| In that sense, we can say, with Metro. John Zizioulas (Being and Communion), that from the time of the early Church, there have been two basic types of spirituality in Holy Orthodoxy: one may be called “eucharistic”, because it is based on the eucharistic community, its experiences and disciplines. The other type is called ‘monastic’ by Zizioulas, but I prefer to call it ‘hesychastic’, both because it more precisely describes the type of spirituality that we are distinguishing from the ‘eucharistic’, and also because I do not want to imply that the eucharistic dimension can ever be separated from monasticism–or from hesychasm, for that matter. (We are distinguishing here, let us recall, not to separate but only to unite.) In both the eucharistic type of spirituality and the hesychastic, the practice of asceticism is fundamental: the individual struggles against the passions, strives toward the virtues, seeks grace in prayer and union with God in Christ. Hesychastic spirituality is characterized not only by renunciation of the world and austere asceticism but especially by submission to the spiritual authority of a geron or staretz, which includes such practices as strict obedience and daily revelation of thoughts, activities not practicable for the average lay person. Eucharistic spirituality, on the other hand, is characterized by an ascetical and noetic participation in the eucharistic community as a way to overcome philautia: self-love and its deadly children, gluttony, avarice, vain-glory, etc. Ultimately, however, both types of spirituality are but modes of the one spirituality of the Orthodox Church, which is the path of becoming a temple of the Holy Spirit by participating in the uncreated grace and the deifying energy of God. Orthodox spirituality, then, both eucharistic and hesychastic, is the spirituality most perfectly embodied in the saint. The instruction of the great elder and saint, Paisius Velichkovsky, for the tonsure to the Monastic Order, is equally applicable, with slight adaptation, to Orthodox married and non-monastic single persons. |
| The rejection of the concept of the Eucharist as «image» or «symbol» is, on the other hand, very significant for the understanding of the entire Eucharistic «perception» of the Byzantines; the Eucharist for them always remained fundamentally a mystery to be received as food and drink, and not to be «seen» through physical eyes. The elements remain covered, except during the prayers of consecration and during communion; and, in contrast with Western medieval piety, were never " " venerated» outside the framework of the Eucharistic liturgy itself. The Eucharist cannot reveal anything to the sense of vision; it is only the bread of heaven. Vision is offered another channel of revelationthe icons: hence, the revelatory program of the Byzantine iconostasis, with the figures of Christ and the saints exposed precisely in order to be seen and venerated. «Christ is not shown in the Holy Gifts,» writes Leonid Ouspensky; «He is given. He is shown in the icons. The visible side of the reality of the Eucharist is an image which can never be replaced either by imagination or by looking at the Holy Gifts.» 413 As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine Eucharistic theology retained and re-emphasized the mystery and hiddenness of this central liturgical action of the Church. But it also reaffirmed that the Eucharist was essentially a meal which could be partaken of only through eating and drinking, because God had assumed the fullness of our humanity, with all its psychic and physical functions, in order to lead it to resurrection. Byzantine theologians had an opportunity to make the same point in connection with their anti-Latin polemics against the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The discussion on the azymes, which started in the eleventh century, was generally entangled in arguments of purely symbolic nature (the Greeks maintained, for example, that the Eucharistic bread had to be leavened in order to symbolize the animated humanity of Christ, while the Latin use of azymes implied Apollinarianism, i.e., the denial that Jesus had a human soul), but the controversy also recognized that the Byzantines understood the Eucharistic bread to be necessarily consubstantial with humanity, while Latin medieval piety emphasized its «supersubstantiality,» its otherworldliness. The use of ordinary bread, identical with the bread used as everyday food, was the sign of true Incarnation: «What is the daily bread [of the Lord " " s prayer],» asks Nicetas Stethatos, «if it is not consubstantial with us? And the bread consubstantial with us is none other than the Body of Christ, who became con-substantial with us through the flesh of His humanity.» 414 |
| 1) abstain from any food and drink from midnight until Communion (or at least for six hours before Communion if, e.g., a Presanctified liturgy is celebrated in the evening), 2) abstain from marital relations on a day and a night before Communion, and 3) read the Akolouthia of Holy Communion 62 . The pastors of the Church rejoice in their hearts when they see how many people approach the holy chalice. There is, however, another side to this picture. One notes that the spirit of consumerism, omnipresent in our modern-day world, has entered our church life as well. People like when they are «given» something in a church – be it holy water, a palm branch, a candle, or Holy Communion; but they tend to be far less interested in faith, in asceticism, in the work of charity, in being part of the community’s life. Many parents lead their children to Communion, hoping