Glory to Jesus Christ!

To my absolute horror and consternation, my Byzantine Catholic parish church yesterday introduced the use of lay eucharistic ministers. I know the Particular Law permits this practice, but may I ask: why, in the midst of all this talk about returning to our authentic Orthodox traditions, has the Byzantine-Rusyn Church decided to adopt this problematic (to say the least) Western practice?

Two points you should note: I belong to a fairly large parish (distribution of communion can last as along as 20 minutes); and my parish priest is older, but hardly decrepit or incapable of distributing the Eucharist.

My main question, however, is this: by what authority did the Roman Church create lay eucharistic ministers? Is there any biblical, patristic, or theological justification?

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

To my absolute horror and consternation, my Byzantine Catholic parish church yesterday introduced the use of lay eucharistic ministers.

#$@?*!!!!!!!

I know the Particular Law permits this practice, but may I ask: why, in the midst of all this talk about returning to our authentic Orthodox traditions, has the Byzantine-Rusyn Church decided to adopt this problematic (to say the least) Western practice?

You're right; it's a big-time contradiction. It seems there is still a strong countercurrent to the Orthodoxizing one, among those who perhaps don't really want to be Eastern and prefer to copy the Novus Ordo.

http://oldworldrus.com

My understanding is that it was done "for convenience" in larger parishes -- as was the case with the Latin rite, initially. Of course, there it has largely become a way for people to feel "involved" in the liturgy, or to offer lay persons the ability to "serve" (in addition to dealing with the practical realities of the mega parishes in the Latin Church).

May I ask -- how is the Eucharist transferred to the lay ministers?

Brendan

Dear Friends,

Lay ministers are certainly not "on" in our tradition, but sometimes circumstances demand adaptation.

Even St John of Kronstadt adapted to the circumstances of his time.

There is the story of how he wanted everyone to come to Communion.

The people whispered that they hadn't been to confession.

So Father John told them he would give them a communal confession.

Any relief they might have initially felt would have been gone when Father asked them to publically tell him all their sins, which they did.

Gives public confession a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

Anyway, when it comes to Orthodox, Brendan and Serge, I know I'm preaching to the converted . . .

Alex

I guess the other question is by what authority did it restrict it?

Let us remember that this is no longer an innovation, since it is presented and regulated by the Particular Law of our Byzantine American Metropolia. (For us, female altar servers would be an innovation if not also a violation of our Particular Law, which states that servers must be males.)

In fact, the law states that every parish may have one lay eucharistic minister at a Liturgy; only additional ministers are based on the number of communicants. Therefore, we can expect that once our people become aware of this, there will be people in every parish who wish to take advantage of their right to serve the Church in this way.

So what is happening in Theophilos's parish is exactly the normal course of things, as designed by those who wrote the Particular Law and accepted by our bishops who promulgated it.

Just something to keep in mind before bombarding the respective chancery offices with protest letters...

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: RichC ]

It's just a shame that our church doesn't more widely ordain subdeacons and then bless them to distribute communion in such cases (oh by the way I'm not against subdeaconesses! he he)

anastasios

Rich:

But you miss my main point. Why did the Byzantine-Rusyn Church adopt a practice which, to my knowledge, has absolutely no foundation in the Orthodox/Greek Christian tradition? It is, no matter how it was created, an obvious and rather obnoxious Latinization, no?

Don't worry, I'm not about to write any letters or start yelling or leave the Church over this (if -- when? -- my wife, son, and I convert to Orthodoxy, it will be for different and far more substantive reasons, as God knows). But, even if we adopted lay eucharistic ministers in a properly Eastern manner (i.e., as a sui juris Church, without directive from Rome -- which is not, of course, actually true; see October 1998 posts herein, if they still exist), that does not explain why we adopted a Roman practice, nor does it justify that adoption.

So, if you want to argue that it's acceptable, you can't say the law was created and promulgated properly, therefore it's okay -- there's a parallel to natural law/positivism here, for any who care -- you must instead show that this practice is fully consistent with Orthodox tradition, i.e. that it is scripturally and patristically-defensible. Is it?

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Theophilos ]

Why did the Byzantine-Rusyn Church adopt a practice which, to my knowledge, has absolutely no foundation in the Orthodox/Greek Christian tradition?

My guess is that among an influential faction of Ruthenians there is a combination of imitation of the Novus Ordo and indifference to the Orthodox.

It is, no matter how it was created, an obvious and rather obnoxious Latinization, no?


Yes.

http://oldworldrus.com

Theophilos, are you saying that you think lay people should have been consulted?

Or were you privy to something else about the way the law was composed that makes you say that the Orthodox factor was not considered?

The competent scholars/authorities have already made changes to the Liturgy far beyond what exists in contemporary Orthodox practice. Perhaps contemporary Orthodoxy is not the sole criterion on which our reforms must be undertaken. If something is just the "right thing to do" will we be held back because the Orthodox are not already doing it?

At the time of the Union of Uzhhorod, seminary education was also for us a Latinization. But where would we be today without it?

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: RichC ]

Dear Theophilos,

What you say is true.

But in the realm of "Latinizations" it seems to me that we Easterners call everything a "Latinization" until we adopt it for ourselves.

It's like that old joke about Catholic morality, that everything is forbidden until it becomes mandatory . . .

I've seen things I was convinced were "rank Latinizations" in Orthodox Churches that had them because of practicality or because they were liked by the congregation etc.

For example, none of the "Latin" services of the Moleben to the Sacred Heart etc. that we have were created to somehow "adapt" to the Romans.

In fact, Father Isidore Dolnitsky wrote those services because many Eastern Catholics liked those devotions and felt pulled toward the Latin Church to attend them.

The same is true of the Rosary. The history of the Eastern Catholic Churches is punctuated with "returns to Orthodoxy" of entire eparchies whether coerced or not. (As if there was no coercion to join the Unia . . .).

As these people returned to Orthodoxy, they brought with them certain Latin practices that were then maintained for fear of doing them spiritual harm etc. St Alexis Toth, in fact, was famous for leaving Latin practices of new Orthodox converts alone for this reason.

With the advent of Western Rite Orthodoxy, the differences between the two confessions in liturgical terms becomes even more minimal and in this our friend, Edwin, is certainly right (rite?).

And we know that the early Christians not only communicated themselves, but also took Holy Communion home with them to keep in their "Home Church" and to receive Holy Communion, (which they obviously gave themselves) each morning before breakfast throughout the week.

This practice was later abolished due to the "lack of fervour of earlier times" as Chrysostom said.

But ultimately I think that a practice should be received or rejected not only on the basis of its supposed history in the Latin Church, but also on other, more pastoral-based grounds.

Alex

Very true what you say, Alex.

If the Latin Church discards universal celibacy of its priests, and then we follow suit (not in the "provisional" way we've done so far), will some of our people deride married priests as a Latinization?

Dear RichC,

One never knows . . .

Or else we could say, as a number did in the aftermath of Vatican II, that the Western Church is coming around to thinking the (correct) Eastern way.

In the aftermath of the Unia of 1596, when one of our ancestors was asked why the Pope was being commemorated in the Orthodox Church, he would have replied, "The Pope must have become Orthodox!"

Besides, I think His Holiness looks much better in Byzantine robes than Latin ones!

Don't you?

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I agree with Orthodox Catholic, but wish to note that I am not rejecting the practice of lay eucharistic ministers (LEM) simply becuase it is a Latinization -- which we all seem to agree it is. I am instead questioning both the practical and theological justifications for LEM. It raises a fair, if loaded question: are we Gnostics, trading amongst ourselves different offices (hey, John, wanna be pope today?), or are we Christians?

That said, my first question is this: does LEM raise any theological problems (as I suggested in my initial post)? Is there a theological-ecclesiological issue with unordained men distributing the Body and Blood of Christ? Do we really need to create another office in addition to bishop, priest, and deacon? Is there a scriptural or patristic justification for this addition?

But, I am willing to grant, arguendo, that this question cannot be answered affirmatively with any kind of certainty. My second question, then: is there a legitimate practical, i.e. pastoral need for LEM?

I'm glad Orthodox Catholic has offered the example of what the martyred Church did. But is their practice necessarily applicable to our situation? Is it analogous? Would Chrysostom not agree that the fervor of modern times, in contrast to the early Church, is even more lacking than among his fellow Antiochians of the fourth century?

In all seriousness: what is our situation that we need LEM. (1) Too many parishioners? (2) Too many old priests / not enough priests? (3) Too many people unaware that participation in the Cosmic Liturgy does not require their distributing the Eucharist?

These, I suppose, in the absence of a sure answer to the theological question, are the right questions. And their answers? (1) We wish this were the case; even my large church is rarely filled to capacity; (2) Perhaps, but aren't there alternative means to remedying this problem -- ordaining more deacons, e.g.?; (3) If we Byzantine-Rusyns feel we aren't being entertained enough, maybe we should spend some time thinking about why we go to church in the first place.

So, what are the most convincing pastoral reasons for LEM, an unscriptural, unpatristic, and at best, ecclesiologically problematic creation? I await responses.

Rich: I'm not sure how to take your response. The standard is not what the Orthodox are or are not doing, but what is "right." The issue between us seems to be how we define what is "right" I suggest the answer is found in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Lover of God (Theophilos),

We up here don't have LEM (we have LEMKO's, but that isn't the same I don't think . . .).

