to be considered is that demarcated by the body itself: our skin and orivices on one side of which is "outside" the body, the other "inside" the body. Skin and orivice again are the limin, and what crosses from within to without has taken the character of liminality, and "infected" the person with that same condition. I refer to body fluids, but of course for women it must include offspring.

In Old Testament times, God provided a way to heal his people of the dread and loathing by providing ceremonies to bring blessing and healing to such liminal conditions, to make their victims acceptible to Him, and thus to themselves and each other, to ease them over the transitions.

As I said, there is the perceived problem of body fluid boundary breaking which happens for women at the fertile age on a monthly basis, and for fertile men on a potentially daily basis! As a matter of fact, puberty is defined as the first time such an event either takes place, or can take place.

What God had done for His people in Old Testament times, He continues to do in Christ through the Church in our time.

If this hasn't helped, or worse, has confused, I will be glad to clarify on any point, and, ITMT, I mourn with you the loss of your Lynn.

In Christ and His Faith,

Richard

[Elizabeth]

What do the initials ITMT mean?

[Elizabeth]

Dear Richard and our beloved Priests:

While I do understand the time of confinement due to childbirth and miscarriages, the other applications of this Church discipline seem somewhat inhumane and inconsistently applied. Therefore, I remain somewhat confused and uncertain as to what this vague discipline is all about.

In many forms of cancer, men as well as women pass blood from the ulcerous tumors wherever those growths are located. Does this mean that those victims of cancer cannot receive Holy Communion when they most need it? Will the priest deny them all the Holy Mysteries including Holy Communion and the Holy Anointing in the hospital?

Recently, one of my friends almost died from a severe case of stomach ulcers. She was passing copious amounts of blood. How does this Church discipline apply to her? Can she receive any of the Holy Mysteries while she has this bleeding ulcer?

Then there is the case in the Bible of the woman who had an issue of blood for many years. She touched Christ and He did not rebuke her. Don't we dare to touch Christ in Holy Communion? Doesn't this sacred act of Christ abolish this Old Testament Law? Hasn't this well known Gospel passage established a precedent? Do we have certain people in our Church who continue to follow the Old Testament prescriptions against the recommendations of St. Paul? This resembles the scene in Acts when St. Paul corrected St. Peter to his face. Does St. Paul need to correct us again?

Anyway, I mention this because now many Orthodox Priests only urge women to refrain from receiving Holy Communion during their time of confinement due to childbirth or miscarriage.

A case in point, a twelve year old girl wanted to receive Holy Confession (she hadn't been in more than a year) yet her mother encountered the priest and tried to stop her because it was that time of her month. The priest said he would not deny the action of the Holy Spirit in that child. To refuse that pre-teen the grace of Holy Confession at that time might have turned that young person away from the Church forever. You must understand that some girls tend to become more emotional and unreasonable during that time due to PMS.

I had better end this post before it gets any longer.

Pray for me!

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth



(Message edited by chanterhanson on 02 August, 2003)

[V. Rev. Fr. David B. Sedor]

Indeed, Elizabeth, that is exactly what I meant. Please know that you and your child Lynn are in my prayers. I know what a tragedy miscarriage is, because my wife (and I) suffered three miscarriages between the births of our two daughters.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Elizabeth,

ITMT means in the mean time. Sorry.

The Women with the hemorage was unclean and risked making Jesus unclean by touching Him. She reached for the fringe of His tallit. She may have known about the Rabbinic teaching that the Messiah would be known by the fact that healing would come to those who touched the fringe of his tallit. We do not know this but we do know that she believed she'd be healed because Jesus' response to her was "Your faith has saved you" and she was indeed healed. This is a case of one of those liminal places. If she was healed when she touched him, was she unclean? Apparently no one made anything of it, and the ceremonial impurity prevents entrance to the Temple. But Jesus said his body was the Temple, so, something greater was there.

Not being Orthodox myself, I cannot give information about the cannons regarding communion (but isn't confession different than communion?) and will defer to the Orthodox priests and monks.

Yours,

Richard

[Justin]

Elizabeth,

A few thoughts...