that this will help in their upbringing, but at the same time they themselves do not live a truly Christian life. During the evening services, when there is no Communion, but when many beautiful biblical passages and Christian hymns are read and sung, one finds far fewer people praying in church than during the services when Communion is offered. Therefore, it behooves Orthodox pastors to teach the faithful that while Holy Communion is probably the most important tool of spiritual life it is still just a tool and not the sole content of this life. But the pastors of the Church often do not have sufficient time to explain this nuance to the people 63 . Conclusion In its thousand-year history the teaching and practice of the Russian Church has gone through some significant changes, including the doctrine and practice of the Eucharist. For many centuries the Church considered the Eucharist from a predominantly mystical and strongly ascetical perspective; in the late nineteenth and then in the twentieth century, the Russian Church made a great contribution to the understanding of the Eucharist, because of the works of the great Russian liturgists and theologians of those times. In particular, the theologians of the Russian emigration had a decisive influence on the movement for the revival and transformation of eucharistic life throughout the Orthodox Church in general. |
| The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has Considered it Impossible to Remain in the Eucharistic Communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople Source: DECR The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, at its session on October 15, 2019, in Minsk, adopted a Statement of the Holy Synod concerning the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople upon the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Holy Synod members deemed it impossible to continue to be in the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is stated in particular that ‘to admit in communion the schismatics and a person anathematized by another Local Church together with all the ‘bishops’ and ‘clergy’ ordained by them, the encroachment upon somebody else’s canonical parts, the attempt to reject one’s own historical decisions and commitments – all this places the Patriarchate of Constantinople outside the canonical space and, to our great grief, makes it impossible for us to continue the Eucharistic communion with its hierarchy, clergy and laity. ‘From now on till the Patriarchate of Constantinople abandons its anti-canonical decisions, it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople, and for the laity to participate in sacraments administered in its churches’, the document states. Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Also by this author Today " s Articles Most viewed articles Functionality is temporarily unavailable. Most popular authors Functionality is temporarily unavailable. © 2008-2024 Pravmir.com |
| The attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad toward ecumenism has always been of a sober, strictly Orthodox character, in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Fathers. The outlook of our Church was particularly well defined in a statement issued on December 31, 1931, when the Russian Church Abroad appointed its representative to the Committee for the Continuation of the World Conference on Faith and Order: «Preserving the Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Synod of Bishops confesses that the Church has never been divided. The issue lies only in who does and who does not belong to Her. Moreover, the Synod of Bishops fervently welcomes all attempts by the heterodox to study the teaching of Christ about the Church, in the hope that through such investigation, especially with the participation of representatives of the Holy Orthodox Church, they will eventually arrive at the conviction that the Orthodox Church, which is the and the ground of truth» (I Timothy 3:15), has fully and without any adulteration retained the doctrine taught by Christ the Savior to His disciples.» The Ecumenical Movement takes as its guiding principle the Protestant view of the Church. Protestants hold that there is no single truth and no single visible Church, but that each of the many Christian denominations possesses a particle of the truth, and that these relative truths can, by means of dialogue, lead to the One Truth and the One Church. One of the ways of attaining this unity, as perceived by the ideologues of the Ecumenical Movement, is the holding of joint prayers and religious services, so that in time communion from a common chalice (intercommunion) may be achieved. Orthodoxy can never accept such an ecclesiology. It believes and bears witness that there is no need to assemble particles of the truth, since the Orthodox Church is the repository of the fullness of the Truth, which was given to Her on the day of Holy Pentecost. For the Orthodox, joint prayer and Communion at the liturgy is an expression of an already existing unity within the bounds of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century) concisely expressed this: «Our Faith is in accord with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our Faith.» The Holy Fathers of the Church teach that the members of the Church comprise the Church – the Body of Christ – because in the Eucharist they partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ. Outside the Eucharist and Communion there is no Church. Communing together would be an admission that all those receiving Communion belong to the One Apostolic Church, whereas the realities of Christian history even of our time unfortunately point out the deep dogmatic and ecclesiastical division of the Christian world. |