Our Roman brothers have them and everyone seems to think it is a sign of the times what with fewer priests et al.

Others think that it is a way to underline the "Priesthood of all believers."

I used to get into arguments (I know that is hard to believe) with our priests in Catholic college when I refused to take the Chalice into my own profane, non-sacerdotal hands.

The Ethiopians have embroidered cloths with which they use to hold their hand crosses so that their skin doesn't touch the sacred object! (I have since procured one for myself).

You are right. Unless there is an extreme need, there really is no excuse for LEMs.

Cardinal Suenens was the one who wanted the Latin Church to eventually get used to the idea of married deacons and married priests.

I don't know what you think of him, but I think he was ahead of his time on this issue.

Alex

I don't disagree with you on this, only to add that there should be a consideration of need and opportunity in the contemporary situation.

But back to reality, it is clear that as lay people we don't fit into the phrase "how we define what is 'right'." As I alluded to in another thread on this board last week, our Church (Byzantine American) has gotten to the point of overclericalization, that if one is not in orders there is no place for them outside a parish situation. Even within the parish setting, I think the LEM (LEEM?) provision is just one more pseudo-clerical ministry to which one must be certified.

Now our cantors are expected to be certified, our catechists are supposed to be certified, and the coming LEM corps, with their special-training certificates and dalmatics in hand, will round out the possibilities for doing something officially useful for the Church. This is not about "we", it's "we (the certified/ordained) vs. them".

Dustin has a point here, though LEM are, for the most part, subdeacons with a different name and due to the fact Eastern & Western Catholic leaders believe that subdeacon, while traditional, is an inartful term. That pointis valid, too, but on balance, I would give a slight perference to Dustin's suggestion, just go back to calling them (boyz & girrrlzz) subdeacons.


(maybe we'll have subpriests too!)

K.

Slava Isusu Christu!

This whole thing is atrocious! Lay Eucharistic Ministers, what a bunch of hogwash!

That is all I can say about this scandelous thing.

In Mary,


Robert

My suspicion is that the discomfort/disquiet about lay ministers has its roots in the complexly developed theology of the Eucharist. The Church has come a long way from the "passover meal/agape meal" to golden monstrances held in brocade with squadrons of acolytes with candles and incense.

Veneration of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is perfectly logical if you believe that Christ is really present in the species of bread and wine. But transforming the understanding of Jesus' original mandate: "take and eat..." (given by a man who didn't wear gold or brocade) to the need to recreate the environment of an Imperial court for His 'True Presence' seems to have brought us down the wrong path.

Certainly, respect and veneration is due to the Eucharist, for He is present there. But Our Lord gave us one type of presence of Himself in the form of food, for eating, together as a People. I suspect that going down the Imperial-veneration road has perhaps done us -- as a community -- a great disservice. Perhaps we should have developed a much greater theology of the Eucharist that emphasizes the fact that reception of Christ in the bread and wine is a communal action that gives grace? (Rather than on the 'Just Jesus and Me' outlook.) Perhaps there should be more emphasis on the 'sharing of one loaf' that is broken and divided to nourish the many? Thus, it would not be a question of 'profaning' the Eucharist by allowing a non-ordained person to participate in the distribution. While I prefer (personally) to be communicated by a priest or deacon, I don't think that we do any 'disservice' to Our Lord by allowing one of His servants to assist in the agape of the "Thanksgiving".

(I find it interesting to note that the notion of Jesus being mandatorily present in the bread, also allows for abuses by those who think that they've got Jesus 'captured' in the bread. Thus, things like "Black Masses" etc. are possible. Were the emphasis on the fact that Christ is present in the bread and wine only for a believing congregation led by its bishop or priest, then all their thoughts about 'capturing Jesus' would vanish; i.e., "He's not there for you." Just a thought.)

Blessings!

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Greetings All!

This for me is pretty sad news. I think that instituting LEMs in the Byzantine Rite is the surest, and quickest way of inviting Mgr. Lefebvre's "Transalpine Redemptorists" to the USA.

Even though I tend to agree with the ideas of Dr. John about grace present in the "communal action" with my fellow Christians, wouldn't this mean that the reception of communion would be necessary for sharing of this grace?

What about "infrequent communicants" who attend Liturgy weekly or multiple times a week who only receive communion once a month? Where does that leave them?

Last month at our parish's anniversary celebration, none of my Roman rite guests were sorry to see a lack of LEM's. The feedback I received was quite the contrary. They didn't seem to miss "communion in the hand" either.

LEM's in an extreme situation is one thing; for expample, here at the Russian Orthodox Church about eight years ago the priest became extremely ill after before the distribution of Communion and ordered the Cantor to distribute it. The priest had triple bypass surgery a couple of days after this event. This was reasonable under the circumstances.

I apoligize for not liking the idea of LEM's in the Byzantine rite AT ALL.

To me it's acquiescing to the Roman Chruch [again].

Stefan

Hi,

This is some thing that I'm very familiar with being a former RC. My concern is that it will evolve into something that will make you want to hurl. When they were first introduced into my former church it was basically older men. We used to kneel at a communion rail.The priest and one LEM gave communion.There was a "pecking order" if you will. First the priest took communion the LEM knelt before him and received then it was the rest of the congregation.Picture this, now several LEM go up behind the altar before the priest takes communion they help the priest prepare the communion pour the precious blood into chalises etc.As Father says this is the lamb of God etc one LEM passes out communion to the others then they take it almost at the same time as the priest. Some don't wait, so they are taking it together with him.BTW in some parishes if there are 8 LEM up behind the altar 6 are women.So you have women up behind the altar standing side by side with the priest taking communion with him.I believe the "pecking order" is intentionally blurred.
I am told the present use of LEM's is an abuse in the RC Church.It was never intended to become what it has.The Hierarchy in this Church need to sit in a Roman Liturgy along with any priest that thinks this is okay.Then we would see if LEM's are used in the Byzantine Church.If lay folks pick up the slack on the administrative end the Clergy are free to do their jobs.So communion takes longer. So you spend a little more time in the presence of our Beloved Lord is that so bad? I'm a woman I will never have the honor of serving our Lord the way a man can.A priest should want to shorten this honor and privilege of giving our Lord to his flock? If this Church wants to grow and not become a divided Church it needs to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the RC Church has done in the past 30 or 40 years.Been there done that it doesn't work.

Nicky's Baba

Personally, I do not like the usage of eucharistic ministers in our Church. However, as Rich has noted it is a licit occurrence. Also, as Fr Elias noted awhile back that he had witnessed the use of lay ministers distributing communion at Pasca in Greece:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/199808/0207.html

So, it is not altogether unheard of in the Eastern Church. But, it's use is exceptionally rare.

I do think there is a place for it (infirm priest, for example). But, I disagree that its usage is called for because of sheer numbers--licit, though, it may be. I think this is where the faithful can make their thought known to our heirarchs.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

I think the relevant canons should be reviewed for clarity so here they are:

Canon 709 §2

§l. In cases of true necessity, deacons may distribute the Divine Eucharist.

§2. In the same cases, even minor clerics and members of the laity can be designated to distribute the Divine Eucharist.

1o. A parish may have one person designated for this purpose plus another for each 75 communicants at the Liturgy.

2o. The metropolitan Liturgical Commission is to prepare a program of training that includes theological and spiritual formation, the selection process for candidates and a practicum.

3o. Those persons may take communion to those who, by reason of illness, infirmity or age, cannot attend the Divine Liturgy regularly.

4o. If any priest or deacon is present at the Liturgy, in any capacity whatever, he is to make himself known to the principal celebrant and shall distribute the divine Eucharist, vested insofar as possible, and taking precedence over any minor cleric or lay person present.


These prescriptions are much more detailed and restrictive than those of the Latin Church. First of all, it is made very clear that even a deacon may only distribute if truly necessary. Second, the intention of the law is that each parish may have at least one extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. This is not to say he may function at every liturgy just because he is designated as such. And while this is unclear in the above wording, it was explained at the deacon program there would need to be over 75 people communicating at a liturgy to justify the use of a deacon, subdeacon, lector, or extraordinary minister, etc. So if at any Liturgy 75 people or less communicate there would never be justification for using an extraordinary minister, unless the priest has a disability which prevents him from distributing. At least this is my understanding.

Also, since women are prohibited from serving at the altar I believe they would be prohibited from serving as extraordinary ministers at the Liturgy. What action is more connected to the altar and Holy Orders than distributing the Holy Gifts? Much more applicable would be the use of extraordinary ministers to take Communion to the sick and shut-in. This is a much more needed service in my opinion and would be open to both men and women I believe.

I would also add I do not believe this is a Latinization at all, but a response to a need in a Church where priests are getting older and fewer and yet have more parishioners and/or parishes to serve. As far as breaking with Byzantine tradition, no one here has objected to the idea of a deacon or subdeacon distributing but this also is unheard of among most of the Orthodox Churches. As far as I am aware only the Antiochians allow the deacon to distribute the Gifts and this only at a Sunday Typika service which is only allowed due to the extended or complete abscence of priests. I do not believe the Greeks or Russians permit this. No jurisdiction allows subdeacons to distribute.