Then there is the case in the Bible of the woman who had an issue of blood for many years. She touched Christ and He did not rebuke her. Don't we dare to touch Christ in Holy Communion? Doesn't this sacred act of Christ abolish this Old Testament Law? Hasn't this well known Gospel passage established a precedent?

First, I think it's important to note that this wasn't like a theological discourse by Paul, when we might expect precise theological answers to problems or misconceptions. This was an event, a happening, one single instance. I affirm the idea that the lives of saints--and so most assuredly the life of our Savior!--are "applied dogmatics," but sometimes an event is just a one time thing, no? Jesus was also merciful to many women who had erred greatly in sexual matters (e.g., Jn. 8), but this doesn't mean that the Church always takes the same approach. Likewise, Jesus sometimes said things that he knew the general people wouldn't understand, but then we need to be careful in following his example in this case. He made a whip and cleared out the temple... but who among us is going to do a similar thing?

Jesus treated people as they came to him, sometimes he tried to send them away, sometimes he welcomed their actions. Sometimes he told them to shut up, sometimes he asked them to speak. Sometimes he told them to do something, sometimes he asked them what they had already done. He did this, of course, because we all respond differently to what others do. There's a wonderful passage in Saint Gregory the Theologian's 2nd Oration about this, where he says that priests must sometimes act one way, and sometimes another, depending on the person. Sometimes a priest must even pretend like they are angry (though not in reality letting their passions get to them), since this might be the only way to get through to some people. The canons of the Church are designed with the majority in mind. What is best for the majority? When law tries to deal with every small possibility you get what we have in America, which is a mess where few people understand exactly what's going on (especially sins laws from here might contradict laws from there). The Church kept it simple, giving general guidelines to follow. This isn't to say that a priest or bishop can't forgive someone when they do not follow the guidelines--indeed, sometimes a priest will counsel someone to go atainst the canons. But if we let such "what if?" scenarios to start dictating every canon and guideline the Church affirmed, no one would ever have a clue what was going on.

Think of the Mosaic Law, which has something like 642 (or so) laws in it. We probably have 642 laws dealing with driving automobiles in America, and they had that many with which to organize their life. And what's more, many consider the mosaic law legalistic and restrictive! No, we don't want laws for every situation, we wouldn't want that anyway. That feeds too much into dead legalism. Thankfully God gives us guidelines in the Church--sometimes we misunderstand these guidelines and go off course, yes, but by in large we get things right over the course of time. Even "bad" practices can become "baptized" or sanctified over time, given the right situation and God's grace. So, while every canon might not apply to every person, they are good generally speaking. And they are always good, at least in spirit (if not in direct application, such as canons dealing with slavery). But I'm going off course here, you asked about the story...

I'd ask, was Jesus intending to set a guideline here that the Church had to follow? Christ did fulfill and surpass many of the Old Testament laws and customs, but as G.K. Chesterton said, "Christ knew that it would be a more stunning thunderbolt to fulfil the law than to destroy it." (What's Wrong With the World (http://www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/wrongworld/wrongworld.txt)). He didn't just give us the Bible, though, and leave us on our own (I state what you already know), but the incarnation continued in the theanthropic body of Christ, the Church. If Christ is the head, if the Father is the source of all good, if the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, then isn't it in the Church that we should look for the answers in how to live? In a way the Old Testament restrictions have been lifted. It is no longer just the high priest which can go into the holy of holies, and we no longer have to go through certain rituals of purity. But it IS Christ we are meeting, after all, and we must prepare for him in some way. Do we know the best way to prepare, or does the Church, which has Christ as it's head?

I don't mean to be making light of the passage you brought up! Still, when matched against what the Church has practiced and taught, I'm not sure that this is a valid example. It seems to me--am I wrong in this?--that this is an exception, and not the rule. I guess what I'm saying is, it's for the Church (including us, of course, but always being guided by God) to decide when a precedent is set and what it means. I'm just not sure that this is a universally applicable example that shows that such "issues" for females are now unimportant. Men can't take communion the next day if certain things happen in their sleep, and maybe this too is unacceptable to many today. When men have this "problem," it's not necessarily a sin (some saints said it wasn't, at least), but then if the Church says we must refrain from communion because of this, it's not really important, practically speaking, whether we think we've "done nothing wrong"... right? Please let me know if any of this rambling mad sense or it just sounded like a bunch of malarky. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Richard Leigh]

This story of the woman with the hemorrhage is fascinating because it is sandwiched in with another story dealing with a woman, or i should say girl in an unclean condition, namely death.