| The practice that has taken shape in our time that every one who receives communion several times a year fasts for three days before communion fully corresponds to the tradition of the Church. At the same time, the practice when a person who receives communion on a weekly basis or several times a month, while observing lengthy and one-day fasts established by the Typicon, approaches the holy Chalice without any additional fasting or keeping a fast on the day or in the evening before communion, is acceptable as well. This matter has to be resolved with the blessing of the person’s spiritual father. The requirements concerning preparation for holy communion, intended for the laypeople who receive communion frequently, are also applicable for members of the clergy. Bright Week, the week following the feast of Christ’s Pascha, creates a special case regarding the practice of preparation for holy communion. The ancient canonical norm regarding the obligatory participation of all faithful at the Sunday eucharist was in the seventh century expanded to include all of the Divine Liturgies during Bright Week: From the holy day of the Resurrection of Christ our God until the New Sunday, for a whole week, in the holy churches the faithful ought to be free from labour, rejoicing in Christ with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs; and celebrating the feast, and applying their minds to the reading of the holy Scriptures, and delighting in the Holy Mysteries; for thus shall we be exalted with Christ and together with him be raised up (canon 66 of the Council in Trullo). It follows from this canon that the laypeople are called to receive communion during the liturgies of Bright Week. Considering that the Typicon does not foresee any fasting during Bright Week and that Bright Week is preceded by seven weeks of struggle in the course of Lent and Holy Week, it ought to be acknowledged that the practice that has been established in many parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church that Christians who observed the Great Fast receive holy communion during Bright Week, while limiting their fasting to abstaining from food after midnight, is fully consistent with the canonical tradition of the Church. Similar practice can be expanded to the period between Nativity and Theophany. Those who prepare for communion during these days should take special care from excessive consumption of food and drink. |
| tradition or, rather, custom, believe it necessary to go to Confession every time before receiving Communion. Others totally forget that confession exists at all. In both cases, repentance and confession lose all their meaning. And when these ‘foreigners’ come to Russia , they are often not allowed to have Communion. I remember how I — at that time a subdeacon — once went to common Confession in the lower church of St Daniel ’s monastery. When, after all the canons and prayers, I approached the priest, he — a severe hieromonk — asked me: ‘Did you fast yesterday?’ I answered: ‘Yesterday I was in an airplane’. The severe hieromonk asked: ‘Where are you from?’ I said: ‘From Paris ’. His answer was: ‘It’s not Paris here. It’s Moscow . I cannot allow you to take Communion!’ The practice of three-day long fasting and obligatory Confession before each Communion arose from the tradition of very rare Communion, which developed in the Orthodox world (in Russia , Greece and other parts of the world). Thus, my grandfather, the philosopher Nikolay Onufriyevich Lossky, went to Communion once a year — and not on Easter, like many other people, but on Holy Thursday. Naturally, he prepared himself for it during Lent and went to Confession before Eucharist. Once again, those who take Communion rarely and, of course, every time go to Confession, lose all sense of Confession which becomes a sort of ‘passport’ for approaching the Holy Sacrament of Eucharist. There are two points about this situation. First of all, it is forgotten that Confession as such, is a sacrament, albeit, of course, connected with Eucharist. However, correct understanding of Orthodox patristic theology connects all the sacraments with the Eucharist or, rather, with the one Sacrament of Baptism-Chrismation-Eucharist. Of course, the objection will be made that we ‘acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins’ . Yes, we do. But at every Divine Liturgy we renew the vows of our Baptism when we sing (or say, as Greeks do) the Creed. |
| 580 “The common union of the Churches”, an expression highly characteristic of the theses in this work, is used by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., V, 24.9) of the second century Councils, and reveals the deeper meaning of the institution of Councils when it first appeared. The truly supreme importance of this institution lies in the fact that through it the Churches in various places are shown to be in essence one Church only in the whole world without ceasing to be in themselves full “Churches” 581 Cf. the remarks of Metropolitan Dionysios of Servies and Kozani in Oikodomi, Ecclesiastical and Literary Bulletin, 2 (1959), (in Greek), p.126: Each single Church united with her Bishop, in which the mystery of the Divine Eucharist is celebrated, “is not simply a part of the whole within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church; but inasmuch as she communes in the whole in the unity of the Holy Spirit, she is herself one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, i.e. the ‘fullness’ and the ‘Body