One must also take into consideration this is something that is going to be used at the discretion of the pastor. I believe many will pass on this. Most who use EMEs will use them wisely and only when absolutely necessary. A few will abuse it and some already were. Two larger parishes in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy have been using EME's since the Latin's started using them. Whether this was officially sanctioned because of their size or just ignored I don't know. In the end (and this is what is so difficult about implementing the reforms) if a parish priest refuses to comply, what is going to happen? Is the bishop going to reprimand him? Maybe. Suspend him? Unlikely. With our priest shortage the bishop is going to suspend priests who don't install iconostasis, commune infants, or abuses the use of EMEs? I doubt it. A priest would have to do something much more serious to merit suspension. So in the end the bishop is left with empty threats and the priests know it. This is my appraisal of the situation. If you do see abuses, probably the best way to get your pastor's attention is to tell him until it stops you will be sending your weekly envelope to the Seminary Fund. Just don't tell him I told you to do it.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Now, that's a needed dose of reality!

Thank you, Lance.

I agree with Lance that there are a whole complex lot of issues that are relevant.

First of all, when the priest is infirm or elderly, then we as a community have got to make sure that we serve the true needs of the priest and do whatever we can to assist him.

Secondly, while we may be inclined to look at the past thousand years for the paradigm, we cannot ignore the fact that in the earliest church, the Eucharist was not considered quite the "venerational" reality that it has developed into, especially in the Western church. Others than priests/deacons and sub-deacons and acolytes participated in the overall work of Eucharist.

While I'm sure that we need to be aware of the historical elements that have been implemented over the centuries, as living Christians -- subject to the graces of the Holy Spirit -- we HAVE TO make decisions for our practices based upon the law of love both for God and for our fellow Christians. God alone is immutable. Our feeble practices are not in themselves sacrosanct.

We need to adapt to serve. I am reminded of Fr. Walter Ciszek's use of "juice" from raisins to celebrate Eucharist in Soviet concentration camps. Canonically, he was definitely in the wrong. Spiritually, especially as a Byzantine (and a bull-headed Slav from Penna!!!) he did what he could. And he was truly a saint. (May his cause progress!)

Blessings!

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear brothers and sisters:

My thing is, I want to know the precendence for this in Orthodoxy. What our Mother Churches do is our standard for fully restoring our liturgical life. Is there any documentation or books that talk about lay distribution of the Holy Gifts? I think that is the big question. Does Rome know something we don't know about this LEM thing; do our Traditions allow such a thing, what do the Orthodox Canons declare or is it a matter of extreme, and I mean exxttreemmee economia? If the Orthodox Canons allow it then it should not be a problem for us, but if it is a Post-Conciliar latinization then it is a grave scandal, especially for our Orthodox brothers and sisters who would visit that particular Ruthenian parish(s), for us, and for Roman Catholics seeking refuge, in our Church, from Novus Ordo abuses in their own Church.

In Mary,


Robert

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Robert Horwath ]

Brother Robert, I don't think we should be a "refuge" for Latiniaks fleeing the Novus Ordo. That's their Church and if they think that things are wrong, then they should be fighting for an improvement rather than coming to us and potentially bringing their battles to our communities. God knows, we have more than enough issues to deal with without helping RCs fight their battles one way or the other.

As has been noted above by a number of people, the idea of non-in-major-orders clergy distributing communion is only an innovation of the last 1500 years. Prior to that, we were not so strict. (Read the "Acta Apostolorum", the Apostolic Constitutions and Hypolitus and their commentaries.) So, I suggest that one must let it go despite our own experiences, but rather look at the whole history of the Church. Though it may make folks uncomfortable, the reality is oftentimes disquieting.

So, we need to address our OWN contemporary needs and not just blindly follow what we know as history.

Blessings!

Slava Isusu Christu!

Thank you Brother John for your comments; do you have any answers for my questions though, aside from mentioning Latins or what the early church did? I really want something focused on what the Orthodox Canons say or what is Orthodox praxis; you know answers to my above questions.

Thanks.

Dear Brother Robert,

From the point of view of how you've framed your questions, Servant of Christ, you know your answers already!

There is no tradition of lay distribution of the Holy Gifts in the Orthodox Churches, period.

Strictly speaking, the practice of our Mother Orthodox Churches should be the one that we should be following, to be sure.

But we often don't either because we're lazy, or else don't want to bother to study the issue, or too easily feel compelled to follow what the Latins are doing since many of us admire them for their "contemporary modernity" and want our Churches to similarly "get with it."

Much is allowed by all Churches in situations of extreme need.

I, for one, just can't see any of our Churches being in such situations that would dictate that we break the traditions we share with our Mother Churches of the East.

Alex

Lance --

In the OCA it is not uncommon for a deacon to distribute the Eucharist, together with the priest, if needed (ie, if there are not enough Bishops/priests to distribute efficiently).

All --

I think that the Latin Church is just in a different circumstance on this one. Our churches (whether Catholic or Orthodox) are, for the most part, much smaller than the typical suburban RC megaparish. The larger RC parishes operate on a fairly rigid liturgical schedule on a typical Sunday, having to move the faithful in and, importantly, out in time for the next Mass. It is important, therefore, that Masses not last longer than they presently do, and at this stage, therefore, the use of additional Eucharistic Ministers in the Latin Church is no longer optional -- it's built into the scheduling, which itself is built into the size of the church buildings, their capacity, etc. One could rework the present arrangement by making the present "LEMs" subdeacons ... but I'm not holding my breath on that one. That would mean, in effect, either excluding women (and that's not going to happen) or bringing women into the subdiaconate. I am not at all against that, but I honestly don't believe that the RCC is going to go there -- not for some time.

Brendan

Here I go again , picking at nits, but this is one of the things that really gets to me at times.

It has to do with terms and their usage.

Can someone show me in an offical Church document where it speaks about LEM's, Lay Eurcharistic Ministers, or Communion Ministers?

The proper title is EEM or Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. This title shows that it is not to be used all the time. To get around this they have tried to rename it to LEM or Communion Minister.

What Brendan had to say above is true, to keep to the schedule of Masses in the Latin Church it is necessary to make use of them.

Sorry once again for picking at those nits.... I promise that I will stop before they bleed.

Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Friends,

Brendan makes an excellent point, as usual . . .

It seems as if the fact of multiple Masses is what is the cause of the problem, especially in larger parishes.

When you have one Divine Liturgy, as in an Orthodox Church or smaller, traditional Eastern Catholic Church, then you will have priests concelebrating who can assist in the distribution of Communion.

In my parish, we have a good number of Priests (knock on wood!) who are always concelebrating and there are therefore three or four Priests on hand to distribute the Holy Gifts.

Alex

On the Julian-date feast of the Entry of the Mother of God into the temple, "C nPA3DHUKOM!'

Oh, man, oh, man, where can I go with this without forgoing charity?

My suspicion is that the discomfort/disquiet about lay ministers has its roots in the complexly developed theology of the Eucharist.

Yes. Liturgies, rites, can and do change, but do so organically and at a glacial pace.

The Church has come a long way from the "passover meal/agape meal" to golden monstrances held in brocade with squadrons of acolytes with candles and incense.

But as I thought you knew, and as Orthodox and pre-Vatican II liturgical movement people knew and know, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But transforming the understanding of Jesus' original mandate: "take and eat..." (given by a man who didn't wear gold or brocade) to the need to recreate the environment of an Imperial court for His 'True Presence' seems to have brought us down the wrong path.

So are all your nice words about "us Constantinopolitan Christians' nothing but condescension or a kind of sentimentality related to your ethnic Greek heritage? Really, if you think liturgically the apostolic Churches have gone down the wrong path as you describe, you sound more like a Protestant than an o/Orthodox.

Perhaps we should have developed a much greater theology of the Eucharist that emphasizes the fact that reception of Christ in the bread and wine is a communal action that gives grace? (Rather than on the 'Just Jesus and Me' outlook.) Perhaps there should be more emphasis on the 'sharing of one loaf' that is broken and divided to nourish the many?

Exactly what the Roman Catholic liturgical movement wanted, without any vandalism of the rite, and looking to the Orthodox as a model. Also what some Orthodox like the late Fr Alexander Schmemann were trying to say, also AFAIK without proposing any drastic change to his rite.

Thus, it would not be a question of 'profaning' the Eucharist by allowing a non-ordained person to participate in the distribution.

Look at the Novus Ordo — whose practice you seem to favor emulating — where such innovations happen. Thanks to it, only about 30% of Roman Catholics in the US know what the Eucharist is. (Impartial source: a Gallup poll.) Mass attendance has plummeted. Vocations dried up. Face it: the glorious renewal is a crock of der'mo: something no Orthodox Church wants anything to do with. Perhaps, just perhaps, Dr John, Rome was right to condemn the minimalism of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia of the French Revolutionary era and similar trends condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei (1947).

While I prefer (personally) to be communicated by a priest or deacon, I don't think that we do any 'disservice' to Our Lord by allowing one of His servants to assist in the agape of the "Thanksgiving".

Lest I be accused of being a pharisee, I understand extreeeeeeeeme ekonomeia, like when that Russian Orthodox priest fell ill during Liturgy. Or a case described by a former forum regular where in Greece the village church was so mobbed at Pascha that the priest delegated some sticharion-wearing men (minor clergy?) to help with giving Communion. (It's true that in our churches this practice is very, very rare — practically unheard of.) Such extreme economy is what Roman canon law (and Eastern Catholic canon law) envisioned, and what the Roman Church imagined when it allowed extraordinary Eucharistic ministers. What is going on there today is an abuse.