The ruler of a synagogue came up to Jesus and told him that his daughter had just died. Luke adds the detail that the girl was twelve years old. It was as Jesus was about to leave with this synagogue ruler that the hemorrhaged woman sneaks up to touch him. But wait, the father of the dead girl asked Jesus to touch her so that she would be made alive. Corpse impurity passes to all who touch it.

The touch of Jesus purifies, heals, saves, and brings to life.

Richard

[Owen Jones]

Could it be that Christ wants us to substitute ritual purity for the real thing?

[Elizabeth]

I promised to obey the Holy Canons upon my reception into Holy Orthodoxy.

Dear Fathers:

Father Bless!

Please forgive my previous posts. I didn't mean to sound proud or arrogant. I apologize. Please instruct me in those things about the Holy Canons which I need to know so I won't scandalize others.

Regarding those canons pertaining to a woman's period, miscarriage or birthgiving, I do observe them and refrained from receiving Holy Commmunion. If the Immaculate Mother of God observed the ritual of purification, why should I, a sinner, do less.

I am not clear yet what the Church teaches about the woman with the hemorrhage. A hemorrhage is an abnormal condition distinct from a period. The woman even admitted that she had sought the help of physicians without receiving any relief from her ailment.

So I ask again, would the Church today allow a woman in that condition to receive any of the Holy Mysteries of the Church, including Baptism, Holy Confession, Holy Communion, and Holy Anointing? I'm not asking out of curiosity as I had a similar serious problem. I almost died. What does the Church teach regarding the sick and the dying?

Yours truly in Christ,
Mrs. Hanson

[John P. Nasou]

Richard- I was a bit confused by the word "tallit" until it occurred to me that = you meant the Hebrew word tallith meaning the prayer scarf worn by = Jewish men when in the synagogue and praying. To my knowledge this term = was not in existence in the days of Jesus and there was no mention of = this word in the Old or New Testament. Moreover it is not mentioned in = Strong's Concordance of the Bible nor in his Jewish dictionary. There is = no evidence that Jesus Christ had ever worn a tallith, particularly when = the woman with the flow "touched his garment."

John Nasou and infrequent writer

[Richard Leigh]

Dear John,

You are correct, talith is not a word that occurs in scripture (at least, I can't find it in my BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon). It is a modern concession to the Law which commands the tzi-tzit (fringes) be worn on the four corners of the garment of a Jewish male. This Jesus did wear, of course.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Elizabeth,
I have not followed this thread for a few days, so my response seems late. In regards to Christ's healing the woman with the issue of blood, it cannot be seen that This sacred act of Christ abolished the Old Testament Law, because there is not a necessarily relationship between the "issue of blood" and the monthly cyle, for this not made clear. There are other parts of the body from which the blood might have flowed, but I need not go further into describing them.

Orthodox Christians cannot look at situations concerning the law, teachings or traditions of the Church with sentimental eyes, only spiritual ones. We cannot think to oursleves, "Poor Jews, our services are so offensive, it would be son "nice" if the Church softened the words of the Holy Week services so as not to offend them. Iss it not sad that poor women are treated so unfairly, would not it be "nice" if the Church would restore female deaconesses , so that women would feel that they have a place to serve in the Church. The Church does not take into account current social currents, or "post-modern" theologies, or Feminism, or Gay Rights, or any such matters. Look at what is happening in the Episcopal Church right now -soon trans-gendered and transsexual people will demand their place at the altar, as long a that Church keeps giving in to the "times."

When Martha was busy running around and fussing about, Our Saviour said "Martha Martha... Mary has chosen the better place, for she knows the one thing needful." And what was that one "thing?" It was the ability to sit quietly and look at the Lord. All Christians, men and women share in a holy priesthood, but according to Christ's will men have been given the cross to serve the divine mysteries, while it is the women who live and teach them.