of Christ’”. Again, Prof. N.Nissiotis rightly observes (“Worship...”, p.198) that through the Divine Eucharist “a local community does not pray alone, but as part of the universal, Catholic Church in the world, and as a part which contains the whole truth in its fullness by offering the one Eucharist”. Cf. also J.Meyendorff, “Sacrements et Hiérarchie dans l’Église” in Dieu Vivant, 26 (1954), pp.81–91, and P.Evdokimov, L’Orthodoxie, 1959, p, 130. This fullness of each local Church at least in the sources from the first three centuries is now recognized, albeit without being linked with the Divine Eucharist, by certain Roman Catholics such as B.Botte, “La Collégialité dans le Nouveau Testament et chez les Pères Apostoliques” in Le Concile et les Conciles. Contribution à l’Histoire de la Vie Conciliaire de l’Église, 1960, p.14f., where he observes that “the local Church appeared hierarchically organized, with the bishop who is her leader, the presbyterium which assists him and the deacons who are his ministers. But she also appeared as autonomous. Above the bishop there was nothing, and he was, humanly speaking, completely independent”. Similarly, J.Hamer (op.cit., p.38f.) remarks on the basis of the sources of the early Church that “it is not in adding together the local communities that the whole community which constitutes the Church is born; but each community, however small, represents the whole Church” |
| The Holy Synod noted the deterioration of the situation in world Orthodoxy and called a Pan-Orthodox Council discussion the only way out of the current crisis. Photo: UOC On December 6, 2019, the last session of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place in the residence of the Primate of the UOC in the territory of the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Having discussed the latest developments in the sphere of inter-Orthodox relations, the Synod made an official statement, the text of which was published on the UOC DECR website. In the Statement, the Synod of the UOC noted that the crisis resulting from the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine is not a problem of bilateral relations between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow and concerns all Local Orthodox Churches, as it “destroys the very foundations of the life and mission of the Church of Christ”. In this regard, the Holy Synod welcomed the initiative of His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan since it considers the Pan-Orthodox Council discussion to be the only way out of the current crisis. The UOJ publishes the full text of the Statement of the Holy Synod of the UOC. STATEMENT OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH December 6, 2019 The Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, after careful deliberation of the recent developments in the sphere of inter-Orthodox relations, makes the following statement: 1. We are compelled to declare that due to the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine, and also in connection with the actions perpetrated by the Primates of the Greek and Alexandrian Orthodox Churches, namely by their entering into Eucharistic communion with the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, the situation in Orthodox Christianity has grown worse not only at the administrative but also at the spiritual level – that is, on the level of ecclesial communion in the Holy Sacraments. |
| SEMMELROTH, O., Die Kirche als Ursakrament, 1953. SESTON, W., “Note Sur les Origines Religieuses des Pariosses Rurales” in Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 15 (1935), pp.243–254. SIOTIS, M., “Die klassische und die christliche Cheirotonie in ihrem Verhältnis” in Theologia, 20 (1949), 21 (1950) and 22 (1951). ________History and Revelation in New Testament Studies (in Greek), 1953. ________The Divine Eucharist. The N.T. Information about the Divine Eucharist in the Light of the Interpretation of Church Writers (in Greek), 1957. ________“Die Ecclesiologie als Grundlage der neutestamentlichen Auslegung in der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirche”, 1961. SJÖBERG, E., Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien, 1955. SOHM, R., Kirchenrecht, I, 1892. SOIRON, T., Die Kirche als der Leib Christi nach der Lehre des hl.Paulus, 1951. SOTERIOU, G., Christian and Byzantine Archaeology (in Greek), I, 1942. STENDAHL, K, “Kirche: II. Im Urchristentum” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3 Aufl., III (1959), 1297–1304. STEPHANIDIS, V., Church History (in Greek), 1948, 1959 (2ed.). STONE, D.A., A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, I, 1909. SUNDKLER, B., “Jésus et les Païens” in Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 16 (1936). TELFER, W., The Office of a Bishop, 1962. THEODOROU, A., History of Dogmas (in Greek), I/1, 1963. TÖDT, H.E., Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung, 1959. TREMBELAS, P., Mikron Euchologion (in Greek), I, 1950. ________Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church (in Greek), III, 1961. ________“The Divine Eucharist in its Connection with the Other Mysteries and Sacramental Rites” (in Greek) in Efcharisterion, Essays in Honor of Professor H.Alivizatos, 1958, pp.462–472. ________“Worship in Apostolic Times” (in Greek) in Theologia, 31 (1960), p.183ff. ________“Contributions to the History of Christian Worship” in E.E.Th.S. (1958–60), 1963, pp.9–93. TURNER, C.H., “Apostolic Succession: A.The Original Conception; B.The Problem of the Non-Catholic Orders” in Essays on the Early History of the Church and Ministry (ed. H.B.Swete), 1918. |
|
|