(I find it interesting to note that the notion of Jesus being mandatorily present in the bread, also allows for abuses by those who think that they've got Jesus 'captured' in the bread. Thus, things like "Black Masses" etc. are possible. Were the emphasis on the fact that Christ is present in the bread and wine only for a believing congregation led by its bishop or priest, then all their thoughts about 'capturing Jesus' would vanish; i.e., "He's not there for you." Just a thought.)

Be careful here — while the context of the Church (yes, community) is essential to the Orthodox understanding of the sacraments (which is why we don't play the lines-of-succession game with "independent' bishops, etc. — no Church, no orders!), the above comes dangerously close to denying the objective Real Presence. This subjective view is that held by many Protestants — heresy.

Last month at our parish's anniversary celebration, none of my Roman rite guests were sorry to see a lack of LEM's. The feedback I received was quite the contrary. They didn't seem to miss "communion in the hand" either.

Perhaps this is because "the people of God' in the Roman Church don't really want the antics of liberal church workers, like unnecessary EEMs and Communion in the hand.

LEM's in an extreme situation is one thing; for expample, here at the Russian Orthodox Church about eight years ago the priest became extremely ill after before the distribution of Communion and ordered the Cantor to distribute it. The priest had triple bypass surgery a couple of days after this event. This was reasonable under the circumstances.

Agreed!

I apoligize for not liking the idea of LEM's in the Byzantine rite AT ALL.

I don't apologize for it and place it beyond the arena of mere opinion.

To me it's acquiescing to the Roman Church [again].

Yes.

Reading the quotations from Catholic canon law scared me — it seems the Orthodox way of following immemorial custom is better (and of longer standing historically) than the alteration of rites by fiat, which is how the NO was invented and how the Catholic authorities now are treating the Byzantine Rite in the Ruthenian Church.

What our Mother Churches do is our standard for fully restoring our liturgical life.

Speaking from one of your Mother Churches, chor pojët, "Amin'!'

Brother Robert, I don't think we should be a "refuge" for Latiniaks fleeing the Novus Ordo.

COPOUT! It seems you're worried those pesky refugees won't let you proceed with your plans to undo 1,000+ years of what you think are wrongheaded liturgical practices so you can become LIKE the NO yourself.

One could rework the present arrangement by making the present "LEMs" subdeacons ... but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Yes, take the most pious men in the parish and tonsure them into minor orders! That's what they should do.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

As for the objections that in the early Church people took the Holy Gifts home and communed themselves, etc., context, context, context. Why not bring back the severe penances of the early Church, too?

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

I agree with you and you state your case well.

My reference to the early Church practices surrounding the Eucharist was not to somehow bring forward support for their return, but to make the case about why they were later banned by the Church and especially by St John Chrysostom.

The fact is that we pick and choose which parts of the heritage of the early Church we would like to see brought back and which not.

Were the canons you mention brought back, well, that would certainly sober us up in the least . . .

And church "reform" seems to be going one way only, down the road of convenience and ease while a healthy self-discipline and asceticism keeps falling by the wayside.

But this seems to be lost on a number of ORDO-nary Catholics . . .

Love your website, Serge, just love it!

Alex

Maybe I should restrain myself from responding has I am just coming off being exposed to some of Richard John Neuhaus' drivel, but here it goes:



This question is simply a step child of the liberal Catholic liturgical innovation of frequent communion, which for our particular church was adopted at a rate that I am sure does not meet Serge's test of glacial.



Golden monstrances held in brocade with squadrons of acolytes with candles and incense should be excluded from our church. And it is too much a imitation of a secular court, to which we moderns have no relation too and we Byzantines have no tradition of.



Not pastorally beneficial for the times is not the same as the wrong path.



I would suggest it is you Serge, who lacks orthodoxy if you accept that understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist is legitimately determined by a monosyllablic response to a one sentence Gallup survey. I don't consider the Roman Mass a crock.



Nope. Wrong. Reactionary ideology trumping fact and truth once again. Nothing other than biased opinions of those who do don't accept the premise to begin with. EEM are extraordinary in the same sense as auxiliary bishops or national parishes, or religious priests outside the authority of the ruling bishop.



Well, if YOU are legitimatize "popular rule" here, the hard evidence is that the Roman laity are quite content.



Mimicking the Eastern Orthodox never saved a single soul.



Ahh! In one statement, the basis of all Sergeism!!!! You see, under Sergeism, despite what was once said by some obscure first century Rabbi, Man WAS made for the Sabbath rather than the Sabbath for Man. We have a set of rites and rituals and then must find men to follow them. If the past community does not appreciate them, then we bring in the 'Latiniaks', who hopefully will. After all, it is the rite that is important, not the people!



LEM are, for all essential purposes, subdeacons. I am for us spontaneously to start using the term; which is all it is, a change in terminology.

However, I also understand (and if Serge does, he obviously discounts it) that the history of the subdiaconate has abuses attached to it, and in this case, real abuses, not imagined one.

Hi,
I agree with Serge on his points regarding the Novus Ordo. I am not a Refugee Latiniak. I have changed Churches. I could have gone to a few other Latin Churches and had been satified but someone from the Byzantine Church invited me to Liturgy and by the 4th. Liturgy I attended I fell in love. It would take an atomic blast to get me to leave. I also have recently learned that on Dad's side the folks came from Galicia.I am still searching to find out if they were RC always or might have been BC before they came over.So maybe I just came home.As far as the canons read.How do they read? Female altar servers were a result of how canons read. It said altar servers blah blah blah. Since it didn't exclude females in the language or state only males that is how it came about. A loophole. Do our canons provide any loopholes?

Nicky's Baba

Thanks, friends, Alex and Nicky's Baba. I see a sort of inverse law at work here: the nastier Kurt gets, the closer I am to the truth.

http://oldworldrus.com

Sorry to have tossed so many burrs under so many saddles.

I think that my brother Serge has done a lot of extrapolating from my actual comments.

My sole point is this: Theology is like literature. It is written interpretations of what a theologian, bishop, patriarch understands. As theologies develop over time, the perspectives of the different churches tend to favor one or another theology. (Augustine, Basil, Greg the Great, Acquinas, etc.)

I was suggesting that the development in the past West of the "Royal/Imperial" theological model of understanding the "True Presence" has led to perspectives and practices that might not be beneficial for us today. In the East, the "True Presence" perspective never became "Royal-ized" -- all the royalty we experienced were pagans or Islamis, except for a relatively short period of Byzantine glory. We're more like the Jews in this respect: veneration, adoration, worship "fear of the Lord", and honor. But not really crowns.

This "Imperial Christ" has led the Western church to fear possible desecration of the Celestial Emperor -- so reception of communion became sparse because we are unworthy to approach Christ; there was fear that the wine might spill in passing the chalice, so that practice was stopped; the 'bread' stopped being bread (makes crumbs that might come loose and fall to the floor) so a wafer was developed; the symbolism of the breaking and sharing of the Consecrated Loaf among the priest/bishop and people also went away (crumbs, you know), so the priest broke the "agnus" over the paten and consumed it himself, including running a moistened finger over the surface of the paten to ensure that no particles would be missed.

The "Imperial Christ" theology of the "True Presence" that developed in the West has, in my opinion, led to a perspective that oftentimes flies in the face of what the Christians of the first centuries believed and understood. And a perspective that is alien to what has been legitimately practiced in the East over the centuries.

I'm not raising up a revolution against all that is "old", and therefore "sacrosanct". I'm asking a question about theology. The answer should be a theological one, based upon accepted beliefs and traditions; not a re-hashing of cherished pseudo-theological hobby-horses that we always try to integrate with each other, mostly unsuccessfully. And to introduce tangential elements, like the necessity of re-introducing penances and administrative disciplines from the first centuries, really begs the theological question and merely presents a red herring.

Is it THEOLOGICALLY permissible to divorce our understanding of Christ's "True Presence" among His people from the "Royal/Imperial" theological model and substitute, for example, the theological model of "Good Shepherd" who both feeds and chases after the sheep of His flock because He loves them? Or the theological model of "Christ the Teacher" who is the way, the truth and the life? Or another metaphor that He presented in the parables? [Not to be picky about this, but I can't recall any place in the Gospels where our Teacher referred to Himself in the "Imperial/Royal" model. What's our justification for doing so?]

Blessings!

Lance has quoted the canons from the Particular Law which authorize a very limited usage of LEMs. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Liturgical Instruction for the Eastern Churches.

http://www.cin.org/docs/eastinst.html

21. The ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage

Among the important missions entrusted especially to the Eastern Catholic Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (n. 24) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (can. 903), as well as the Ecumenical Directory (n. 39), underscore the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things. These are important principles for the orientation of the ecclesiastical life of every single Eastern Catholic community and are of eminent value in the celebrations of divine worship, because it is precisely thus that the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have more integrally maintained the same heritage. In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.

58. Who should distribute the Eucharist

Can. 709 § 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches establishes that it is the responsibility of the priest to distribute the Eucharist, or also the deacon if the particular law of the Church sui iuris so disposes. The subsequent paragraph grants the right to the Synod of Bishops of the patriarchal Church, or to the Council of Hierarchs, to establish norms by which other Christian faithful can also distribute the Eucharist.