Let us not be like lawyers, trying to find loop holes wherein we can get around the law. For lawlessness leads to anarchy, and arnachy leads to revolt. I have heard enough Catholic nuns say, "I do not agree with the Holy Father on issues like birth control or abortion, but I consider myself a good Catholic, and feel that I am just as qualified to be a priest as any man!"

What will happen to Orthodoxy when people began to have such ideas and begin to act on them? Maybe Bishop Kallistos Ware will decide to ordain some women to the priesthood. Will people say "There is no clear place in Scriptures which prohibit it, so why not?" Then women bishops, and so on. The possibility is always there, but we simply have to keep the flood gates firmly closed, lest we get washed away in a tide of modernism and going along with the times. Christ's Church is timeless, and the Church lives her life liturgically, not according to modern events or popular ideas. She must remain an island of pure thought and Truth in a sea made up of total madnes, darkness and evil.

When Orthodox Chrsitians begin to search the Scriptures in order to find ways to make their life more comfortable or to lessen the weight of the cross given to them by God, then we will be in great danger of a terrible falling away from Orthdoxy altogether. We cannot decide to break the law and justify our action by claiming that the "Holy Spirit" is involved. I fear that the term "economia" has been stretched far beyond its limits, and all too many priests and laypeople are granting these economies, when such are actually limited to the bishop. Even if something seems to be right, if it is done in such a manner that is not keeping to what the Church tells us to do, then how can the Holy Spirit, and thus God's grace be present if this action is not performed in Truth? I myself would be terrified to make such a decision on my own, I just could not do it! Forgive me if I sound hard-nosewd or "un-loving," but we must all be lovers of the Truth, and the Truth is Christ and we should desire to live accordng to His statutes. I am speaking for myself here, for I dare not judge the actions of any another priest -for God knows the hearts of all of Hs children..

I know of many Orthodox churches who are starting to give communion to Coptic Christians. While I must say that some of the most pious and Christian-acting people I have ever met have been Copts, no matter if they tell you "No problem, we believe that Jesus Christ is God too," they still are Monophysites, and not part of the Universal Church. Their Pope Shenoudah refused adamantly to sign any document publicly agreeing to a renunciation of that ancient error for "fear of upsetting many of the clergy, and the majority of the simple people." While negotiating with delegations of Orthodox theologians, the Copts have also been negotiating with the Latins, for the Latins and their sympathizers among the Orthodox see this as a clever way to achieve union of the churches in a "back door" method: The Copts will go into communion with the Orthodox, then with the Latins, and the de facto, but not de jure, some will say we are in communion.Nothing, nothing, when it comes to such economies, is as simple as it might look. This giving of communion to Copts is not a mere "economy," it is a preparation for the future, in the minds of some hierarchs, thus it is very dangerous.

But again, would not it be "nice" if we could just put aside all these differences between us and concentrate on what we have in common? That is what the World Council of Churches would have us do. What are we Orthodox to think when the late Patriarch of Alexandria made the public statement that of course, Mohammed is a prophet of God? Have the Muslims stated that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or have the Jews said that He is the Messiah? But Christians rush to accomodate the Muslims and the Jews, who make no concessions at all! The Balamand Agreement gives concessions to the Latins from the Orthodox, but did the Pope of Rome give up his claim to be Christ on earth?

Each time a church make another little compromise based on personalities, the times, other churches, other religions, political pressures, or for the seemingly good reasons of all Christians to celebrate Christmas and Easter together, the Church loses. Why did not the Western Churches return to the Julian calendar? What would St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus do and say about those Orthodox hierarchs who present chalices to heterodox bishops and tell these bishops that they pray for the day when all Christians will commune from the one cup?

Elizabeth, you have expressed alarm at the results at the effect of the Balamand Agreement, but don't you see that wanting to change an "unfair" law like saying people cannot commune at certain times so that all will be fair, has a touch of that same spirit? Let us do away with all uncomfortable rules, like fasting, let priests marry two, maybe three time, let bishops marry and divorce, let's give comunion to any person who calls himself a Christian, because if he was baptized in the Name of the Trinity, is he not a Christian already? That is what we are now being told by some -so let everybody who has been batpized come up and receive, why not? I am not attacking this practice at all, I am just using its logic.The possibilities are endless, but, save for Christ's not allowing it, we would be finished.


Forgive me for going on like this, but I have watched this idea of It would be "nice if..." quietly entering into many threads. We who are converts came to the Church because we were looking for the True Church. If we truly believe we have found it, then we should bring others to it, not being willing to water it down so that others will feel comfortable.or empowered, or any of the other words which people use to describe being self-willed. We can in no way compromise our precious faith, for in so doing we will be betraying Christ. Here I will defend the saying of the Jesus Prayer, for I would rather see our lay people saying the Prayer of the Heart than attending yoga classes, which are now being offered everywhere. Forgive me a sinner


Fr. A.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Elizabeth, Fr. A.,

Many things have , for one reason or another, changed in the Divine Liturgy over the centuries. One of the things which has went through various changes, to what we have at the present time is the peoples participation in Communion. By this I mean, what the Church requires before each person communes.

The Church I know envelops cultures, and in essence keeps what is good, and regurgitates that which is not in accordance with her teachings. By this I am not saying that Canon Law is to be rejected at the latest whim or fancy, but I'm attempting to point out that one of the problems in the Church over the years has been the low particiation of the laity in the Liturgy, and most importantly the center-piece of the Liturgy, partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If I am correct, when monasticism stood in opposition to the low level of ecclesiastical piety in the Early Church, it set -shall we say-a rigorous standard for communing. The standard was nearly impossible to comply with, and so was modified.

I can understand 'ritual uncleaness' and the requirements for penance. However; while we pursue the highest ideals of asceticism, the one thing which is striven for at all times is as the Apostle Paul wrote, "...we implore men on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." In other words we implore men to partake of the life flowing from God through Christ, deification. None of us are worthy of this life, and no matter what requirements we may come up with, and or meet, we still will never be worthy.

It depends upon what jurisdictional "Orthodox Prayer Book" you use as to how many prayers are to be said before one is considered to be ready to commune.

So then, what is a person, a priest, a bishop to do as concerning low participation in the partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus? (which I think is the whole point of my post)

an unworthy servant

[John P. Nasou]

Dear Teacher Richard - I am grateful that you introducted the words = tzi-tzit and talith to me, for I had never heard of them previously. = Naturally, I immediately looked them up in my library of scriptures, = their history and that of the Jewish people, which is what led me to = send you these messages. It appears that both of these words may have = originated in the Hebrew language of the Middle Ages during the = diaspora. At this time there was no longer a priesthood and the = functions of praying and leading in worship fell upon all Jewish males = (not on the Rabbis who remained in the role of teachers), particularly = on the heads of families and of the scattered communities. Apparently = the Prayer Shawl (Talit) came into use at that time (replacing the = clothing of the prior priesthood), and it bears the blue tassels called = tzi-tzits. As you pointed out, God instructed Moses to have the chosen = people wear blue tassels on their clothing as a sign of their special = relationship to God (Numbers 15:38-41), therefore Jesus must have worn = clothing bearing these tassels! The big question that haunts my = inquisitive mind now is why don't our iconographers and western = religious artists show these tassels in our icons or on the art covering = the walls of the Vatican when they depict the clothing of Jesus and the = Apostles? The only evidence of tassels on the icons in my parish of the = Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom ("St. Sophia") in Washington, DC is in the = Platytera, on the clothing of the Theotokos. Does anyone have an answer = to my question? - John

[Richard Leigh]

Dear John,

I would like to know the answer to that question myself. Perhaps a history or description of how icon paimters arive at what the final form of any particular icon would be could be given. That might help with the answer.

Regarding the words, you were right about talith, but tzi-tzit appears in the Numbers passage you cited, three times. It also appears in Deuteronomy 22:12. The LXX uses the word kraspeda, to translate it., which it also uses to translate fanaf (skirt) in Zakariah 8:23. Oddly, tzi-tzit is found lastly in Ezechiel 8:3 regarding the lock of hair God stretched out His hand to grab in order to transport the prophet to Jerusalem. The LXX translates it with a word that means crown of the head.

Regarding synagogue worship practices, it would seem that they originated in the first dispersion, the Babylonian captivity. Their two officials were its president and its sexton, both laymen. You are right about "rabbi", but the prayer leader "shaliach tzibur" (messsenger of the community compare: "angel of the church") did not have to be a Levite or priest, even after the temple was restored. He was, as you say, a Jewish male. He was chosen by the president (it need never be the same man twice in a row) just as the readers were (note the experience of Jesus in the synagogue).

With regards,

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear James,

As you say, it is really a matter of which prayer book you use, and which jurisdiction. This was not always so, but particularly in this country, in many churches, going to confession, much less reading prepratory prayers is little practised. However, I have noticed that the Greek Archdiocese has had several articles about going to Confession in the "Orthodox Observer," and I am glad of it.

I can only speak for my own Church, Russian Orthodox, which recquires confession every time a person goes to communion. The rule for communion includes the canons to Jesus Christ, Mother of God and the Guardian Angel, One Akathist, the Canon of preparation for Communion and prepratory prayers in the morning. All together, the rule takes about an hour and twenty minutes, and is very good for the heart and soul when read prayerfully and seriously.

In the monastery, we have the Rule served in conjunction with Smal Vespers on Saturday afternoon. On the parish level, the priest deals with each individual according to his capability., but most strive to keep to the entire rule. Under no conditions do we ever allow
"General absolution," which should only be granted when facing a natural disaster like a flood or earth quake, or perhaps a bomb attack.

When I came to the monastery twenty-eight years ago, our group of Americans started to commune weekly. this disturbed the older Russians, even the monks, who had become accustomed to confessing and communing four times during the year during the four Fasts.

It was Archbishop Averky of blessed memory who during a sermon, urged all to follow our example, but for all to say the complete rule. Now, almost everyone comes to confession on Saturday evening during the vigil, and almost everyone receives communion. This is becoming the norm in our parishes, not the exception.

As to other Churches, I do not know, I can only suggest that each person do according to his Church's practise, or that of his local parish. All I have ever known is to go to confession before communion, and to read my rule before communion, and the prayers after communion right after Liturgy. This may not be the answer you sought, but it is all I can offer. As in other areas, I do not judge the practises of other Churches.

Respectfully in Christ,

hieromonk Averky

[Owen Jones]

Practices regarding confession and communion vary widely, of course, as you have alluded, Fr. Averky. St. John Chrysostom did not require confession to commune, for example, saying that almsgiving, prayers, fasting, charity, and tears, were all satisfactory preparations. In the Serbian Church, communion is so rare that when someone does commune he gets a round of applause from the congregation!!!!

[Moses Anthony]

Owen, Fr. Averky, & All,

In one of the prayer books I have it is recommended that after saying the prepatory prayers, nothing should be ate or drunk until after communing. I cannot put into words how it felt to have the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus as my first meal of the day.

My point in the previous post was: Where do we draw the line in communig between strict adherence to an Ordo, and the congregations participation in the central reason for our gathering to worship?

The Prepatory Prayers follow the Apostle Paul's teaching that some who have not discerned the Lord's body have eaten and drunk damnation to themselves, and some are asleep.

Forgive my use of the phrase Fr. A, but it seems as though you're saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans", but if you know from your heart you can do more, then do that.
Pray for my self discipline, that this Sunday I will discipline myself to say the prayers after communion, after the Divine Liturgy.

the unworthy servant

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ James,

I laud and admire your good decision to fulfill as mcuh as you can in preparation for Holy Communion. Since I am a priest of the Russian Church Abroad, I can only speak about our rules for communion. It would not be proper for me to tell the parishioners of any other priest in another church what they should do to prepare themselves for communion.

When I came here in 1975, another young man came with me who had been in another jurisdiction. As he began to read the lives of monastic saints, especially those of the last hundred and fifty years, he said that he found that the Church Abroad seemed to have the same spirit that he found in those lives. Our Church is small and poor, but God bless our bishops, for they have struggled to keep pure the Faith of their fathers.

People like Blessed Metropolitan Philaret, whose body was found to be incorrupt after thirteen years of being in a damp crypt, was a champion and defender of Holy Orthodoxy. So was Archbishop Averky of blessed memory, who foresaw so many years ago the dangers of what modrnism and "relaxing" the rules and the wholesale granting of "economia" would do to the general life of the Chruch.

As I said, I do not judge the practises of other Churches, it simply is not my place to do so. I appreciate the many good and holy priests who struggle daily to bring the people put in their care to salvation.

I can will say that when we can keep in step, not with the times, but with the age old traditions of our Holy Church, we see that our lives are the better for it.

I remember when I was growing up Catholic, we too strictly fasted from midnight on. Then after the asault on that Church which was Vatican II, first, the fast was reduced to an hour before mass, then not at all. In a desperate attempt to bring people to the church, the Catholic Church began to allow people to attend mass on Saturday night-now some dioceses are permitting people to fulfill their Sunday "obligation" on Friday night! In Los Angeles, the Holy Days of Obligation, comparable to our Great Feasts, are now being moved to the closest Sunday. Thus, as one old priest said, "We now will celebrate Ascension Thursday on Sunday!"

I heard that in one Orthodox jursidiction in this country, the bishop told his people that during Great Lent they would ony have to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. What can be said about such a thing? When the Church begins to consciously deny her children the ability to bear their cross for Christ's sake, but wants them to have it "easy," what will become, of those poor souls?

Dear James, when you are preparing for communion, please remember me in your good prayers.

With love in Christ

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Father Averky,
Father Bless!

It is interesting that this past week a major Protestant denomination has promoted to the bishopric, an openly homosexual man, an act which cannnot be according to the "old traditions". I totally agree that the Church -if she is in fact the pillar and suport of the truth- cannot change with the whims of the times if she is to make known God to a sinful man.
Is tradition and culture the same thing?

Grace, mercy and peace be multiplied to you Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear James,

I followed the election of the new bishop with interest. I have to say that what the Episcoplaian Church does in this country no longer surprizes me. I believe that a few weeks ago Owen posted something saying that homosexuals basically now control that Church, so what can be expected.

As to tradition and culture being the same. I would say that it is the preservation of traditions that keeps a culture intact. I would think that Richard Leigh, Professor McBride or Owen could give much better definitions than I could.

It is just so important, James, that we preserve what we have and not lose it in the face of the "times." The times are getting worse and worse, and why would we want to go along with them? Remember the words of Father Seraphim Rose, "It's later than you think!" God bless you, my dear James!

In our Lord,

hieromonk Averky

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Following on reference being made in previous posts to the election to the episcopacy of the Episcopal Church (USA) of a gay bishop, I provide a link to the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury (UK, head of the Anglican Communion worldwide, which includes the Episcopal Church USA):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3135237.stm

[M.C. Steenberg]

One more article on the issue of homosexual ordination in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, and the summit called for today by the Archibishop of Canterbury -- this article from today's London Times:

"Gay summit will seal church's fate"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-771792,00.html

(You must cut-and-paste this address into your web browser: the commas in the address prevent it from displaying properly as an active link in this message.)

[Margaret Lark]

Another ex-Catholic?! Oh, this gets better and better! Seriously, I used to be a member of that jurisdiction where people were told to fast only on Wednesdays and Fridays during Great Lent; they were also told to fast "only from meat," since "in this country," we eat more meat than they did in the Old Country. I am where I am now (ROCOR) because I was so impressed by the emphasis on carrying one's own cross and struggling with one's own sins, not having my nose in the affairs of others (one of the besetting sins of Babushkahood, as I'm finding out! I spent more time at the Summer School telling kids to Get Married and Make More Orthodox Christians....).

[Owen Jones]

The most interesting thing of note from these articles about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is that the journalists copy the press releases from the Church that claim that there are from 77 to 80 million Anglicans world-wide. I suspect it is no more than 15% of that.