Therefore, assigning to the deacon or even to other faithful the task of distributing the Divine Eucharist depends on the instructions of the particular law. It is indispensable to remember, however, that these instructions must be coherent with the specific context of the liturgical tradition in which they are inserted. It should be remembered that all the Eastern traditions emphasize the greatness of the mystery of holy Communion. An ancient Syro-Chaldean commentator describes the presentation of the sacred gifts to the faithful with the following words: "The Holy One comes forth on the plate and in the cup, in glory and majesty, accompanied by the presbyters and deacons, in grand procession. Millions of angels and servants of the fire of the Spirit go before the Body of Our Lord, glorifying him. All the people and all the sons of the Church rejoice when they see the Body come from the altar." Therefore, reserving the distribution of the Eucharist normally to the priests has the scope of manifesting its highest sacredness. Even if this excludes enhancing the value of other criteria, also legitimate, and implies renouncing some convenience, a change of the traditional usage risks incurring a non-organic intrusion with respect to the spiritual framework to which it refers. Therefore, it is appropriate that the faculty of distributing the Eucharist by those other than the Bishop or the presbyter, or the deacon if so disposed by the particular law of each Church sui iuris, be exercised only in the case of true emergency.

*******

Just because something is licit does not mean it should be implemented. Those who feel that we should not "mimic" Eastern Orthodoxy may feel we should blaze a new trail for the Eastern Churches. I submit such is a mistaken route.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

I think we are already a refuge. The key phrase is "potentially bringing their battles into our communities".

More than once I have been irritated by traditionally minded Romans balking at efforts in the parish to de-latinize things, BUT at the same time I think it is our responsibility to show Roman Catholics that they have a definate alternative in the Byzantine Church if they so choose. The result can be truly serendipitous. These people might be seriously malnourished spiritually.

As for "fighting for an improvement" I wish it were that easy.

If someone comes to us for bread, we'd better seriously consider what our response will be.

My irritation with my fellow parishioners is mine to resolve; part of my personal development. Not always easy but I'd rather bite my tongue now and again than say "check another parish in your neighborhood" or "write to your bishop". I'd rather not bear the consequences of that.

With Best Wishes to all!!
Stefan-Ivan

I have read your point, David, but I always have to ask: who wrote this? and when was it written?

Again, it is a THEOLOGICAL perspective that has definite roots in a specific socio-cultural perspective. And in this case, it is a Western model of canon law and rule-writing. I'm not so sure that it is really that cogent.

I agree with Stefan-Ivan on our relationships with our Roman brethren. To be sure, there are many who come as true pilgrims and it is our blessing to have them come to experience our spiritual pathway. I also agree that we should not, willy-nilly, suggest to the refugees that they seek their salvation elsewhere.

The unfortunate aspect of this is the fact that since they are technically members of the 'majority community', they may not have the sensitivity to understand that their mere presence as refugees and their sense of 'safety' among what they consider to be "traditional" Church, can lead them to reassert their beliefs, sometimes (oftentimes?) to the detriment of their hosts. This is unfortunate. What's the solution? I'm not sure.

In terms of extraordinary eucharist ministers, it's an administrative issue for the bishops. While the Latins have been sluiced into this practice because of necessity, we don't have the mega-parishes that have led to it. (Would that we did!) If, at some time we are so short of clergy and so overwhelmed with parishoners, that we have to look to eucharistic ministers, then we should look at it to serve the needs of the people. In that case, the need to follow the patterns of our Orthodox brethren is certainly abrogated. (And I'm sure that if our Orthodox brethren find themselves in a similar situation, they too will respond in the best interests of the people.)

Blessings!

Blessings!

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

I have to answer with a resounding no to E or LEMs, and this from an EO with an extremely charitable attitude towards the Catholic Church
(to put it lightly).

I think that one of the only ways for Orthodox to appreciate the Eastern Catholics is for them to resist Latinizations as much as possible. Inevitably if LEMS are adopted by Byzantine Catholics, then women will almost certainly get involved-women normally in the altar? I've seen it in Orthodox convents, of course, but many would have a problem with that in a regular parish setting.

Serge worried about sacrificing charity.

I'm not.

There is no charity in lies.

I think lay distribution of the Eucharist is a damn-fool idea - Latin, Byzantine, Copt, whatever.

(I think I've made my views clear)

Just a search for inforamtion at this point.

Before the question though, I do want to thank Kurt for his statement that the Latin Liturgy celebrated according to the Novus Ordo is not a crock. Like him, at this point, I bypass the implication that the Novus Ordo is the root of all the problems that the Latin Chruch experiences. I also bypass the implication that these problems are peculiar only to the Latin Church among the Apostolic Churches.

(By the way, this is not the information that I seek, but what exactly is der'mo anyhow for those of us who are not expert in slavic languages? Am I correct in assuming that it is not a theological term which is a respectful word used by one Christian about the liturgical practices of another Apostolic Church? In this I hope that I am incorrect.)

This thread contains, in my opinion, misunderstandings and misinformation about the Novus Ordo, its origin, the attitude of Ordo-nary Catholics about asceticism, the causitive effect of the Novus Ordo on decline in church attendance and so forth. But it's much too late to begin a posting for the second night in a row.

So, I'll content myself with a request for more information.

Am I understanding the discussion? Is it being stated here that the historical and current Eucharistic practices of the Byzantine Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, do not have roots within the Byzantine Imperial Court? It has been my understanding that they do, hence the Royal doors, for example.

It is late and I may have misunderstood or I may have been misinformed.

Have a peaceful rest!

Steve

JOY!

Please do not allow the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

This topic has caused me to say (again) that there is no Unity of the Faith. The institutiion of LEM is an abuse of economia. Why don't the Latin's allow a married clergy?!!! I am tired of hearing about the shortage of men into the priesthood or the priest is too old! Byzantine Catholics who do not address these questions tend to be agnostic or embarrassed. This discrepancy between the Eastern & Western Churches will continue to drift further apart. The West will not go back to its point of origin to discover & to implement the Holy Traditions before the Schism. For all you Orthodox and considering-to-be-Orthodox this topic is a waste of time since it will not be resolved and Rome will continue to be Rome the uncorrectable.

It was produced by the Eastern Congregation in Rome. The principal writer of the commission which produced the document was Ukrainian Catholic. My impression is the Liturgical Instruction is usually opposed by those who aren't really interested in re-union with our Orthodox counterparts.



I think there is a lot of merit behind the viewpoint expressed in the Liturgical Instruction. Healing the wound of our schism with Orthodoxy should be a major goal of our Churches.



I've been to some rather large Orthodox parishes and not one of them have had lay distribution of the Eucharist. I've never seen that there's been any indication such has even been contemplated. Again, I think for ecumenical reasons (at least many of us Eastern Catholics do rank eventual re-union with our Orthodox counterparts as very important) we should not be innovating a practice which has no correspondence in Orthodoxy.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Robert,

If this is all a "waste of time" what is your purpose for posting here? Do you come here for constructive dialogue?

Are you saying that who distributes the Eucharist is a matter of "faith"? If it's economia then isn't it a disciplinary issue?

On such disciplinary issues: While I was in Phoenix, AZ I got to know the pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East. They are sometimes called "Nestorian" and are the counterpart to the Chaldean Catholic Church. He was bothered by some latinizations in the Chaldean Church (unleavened bread, priest facing the people, etc). One of his complaints was that "when Rome changes, they [the Chaldeans] change too!" So, I was a little unprepared when he asked how we Ruthenians received the Eucharist. I soon learned that the traditional Assyrian way to receive the Eucharist has always been to receive in the hand (as per St Cyril of Jerusalem). The way it is done there is very reverent, however. Shortly before Communion, the deacon goes through the congregation and he incenses the hands of those who intend to receive. As they go up for Communion the censor is left open for the people to incense their palms again before receiving the Eucharist in their hands. I learned a bit that day about various disciplines.

As to your question on the Latin tradition and married priests. I don't consider myself either "agnostic" or "embarrassed." The Latin tradition has been to ordain only celibates for the priesthood. It is for them a disciplinary issue. Those who enter the priesthood in the Latin Church voluntarily choose celibacy. We in the Eastern Church also highly value celibacy. Our monks and nuns voluntarily choose celibacy as a condition of their monastic life. We used to have married Bishops in the Eastern Church (pre-fifth century). Our discipline changed to only allowing celibate men to be ordained Bishops. Perhaps someday the Latin discipline will change, I don't know. Not really sure if I've answered your question.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Well, let me elaborate on this. Sometimes Romans want to delatinize, sometimes they are "hyper-Byzantine" (I'm sure with reflection, a better term could be found) that are quite vocal and disruptive for the failure to not implement the most recent eastern tradition they read about in some book (and not always accurately!).

Speaking of our tradition, it most certainly is NOT an "alternative spirituality" for Latin Catholics. It is the box, wrapping paper and pretty bows that the Gift of Faith comes in.

The bread that we must not deny anyone is the Universal Catholic faith, not the externals of the Byzantine patrimony. Yes,if someone cannot accept or rejects the Gift of Faith when it comes wrapped in the Latin gift box but can accept the gift of faith wrapped in the Byzantine gift box, we must accept them. The hungry must be fed.

But (to change metaphors) we must not confuse the Bread and the bread-box or teach so to others.




BTW, for our Ruthenian Church, I'm of the inclination lay distributors have no utility, its some of the philosophy behind the objections I have a problem with.

On the above point, I'm sure the observations are correct. I have to also say my observations at Orthodox parishes is less than 15% of the adults recieving at all. (an Orthodox friend tells me, 'really? That's 50% ABOVE the practice at my parish).

But I think we need to be very careful not to project our own preferences into interChurch issues. Whatever comments individual Orthodox have made, Orthodoxy has never raised these issues in ecumencial dialogue.

I think it is wonderful that Eastern Catholics consider themselves children of both Rome and Constantinople. But they should not play the old trick of when you don't get the answer you want from Daddy, then going to Mommy!!!

Dr. John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I thank you for emphasizing the theological perspective of the EEM/LEM issue. I'm less convinced, however, that your argument is, in fact, correct. Are you really saying that in the Greek East we have no conception of Christ as Emperor of the World? What, then, is Maximos the Confessor, et al. talking about when referring to the Cosmic Christ? And what of the most famous ikon of Christ in the Orthodox Church: Christ Pantokrator (Ruler of all things)? Does any of this matter to your interpretation?

I agree that the Greek Christian theology / understanding of the Eucharist is slightly different from that of Latin theology. But certainly no Church Father or ecclesiastical writer, to my knowledge, has ever denied the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood.

I recognize that the praxis of the early Church, pre-4th century, is markedly different from the way we approach the Eucharist today. But I seriously doubt that the present practice is actually a result of Roman Catholic legalism. If that were the case, how did the anti- or non-EEM/LEM practice -- I can think of no better way to say this -- grow in the East (where the influence of Scholasticism etc. was minimal, if not non-existent)?

I consider the theological issue underlying EEM/LEM messy, and perhaps not definitive either way -- which is why I set it aside in order to concentrate on the practical, pastoral need. I still fail to see that such a need exists in the Byzantine-Rusyn Catholic Church, pace our bishops who did.

If I have misunderstood your remarks, please accept my apologies.

Lastly, you reference the Acta, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Hippolytus. Would you kindly state the citations upon which you are relying? Thanks.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

[On the above point, I'm sure the observations are correct. I have to also say my observations at Orthodox parishes is less than 15% of the adults recieving at all. (an Orthodox friend tells me, 'really? That's 50% ABOVE the practice at my parish).]

Though I don't doubt there are still Orthodox parishes like you claim. Especially the very ethnic ones, those statistics you give are completely false in the Orthodox parishes I have attended, including my own.
In my own parish I would estimate that at least 85-90% of those in attendance receive Communion on a regular basis. Private Confession is offered after Saturday Vespers and 45 minutes prior to Liturgy on Sundays. In non Lenten periods General Confession is offered the last Saturday (after Vespers) once a month. If someone is just coming to General Confession once a month the priest will have a talk with them to impress upon them that General Confession is not a replacement of private Confession. I would have to say that over 95% of the parishioners that attend Liturgy on a regular basis have Communion more than just once or twice a year.
In the parish where I was brought up in, most people received twice a year. But things have changed drastically in the last 20 years are so. Communion takes at least 15 to 20 minutes in my current parish. Frequent Communion is common in all the OCA, Antiochian, & Moscow Patriarchal churches I've attended.
I did however, attend a small Albanian Orthodox Church for awhile and noticed a difference in Communion practices between the younger and older generations. The older generation would receive about twice a year (Pascha and Christmas) but they would prepare themselves for a full week prior to receiving by Confession, very strict fasting & praying. many of them would only take water for 24 hours prior to receiving. The younger generation received more often and also attended Confession more frequently. They observed the standard fasting practice of no food or liquid from midnight on.
I don't find your statistics accurate at all as the average for Orthodox Churches here in the U.S. In Russia frequent Communion is the standard not the exception.
A few months ago there was a Presbyterian Minister and his wife at the Liturgy. After the service he seemed surprised at the amount of people that received. He asked me if it was a special occassion because there were so many. He didn't seem to believe it when I told him no that the vast majority of those people took Communion every Sunday. He said that it was not what he had seen in the last Orthodox Church he was in. I asked him if it was a Slavic Church and he replied no it was Greek. When I asked him how long ago he replied "About 20 years ago". So things have definitely changed in the Slavic churches here in the U.S. And I can't speak for the Greeks because I haven't attended many Liturgies in Greek Churches.

OrthoMan

It seems this new version of the forum has a filter option.

Goodbye, Kurt.

http://oldworldrus.com

Hi Dave,
I have not detracted in saying what I said. Distribution of any Sacrament is a serious matter held within the Faith. Certainly, you would not accept a Sacrament from the hands of a person that broke from Holy Tradtion but then again you might. I think your usage of nomenclatures such as disciplinary issues & tradition are distintive from one another and that their involvement is that of a rite. How far are you willing to go to speak about the Unity or disunity of the Faith being largely disciplinary issues? For many in the Roman Church believe that all priests must be celibate. They do not see this as being soley disciplinary but essensially a requirement part of the Faith. For the Eastern Church it's an open option that complements our Faith.
I wonder if I am making myself clear if not I am certain that I will hear from you. Why are the Eastern Catholic Churches experiencing difficulty
by not having a married clergy? Isn't it Roman imposed discipline that is essential to their faith? Tell me no and I will not believe you.

Dear Rum Orthodox,

Just a piece of information about priestly celibacy in the Latin Church. This practice is not a matter of Faith. We understand that, because of Church Law, the Hirearchy of the Latin Church will not ordain married men to the priesthood but married men are ordained to the diaconate. It is a matter of Church Order arising from theological reflections and the practical issues of nepotism in the history of our Patriarchate.

As such, changing the discipline requiring clerical celibacy is a topic which is quite frequently discussed. That discipline is not a universal practice even within our Patriarchate since there are married men who are active as priests in the Latin church. There have even been married men ordained to the priesthood, with special dispensation, following the consent of their partner and the partner's entry into religious life.

I hope that this clears up the misunderstanding.

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Please do not permit the written expression to impede the meaning or the love!

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Is there anything ontologically different between a man and a woman that prevents a bishop from ordaining a woman for any ministry on the nave side of the iconostasis? Deaconesses were considered clergy, no?

Dear Steve,

I think the issue with Rum Orthodox begins not with clerical celibacy but with that which arises from his calling Roman Catholics "Latins" (read "western heretics").

If we could somehow clear up that issue, the other one will be a piece of (wedding) cake.

Alex

Dear Edwin,

Actually, the act of consecration of a deaconness was never considered a kind of "ordination" into Holy Orders.

Thus, deaconnesses do not belong to the "clergy."

Sounds like you're tending toward "gender relativism . . ."

O.K., O.K. I'll leave it alone . . .

Alex

Alex,

Actually, you and Edwin have hit on the point as to why the Church wants to distance itself from continuing the "tradition" of minor orders and instead develop a new understanding of lay ministries.

In former times ("tradition" in some minds) those in minor orders were "clergy" for civil and canonical purposes. Now, this could be a long discussion, but I think most Catholic scholars would consider this practice, even though "tradition", was an abuse. Sometimes this non-sacramental clerical status was given to men in order that they could have power over the Church's temporal goods.

The point being that all this talk of this is tradition and that is tradition is in reference to a tradition that is seriously flawed.

K.

Dear Kurt,

Coming from you, Friend, you have not only paid me a compliment, but lifted my spirits for which I thank you!

You are absolutely right, of course, and the abuses as you have described them were very real.

At one time, this also extended to the unfortunate situation with the creation of Cardinals.

A pope whose name escapes me once met a group of hunters coming into Rome.

They told the pope they were cardinals and the pope, never having seen them before, denied that.

When he got back to his residence the pope then found out that they really WERE cardinals made so for administrative duties only.

Again, perhaps you could enlighten me (as you have on so many occasions) with respect to the role of the "subdeacon."

I have a friend who is an Anglican subdeacon and he tells me he didn't need any special "ordination" to fulfill that role.

I've read about the evolution of the diaconate, but what about subdeacons?

And how are the LEM prepared for their roles?

God bless,

Alex

I have a friend who is an Anglican subdeacon and he tells me he didn't need any special "ordination" to fulfill that role.



The Anglicans haven't got minor orders, but when the Anglo-Catholics brought back Roman Catholic ceremonial they often would have a layman act as subdeacon at solemn Mass, where there are "three sacred ministers', priest, deacon and subdeacon. One of his jobs is to chant the epistle.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

Yes, I once saw the three standing on three different steps one behind the other.

You mentioned a "filter option" before.

What is it and when would I know if it is ever used on me?

Alex

Yes, I once saw the three standing on three different steps one behind the other.

Exactly.

You mentioned a "filter option" before.

What is it and when would I know if it is ever used on me?

Supposedly by choosing this option on a person's profile you can ignore his or her posts, which I take to mean they don't show up when you log onto the forum. I don't think the post-er is notified.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge,

Is there anything you DON'T know? By the way, your website is SO good and I've learned so much that it ain't funny.

Alex

Kurt,

You are wrong. The Church is still encouraging and even demanding the restoration of the minor orders in the Eastern Church. Read the "instructions on applying the liturgical prescriptions of the Code of canon law of the eastern churches" and it clearly says that.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

You may be right about Kurt being wrong, however. . .

In my Particular Church at least, the idea of minor orders as a permanent kind of ministry is not an issue.

The ultimate goal of anyone obtaining them is to eventually become a Priest. Our former Bishop toyed with the idea of having greater lay participation in the Church, but he preferred to bless them for certain works that, admittedly, the minor orders did before.

The Church brotherhoods have, historically, been a kind of lay ministry in that they had no minor orders, but still often wore a cassock of sorts and performed various liturgical functions.

I don't know the answer here, especially since our parishes will do what they darn well please anyway.

We're not as disciplined as you Ruthenians and Melkites.

Alex

Orthodox Catholic:

You mean Rusyns, not Ruthenian. Right?

Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

Absolutely. And we are all children of Rus'.

Alex

My Brothers and Sisters in the Faith,

I have been learning my catechism here recently. It introduces me to a Latin Catholic Church that I don't know. Let me share what I've put together from postings in this thread and others about my Church.


Question 1. What is the source of evil and violence in the world?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Latin Catholic is synonymous with heretic. The Latin Church is heterodox and without Grace. Celibacy is a matter of faith in the faithless Latin Church.

Incorrect religion is the source of evil and violence in the world. The Latin Catholic Church is a form of incorrect religion and responsible for evil and violence in the world. But it is not alone, there are other incorrect religions in the world. None of them are of God, of course.

This is soo confusing! I think I'll have to hear Rum Orthodox teach me my faith a few more times before I get it.

Question 2. What is the cause of the decline of the Latin Church, which alone of the Apostolic Churches has experienced poor attendance, deviance from correct asetic practice, and has members moving to other Churches?

Why the liturgical renewal and the Novus Ordo. They were created by a cabal which hid all evidence of change until it was fait accomplie. Most Latin Catholics are running screaming from the doors of their heterodox churches seeking discipline and solace and wisdom that their own Church does not offer. This is especially true since it has reincorporated as the new Catholic church which has become Protestant and is led by the Pope who evidently has become Moslem because he has kissed a book.


Question 3. How can the Latin Catholic Church make things right?

Recognize the error of Her ways. Return to the orthodox way. Deny Her spirituality and Her history of the past 1000 years and her practices. She should negate her theological expressions.

Did I get it right yet? By the way what is a crock of der'mo, anyhow?

I am not by nature a sarcastic person. But enough is enough.

Please accept my apology if I have offended anyone.

Steve
JOY!

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Monk Elias ]

I appreciate Theophilos' comments on my trying to "theologize" on the images of how we envision the Lord's "True Presence".

I am NOT, in any way, denying anything about the "True Presence" of the Lord in the Eucharist. For me, I greatly cherish my rather short "quiet time" after receiving communion before we begin to belt out "May our lips.... [love that hymn and the standard melody! Great potential for harmony!!] But to me, it's a most wonderful time of being united with the Lord. But it's the Lord that I've heard about in the Gospel. It's the real human Lord who called out: "Lazarus, come forth!"; Who raised the daughter of Jairus; who performed His first miracle --at the request of His mother -- to save family friends from embarassment over running out of wine; who parried with the Samaritan woman about food being given to dogs and her response: 'but they get the crumbs from the table!' ZING!

We are constantly told that Christ is both "true God and true man", that is: a human being like us, in ways that I can understand as a sorta-kinda ordinary workin' Joe. He was a carpenter; so's my cousin. (Another's an electrician; another runs a restaurant - how Greek!; another is an X-Ray tech in a hospital. Decent, hard-working people.) Maybe during the days of Empires and Kingdoms, the concept of Kings and Emperors had their places -- but I suspect it was primarily political in that opposing "Divine Right" monarchs would put your salvation in jeopardy. (Hmm. Sounds like Christ in the Gospel, right?)

For me, I love the Lord because He came to us human beings with the key to both salvation and happiness. If we follow the prescription of 'loving God and loving one's neighbor', then one's salvation is assured. He said so. AND, as an added bonus, living one's life in consort with the Teacher/Rabbi's command, one gains an incredible sense of peace; one can deal with illness, death, suffering, loss of job, friends/relatives/beloveds who don't act in a loving way, and natural (and man-made) calamities without collapsing.

Jesus came as an ordinary human being, to give us the "good news" of what God wants of us for our salvation. I don't think that it's an accident that He came as an ordinary one of us and not some Prince or whatever. It's taken me many decades to come to understand the incredible "Big Bang" of Jesus' appearance on this earth as both God and man. When one thinks about it, it's jaw-dropping and a real "deer in the headlights" phenomenon.

But if He's an "emperor", it's going to be real hard for me to identify with His earthly presence. It appears to me that there was a reason that the Lord came in a manger, went to the Temple where He got caught up with the process and kept His folks waiting and worried (damned teenagers!), worked as a carpenter and lived among us as a real human.

So, sorry about my concerns when we turn the Lord's eucharistic "Real Presence" into some culturally defined concept of being an "Imperial Lord" and not the reality of the 'babe born in Bethlehem'. But, I'm also not happy about the 'guitar strummin' Jesus in the corral' either.

They are both metaphorical impositions upon the reality of the Scripture that are apparently sops to the aspirations of certain groups within the Church. And we can sop as much as we want and validate it by saying we are trying to make it 'relevant' to the unchurched observers. So we get Eskimo Jesus, Imperial Jesus, Black Jesus, Latino Jesus, RC Jesus, Orthodox (Ukrainian) Jesus, Orthodox (Greek) Jesus, and the angry WWF Jesus of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

So, if I ask for representations of the Lord according to our traditional iconic images (I mean the EARLY stuff!), then I'm not innovating (God forbid I should do that!!), but I'm trying to ensure that we don't get sidetracked by the Black Jesus or the Imperial Russian Jesus.

I just want to know (and honor) Him as the Scriptures tell us He was. No robes, no crown, not swarthy skin, nor epicanthic folds, etc. Just the Lord.

Blessings!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RichC:

The competent scholars/authorities have already made changes to the Liturgy far beyond what exists in contemporary Orthodox practice.

Can you give any examples of this?

Eloquently put, Dr. John. The wonder is in the reality!

Steve
JOY!

OK, how about:
- Changing the priest's/deacon's introduction to the Symbol of Faith (to "With wisdom let us profess our faith");
- Suppressing the introduction to the Epistle reading;
- In the Trisagion, suppressing the "Glory to the Father..." and "Holy and Immortal" and repeat of "Holy God" (not official but has already been implemented in parishes);
- Eliminating most petitions in the Ektenia before the Lord's Prayer, and combining the rest of the petitions into one.

I'll reserve my comments about them, since I am neither a liturgical scholar nor a competent authority. But simply put, the Orthodox Churches' text/rubrics of the Divine Liturgies don't match the above. In fact, with the exception of point 3 (which is now the official usage in Slovakia), the other Byzantine Catholic Churches have not done the above either.

These are from the current (provisional) Liturgy of the Eparchy of Passaic, but it's certainly possible that they will become standard usage throughout the Metropolia.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: RichC ]

Hahahahaha...I always thought the National Shrine Jesus was terrifying...and too blonde.

No offence to blonde people...

Dearb Alex,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Deaconess in the Great Church of Constantinople was seen as an ordained minister. As we can see in the copies of the service books that refer to deaconesses, Her ordination was verbatim that of the male deacon. She communed with the other clergy immediately after the male deacons and was given communion under both species at the altar in the holy place of the Temple. Indeed, she was the only woman allowed into the Holy Place of the Orthodox Temple.

Deaconess were older women, unmarried or a widow.
Was she a male deacon, no. Her purpose was to see after the widows and orphans. To assure that order of the church was mainatined among the women while in the Temple. To attend all ministries of the women of the church being done by the Priest (Baptisms, annointings, unction, etc) serving as it were the chaperone for the priest to assure that he (and his female parishioner) were never compromised.

Today in the Orthodox Church of Greece there are several Deaconesses, however they currently are limited to Convents and appear to serve as the priest's chaperone when ministring to the nuns and serve the deacons functions during the Divine Services.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

That may be the case in your area, Kurt. Out West in most OCA, Greek and Antiochian parishes the percentage is closer to 85 per cent who receive Communion. In fact, I cannot think of a SCOBA parish I've attended that would match the description you gave. I believe many ROCOR parishes do not practice frequent Communion.

At any rate, even at the "mega" parishes with ultra long communion lines there are still no lay eucharistic ministers. They seem quite content to sing hymns during this time (can be up to 20 or more minutes in length!)

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Thomas,

Do these deaconesses sing the parts reserved for a deacon, proclaim the Gospel, cense, etc.?

Slava Isusu Christu!

Thomas can you provide real-documentation regarding your post, I would be interested in some cites.

In the Theotokos:


Robert

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your post on Deaconesses!

Wow - is all I can say! I thought that women weren't allowed into the Sanctuary, something that a deaconess would have to do to fulfill the exact same liturgical function as a deacon.

I too would be interested in learning more about this and will keep a completely open mind until you or I are proven right.

(Unfortunately, one of us will be wrong . . .).

God bless!

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

I have no problem with the early Jesus (but really, what's wrong with the Ukrainian Jesus?).

But there's the rub and the difference between a theologian and a sociologist.

My point would be that one can NEVER separate Christ from the historically conditioned prism through which we, weak and sinful humans, view Him.

Therefore, the Imperial Christ or other is just as valid for the people that construct their own cultural icon of Jesus as yours.

Your Jesus is no better, no worse than the others you mention.

As for the WWF, I was an amateur wrestler in high school and regularly invoked St Nestor, the friend of St Demetrius, to assist me.

I am happy to report that he did on occasions too numerous for this humble sportsman to recount . . .

Alex

Par. 73: Whoever is enrolled in a minor order is no longer a lay person.

While the Code of Canon Law speaks of ministries that can be permanently assumed by the laity, "through the prescribed liturgical rite"(Canon 230 Sec.1), the minor orders, rather, are inserted in the ecclesiastical hierarchy according to the level of each one. Whoever has received these orders, therefore, is no longer a lay person, but becomes what the liturgical books of most Eastern Churches call the "clergy" or "Sacred orders....."

Par. 74: The ancient practice of minor orders is to be maintained

It does not seem appropriate that the different churches sui juris change their customs regarding minor orders, once shared by all the Churches.... Far from abandoning them, the reforms of particular laws of the different churches should rather restore them to greater significance and vitality...

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Page 67.

anastasios

Dr. John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for your response. I agree with you (especially, with the Feast of His Nativity approaching, on the awe-inspiring, deer-in-the-headlights fact that God became man). But I would prefer not to spearate the two "conceptions" of Christ -- man and God: Christ as baby in the Cave, Christ circumcised (think about that one!), Christ as hungry, thirsty, etc. together with Christ as the eternal Logos, Christ as the only-begotten of the Father, Christ as King. I think both images need to be balanced against one another. There is a dialectic at work that we simply cannot resolve, I don't think, but which is nonetheless fruitful. In proper apophatic spirit, perhaps we are not meant to rationalize it, but to contemplate it, to pray on it unceasingly.

That said, my reason for insisting that we not lose sight of Christ as Emperor is this (and correct me if I stray). In St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, we read that man was created as what? As a king! Human beings, according to Gregory, constitute a "royal race"! Listen to this exposition:

"For as in our own life artificers fashion a tool in the way suitable to its use, so the best Artificer made our nature as it were a formation fit for the exercise of royalty, preparing it at once by superior advantages of soul, and by the very form of the body, to be such as to be adapted for royalty; for the soul immediately shows its royal and exalted character, far removed as it is from the lowliness of private station, in that it owns no lord, and is self-governed, swayed autocratically by its own will; for to whom else does this belong than to a king? And further, besides these facts, the fact that it is the image (eikon) of that Nature which rules over all means nothing else than this, that our nature was created to be royal from the first." (De hom. op., iv.1)

So what does this suggest? From the standpoint of theological anthropology, if Christ is true man, the perfect human, and is -- despite his lack of purple robes, etc. (see Nyssa, again, or Chrysostom, Comparison of a Monk and a King) -- truly king, then all men are likewise called to royalty, to become kings. If we lose sight of Christ's true kingship (which I never suggested was akin to Byzantine or Roman or most other human expressions of empire) we lose sight of the fact that man -- be he carpenter, electrician, or what have you -- is himself called to royalty. Christ Pantokrator = Christ as true and perfect Emperor.

Perhaps this has taken us off the subject, but I thought it important to clarify.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Alex and Mor Ephram,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I hope that you are having a glorious Feastday of St Nicholas today!

Thank you for both of your responses. Here is a little more information about the Orthodox Deaconess from an Article written in the Orthodox Herald.

"The office of deaconess is described in the New Testament and Phoebe was called a deaconess in Romans 16: 1. This office is codified in the "Didascalia" written in the first half of the 3rd century and in the "Apostolic Constitutions" written in the later part of the 4th century. It is also mentioned at the 4th Ecumenical Council which met in Chalcedon in 451.

At first, only widows who had been married only once were admitted to the office. Later, virgins were also admitted. The age of admission varied through the years from 40-60 years of age. Once admitted they were not allowed to marry.

Deaconesses were ordained in the altar by a bishop by the imposition of hands. They were robed in a stichar and an orarion (deacon's stole). They were addressed as "reverend", "Most honorable" or "most pious". The episcopal prayers of ordination of a deaconess have not been revoked by the Orthodox Church and they can still be found in the books.

The deaconess had specific duties. Among them was to instruct privately female candidates for baptism, to assist at their baptism which was by total immersion, they did the anointing with oil at the baptism as it was not considered proper for the male clergy to touch a woman, they visited and cared for the sick, they were present at interviews of women with the bishops or priests, they dismissed women catechumens from the church and kept general order in the women's section of the church (men and women were segregated as they were up to about 25 years ago in our churches in America), and they did other duties delegated by the bishop like helping the poor. They were in a sense the educators of women in the faith and social workers. Deaconesses were ordained in the Eastern Church as late as the 12th century. The office was disused in the Western Church somewhat earlier."

Other resources indicate that they communed at the altar after the Deacon and that they were the only women allowed there. They were viewed by many bishops as men in "all manner except for their physical appearance".

The following are some excellent websites that more fully develop the historical Orthodox Deaconess. The first is probably the best with excellent Bibliographies of full books written on this matter, biographies of Deaconesses from Church History, and many articles addressing this issue. The site is www.angelfire.com/pa/deaconess/

The second is the website for the St. Nina Quarterly, an Orthodox jouranl pertaining to women and their ministry within the church. It has excellent articles written by respected female theologians of the Orthodox Church and interviews with Kalistos Ware, Patriarch Bartholomeos, and others. The site is www.stnina.org

The third site is not my favorite as it is an ecumenical site advocating for the ordination of women to the priesthood (something I am Not for) however their site on the deaconess ordination is an excellent site with multiple citations of historic documents noting how, why, and when deaconesses were ordained and some of their historical duties. their site is www.womanpriest.org/traditio/deac_ord.htm

Many orthodox bishops have gone on record wishing to restore the historic ministry of the Orthodox Deaconess but they also want to assure that this does not become a tool for modernists and feminists to get their foot in the door pertaining to the ordination of women to the priesthood.


Mor Ephram--- yes in the Greek Orthodox Convents that have Deaconesses, they function fully as deacons with the Proclaiming the Gospel, the prayers, and the censer. As I understand it--- it is and was only in Convents that the deaconess functioned in this capacity as a deacon as compared to the description of their duties noted above.

As I understand it the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Antioch, and Georgia have agreed in principle on the need to restore the office of the Deaconess. As is the norm in Orthodoxy the actualization of this as an active office in the Orthodox Church could take years. Most Slavic Churches are not interested in this renewal, probably because it was not actively used prior to its suppression in the slavic churches.

Holy Saint Nichols Pray for us!
Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Actually, in the womens monastery that I visited, (St. John the Baptist, GOA in Goldendale, WA) the nuns frequently went into the altar to do stuff.
I think that's fairly common for convents, but certainly not in the average parish!

In Christ,

Michael

Thanks for the reply, Theophilos.

I agree wholeheartedly with your idea that there is a type of dialectic going on, where we use the basic information of the Scriptures and some of the early writings to establish our foundation for our knowledge of the Lord. It is surely possible for each successive generation (and each successive geographic region) to somewhat superimpose analogues upon the foundational image. Thus, Sts. Gregory, John Chrysostom, Basil and the other Doctors of the Church, will naturally interpret the personage of Jesus in terms that will be easily understood by their contemporaries. Such it is with the quotes that you provided. Since they were still living in the shadow of the Great Roman Empire, these metaphors would surely have been appropriate.

But for us today, although the concept of "Emperor" or "King" is still understandable (though only through the mythology that has come down to us, and then only as filtered by "history"), I don't think it's quite the powerful image that it was "in the good old days". Most of the current European royalty exists only as symbolic appendages to constitutional governments; what's that mean? The only "Emperor" left is the guy in Japan. And he is really only a symbol of "what once was".

So, for me we absolutely must rely upon what the Gospel writers tell us. That's the base. What else we do beyond it has got to be in complete harmony with the Scripture, otherwise we'll be discovering golden plates in upstate New York, or finding revelation in a Brooklyn building. Or making Jesus into Sun Myung Moon.

So, I'll keep with the Carpenter's Son, Mary's boy-child, and the Teacher.

Blessings!

(By the by, Panto-Krator is actually "All Powerful", or "Ruler of All", not really emperor. The emperors thought they ruled all. Unfortunately for them, only God really rules all.)

Dr. John:

You will note that I correctly translated "pantokrator" above, and did not mean to suggest it was the same as "basileus."

I thank you for your comments, but worry about your historicism. What does it matter that no real emperors exist today? Does that mean we can't understand God as the true and only Emperor? Should we instead refer to him as the great and omnipotent CEO, who rules with justice and mercy over all us stockbrokers and portfolio managers? Perhaps we use the term Christ as King because that's the best we can do with our all-too-human language; I think that's what Nyssa, et al. were doing, and I think that's what we need to do today (especially in a radically anthropocentric world such as ours, in which my will is the -- and the only -- measure of all things).

As for relying on what the Gospels say: Is St. Mark's usage of the appellation "Son of Man" not a testament to Christ's Kingship? While it is true that Jesus the Christ-Messiah did not turn out to be the political revolutionary and king the Zealots hoped for, he was nonetheless the Messiah, and was nonetheless King in a very real sense. In brief, he transformed the very meaning of kingship -- an idea we find in all four Gospels, no?

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos