www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Vesperal Liturgy of Holy Saturday

Dear BOB,

I have always been fascinated by the Holy Fire! I am puzzled though about this notion of the Fire travelling to Greece. How does it do that?

I wont list the possiblities as when I started to write them they almost seem silly. Jerusalem is a bit east of Athens so it would get dark there earlier. I still think that unless there is a plane waiting to take the fire (which does not seem safe if the cabin is pressurized) it wont make it there soon enough.

If you know more I would really like to hear about it!

Tony

My contention has never been that we may never depart from the liturgical models handed down to us, but that we accept them as models first and then decide which deviations may be appropriate and which inappropriate. There is such a thing as "liturgical theology" that should guide these deviations.

If one checks, one finds that the models themselves account for the infirm/ill, those traveling, those with child, etc. They are fully exempted. And each of us proportionately so, according to our unique situation. A father confessor or counselor can assist us with this.

The discussion of the number of hours fasted, per the strict model, is useful only to the point of demonstrating how the relatively increased preparation for the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on the Eve of Pascha ("Holy Saturday Vesperal Divine Liturgy") corresponds to the super importance of the feast.

As Theophan was instructed, so was I. Orthodox Christians fast from midnight or the final evening meal [the monks would consume the Litya (bread, wheat, wine, and oil) around midnight before the weekly Sunday Divine Liturgy and then move on to matins]. And as a result, the innovation of a 7:00 PM Presanctified Liturgy has meant that (A) in years past I nearly crashed the car on the way to Church, having fasted from midnight. And now (B) I haven't communed at a Presanctified Liturgy during the past two years.

So any change that harms the faith of the believers must be considered as seriously suspect. For example, I can personally like and work toward the Aleppo Statement proposing an unified date for Pascha, but if implementation will lead to significant division and even schism, then I would have to back away from the innovation.

Anastasios,

as I recall, the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Philadelphia has the Presanctified on Fridays at 12:00 noon. I hope that you are not missing my point regarding people putting work aside for a morning, mid-day, or afternoon service. They might pick one or two such services per year and hopefully not have to take vacation time in order to do it. I don't have that much flexibility at my work in a Roman Catholic organization. I was the guy who had to take the vacation day. And trust me, it did me a lot more good than sitting on the beach!

If someone or something is holy, then it is "other" and is "set aside." We are called to put the world "on hold" once in a while. Or as Irenaeus said better than I could: if all good things were given to us without a struggle or any suffering, then we would be like the spoiled child who appreciates and is thankful for nothing.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

That you are not communing for 2 years at a presanctified indicates a problem (not with you personally).

That you suggest people set aside ONE day to go to presanctified a year indicates a bigger problem (again, not with your thinking, but with the way that this is being practiced).

Presanctified exists so that Orthodox Christians can commune more regularly during Lent, on a REGULAR basis. One time doesn't cut it, neither does going and not communing. One should go every Wednesday if possible and commune each time.

Also, the bit about vacationers, elderly, etc., being "exempt"--well everyone is exempt from everything, my friend. I don't HAVE to go to Church ever if I don't want to. But Church exists to strengthen so I go, also because I love God, also because I want to be faithful. I don't have to fast during Lent, but I do because it is an opportunity. Sure, you can say that if a person can't make 3 pm presanctified they are "exempt" but that defeats the purpose because a) they don't "have" to go anyway, and b) they are missing the opportunity for spiritual growth. Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it has come out here, Andrew, but I am taking your thought to a conclusion.

You should ask your spiritual father for a dispensation from fasting that long. Or be reasonable like St. Vladimir's Seminary practice and take a small breakfast. If you cannot drive because you are so hungry, you are not fasting properly. Sabbath exists for man, not vice-versa.

As far as some sort of "norm" that can never be deviated from, that certainly cannot have a patristic basis when we see that Lent was changed several times, that there used to be a fast from Aug 1 to Sep 14, that the Presanctified was invented as some point, etc. Things develop.

Thanks for the info re: the cathedral with 12 noon presanctified.

I just have a hard time putting your thought together with what I am learning here at St. Vladimir's. You went here, did you reject a lot of what you were taught and the way things are done here? I am not trying to be judgemental and maybe St. Vlad's is wrong but I see very different approaches here.

In Christ,

anastasios

Who mentioned CHEESE ?
Gimme - I really really want some.

How about some FRESH goat cheese...

Sorry Anhelyna, just had to get that in But wait a minute, I can't have any either for a few more weeks...at least that gives me time to make a bunch by Pascha.

Sorry - I never managed to get the taste for that - your supply is safe.

Dear Anastasios,

We know that the Lord taught the the faithful this way, "...when you fast..." Note that he didn't teach "if" you fast. So you are not exempt from fasting. Some form of fasting is obligatory. My method when teaching or preaching is to describe the model, the context in which it has traditionally be kept, and commonly accepted (over time) diversions from the model.

If I must repeat, what I'm suggesting is that setting aside one or two days a year on which one would make special arrangements to be absent from work would be something reasonable for most employees to seek from their employers. Some people will be able to arrange more flexibility. That's even better.

I never take my typikon into another man's monastery. In effect, on this site we all express our own typikon (and hopefully) how we have derived that from the canonical models. They do at SVS what they do. With 90% I'm in complete agreement. I wouldn't presume to go there and "tell" them what to do. Their bishop is the only one who should "tell" them what to do. In my own parish, I may express myself and attempt to influence the local "typikon." On this site, we're in no one's monastery or parish, so all may speak freely, in love, of course.

i know some relatively normal, married, parish-serving priests who won't set foot on SVS. I don't agree with them, but I understand and sympathize with them.

I fear that you've failed to understand the difference that I tried to highlight between Presanctified Liturgy and the regular offeratory Divine Liturgy. As a chanter, for example, I've gone many times with priests to the bedsides of sick people. The priest communes the sick believer from the "presanctified" reserve sacrament which was consecrated on Holy Thursday of the previous year. This humble service in someone's home or hospital room is serving the same function as the Presanctified Divine Liturgy that we normally encounter on Wednesdays and Thursdays. You will note that the priest does not usually commune along with the sick person. Ask yourself why?

And you are not exempt from attending Church. Check the holy canons of the Church(es) in which you commune. You will find that failure to attend (not commune, but attend) for three consecutive Sundays without cause of travel, sickness, or "difficult business," actually causes one to be "cut off. {Scripturally, the whole OT and NT Paul invoke us to attend each week]. Again, it is a model for regular participation. We don't necessarily adhere to it that strictly, but after a couple of months, a caring community and pastor should seek out the lost sheep and warn them that they must attend or risk being excommunicated.

The scriptures insist on regular participation. Our theology implies frequent communion. But it also implies that we commune only if prepared. It is very serious business.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

I will admit I am being loose here. The fact is I don't have to fast and I don't have to attend Church, but the Church gives these things to me willingly. A canonical excommunication serves as a sign that one has separated himself from the community and is imposed with the hope it will bring the person back. Only an anathema permanently separates someone from the assembly.

Btw, it is my understanding that the Canons say you are excommunicated if you do not COMMUNE for three weeks in a row, not if you do not attend. So where does that leave the millions of believers who have grown up with the erroneous belief that it is ok to commune once, twice, or three times a year? Of course those canons are no longer applied.

As for your suggestion of the "special day", I still reject it even though I see you are well-intentioned. Church sanctifies our life. It is a part of it, not something "special" apart from our daily living. We should not do work that actively interferes with Church attendence if at all possible but we also should not stick to old timetables of Church services just because that's the way they were done in the past.

The only special time I would take off for is Good Friday. If you wish to take off for other days, be my guest and you are certainly to be commended for your effort. I don't think one special day or even two has the same graces though as regular attendence at the mysteries.

Fasting should never come in the way of reception of the Eucharist. Remember, the Church instituted fasting before communion in order to reemphasize that communion is special. If you already believe and recognize that, and have a special case for why you can not fast totally, the spiritual father should be mature enough to recognize that and grant your dispensation. The Eucharist used to be celebrated right after the agape meal, so there is nothing dogmatic about fasting for 1, 3 9, 12, or 18 hours before it. I certainly fast and believe it to be necessary but we can't let fasting interfere with regular communion, which is THE goal of Christian life.

In Christ,

anastasios

Alice:

Please don't feel put down or weak about your fasting discipline. I was trying to make an observation and elicit further information.

My instruction was by priests of the Russian Orthodox tradition in the Metropolia (now OCA). It was very strict and allowed of few exceptions even after consultation with my confessor.

Dr. John's observation is also correct. I went to many a class and not a few final exams a wreck. It is very difficult to concentrate when one has not eaten or drunk anything for many hours on end. Lots of severe headaches during that period of my life. But at the time, I thought it was for the best cause.

I also don't want you to think that I am bragging about the length of the fast. I thought all Orthodox Christians fasted with this level of intensity at that period and didn't meet a priest who would, as a spiritual father, mitigate this level of discipline to allow for an individual's particular needs. I remember well a young female colleague who landed in the hospital due to her concentration on fasting and wondered then how one did it when one worked for a living.

I didn't meet a Greek Orthodox priest until many years later and learn that the fasting disciplines could be tailored with the advice of one's confessor.

I have continued to learn and came across a very good quote from an Orthodox saint who says that this is one of the means to acquiring the Holy Spirit of God. Fasting is a means, not an end in itself.

Tony:

I first learned of the Holy Fire from Bishop Theodosius (now Metropolitan Theodosius) when he was Bishop of Pittsburgh and visited a parish where I regularly attended. Later I was told more of the story by the Dean of the Greek Cathedral in Pittsburgh during the period when I attended professional school in the city and attended the Liturgy there. I wondered how they got the Holy Fire to Greece, too, and can only imagine that someone got on a plane with it, though in the current climate I doubt that anyone would get on a plane with something burning.

There is something that I also remember about the Holy Fire and that is said that it "appears" in the Tomb. It may be at midnight or it may be later, but the Paschal Service does not start before its appearance. Another thing that I remember is that it is said that it is "handed out" in the hands of the Patriarchs. I have been told that it does not burn the one touching it but gives a bright light.

Please understand that I have this second hand. I have been told directly about it by two clerics that I have no reason to believe would make up such a story. Still it is fascinating. I have also been told that the Holy Fire disappears at the Ascension, much like the Latin tradition of extinguishing the Paschal Candle after the Gospel on Ascension Day.

The Holy Fire tradition must have a great history behind it because I have read accounts where Orthodox writers have remarked that the Latin New Fire had to be lit from the Greek in the Holy Land.

Maybe someone can get some more recent experience of this and share it with us.

BOB

Dear Anastasios,

May I be so bold as to ask you to look up the particular canon in question? ABp Peter and Dean/Professor Ericson will love you for it!

It refers to attendance at the weekly offering, not reception of the eucharist. And yes, it is still applied, but over a longer period of absence since travel is now more frequent and over greater distances and "difficult business" has become usual.

There is another canon which excommunicates one for leaving (in rejection of) the eucharistic celebration. Early commentators explained that this was not to be applied to those who failed to commune out of humility and a sense of unworthiness (all are unworthy). Zonaras called it "lowliness of mind."

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear in Christ Andrew,

So it appears I was wrong on this and there are two different canons. I will go check out one of the 9 copies of the Pedalion/Rudder that we have in the library and check the canons. I will, however, comment on the cannon of not receiving in the circumstances described below:

>>>There is another canon which excommunicates one for leaving (in rejection of) the eucharistic celebration. Early commentators explained that this was not to be applied to those who failed to commune out of humility and a sense of unworthiness (all are unworthy). Zonaras called it "lowliness of mind."

Obviously there is a difference between the canonists and what the liturgists say. My liturgics professor said that what you write above is a fourth to fifth century corruption of the earliest practice, that everyone communed at each liturgy, and if they didn't for three consecutive weeks, they were excommunicated. As the Eucharist got more and more elaborate, people got more and more of a feeling they "couldn't partake." Utterly strange. We are all unworthy, even the priest, and yet God calls us to draw near. We shouldn't ever avoid communion because of some sense of "lowliness of mind." That is outrageous and blasphemous, if I may be so bold. Its effect on the Church was horrible; thank God the Kolyvades Fathers and Schememann in the East and Pius X and others like him in the West pushed frequent communion.

To me, to say that one can't commune out of unworthiness is to say that one cannot receive God's grace of healing, which is part of what the Eucharist is all about.

anastasios

Although my brother Anastasios and I have crossed swords on many occasions in the past, I am in total agreement with his posts on this topic.

Rising up to an eagle's eye view of the whole situation, we must realize that Christ brought salvation to each and every soul who accepts His word. ("all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved"). The church is a collective - a group of those who have been baptized and who gather together to both pray and worship, AND who gather together to support one another. When we let the 'traditions' superimpose themselves upon the people, we are inverting the pyramid. It's the people who come first, not the 'rules'. Should anyone doubt this, then examine the legitimate traditions of the Churches and see how they can vary from community to community. Not "one" is better than the other; they are both equally different - and legitimate.

The absolute critical element is the person's spiritual state; the second critical element is the person's participation/affiliation with the 'community'. The worship of the community should be adjusted to meet the needs of the people. If one is in a mill town, where assembly line folks work from 7 to 3, then a 5 pm evening liturgy is fine. If in a city, where the work day is 9 to 5 or later, then it's best to have the liturgy at a later time so that folks can get there. And if individuals work late shift, from 3 pm to 11 pm, and they can't get to liturgy, then the person should NOT feel 'guilty', and the community, knowing the person and his/her circumstances, will not even think twice about the person's absence.

Rules are fine. But people are finer. Serve the Lord's servants; and gain your salvation from the Lord.

Blessings!

Note: some folks should empty their e-mailboxes so that certain other folks can send a personal message without its bouncing back and causing the bouncee to use nasty language. Hint. Hint.

Dear Anastasios,

I don't believe that you are reading my posts carefully or applyling logic carefully. You certainly don't know what blasphemy is.

Regarding "corruption," are you or your source suggesting that the ecumenical council passed a different canon which actually expelled those who failed to commune after three consecutive weeks? Are you proposing that the original canon has been altered and that the great body of the Church is in unwitting colusion with the "corruption" of the original text?

Or are you proposing that the ecumenical council itself, which passed said canon, was corrupt or egregiously deficient in its ecclesiological and soteriological understanding?

Please edify me.

The commentator's point on the other canon was explaining that someone who abstains out of a sense of unworthiness is not to be excommunicated as we would one who abstains/departs out of "abhorrence" or rejection of the eucharistic offering. The commentator is not praising those who abstain solely out of "lowliness of mind," but explaining that it is not a reason to cut someone off from the body.

For example, in another canon, it states that a clergyman may abstain from the receiving the offering, but he is obligated to inform the celebrant of the reason. This is to prevent an actual case of, or speculation that the clergyman abstained because he felt the celebrant to be deficient or somehow invalid. In other words, there are good reasons why a clergyman might abstain, but foolish pride or mockery of the celebrant's validity are not good reasons.

I'd like to know how you derived the following?:

"To me, to say that one can't commune out of unworthiness is to say that one cannot receive God's grace of healing, which is part of what the Eucharist is all about."

I hope that you are not attributing it to me.

Of course one "can" commune, the question is whether or not one "should" commune on any particular day.

Your statement might lead one to conclude that one could not receive "God's grace of healing" without communing. Do you really want to circumscribe Him in this way? Do you know where the Spirit is not working?

If one "should" commune under all circumstances (I believe that this is where logic takes your argument but I certainly welcome you to limit the scope of my attribution), then one necessarily rejects all canonical pennances [I refer to lengthy periods of abstention from the eucharist due to sin]. If so, you have a problem with 2000 years of NT tradition, not to mention OT tradition and the Holy Scriptures themselves. What did Paul do to that coppersmith?

In the extreme:

Kill someone yesterday? Repented of it by today? Sure, come on over and commune!

Really, why not? The person will receive "God's grace of healing."

I would use Mary of Egypt and other examples to attempt to persuade you of the Orthodox tradition, but based on your previous posts, I'm not sure if you wouldn't just consider them to be anachronistic fairy tales. I really don't want to know.

I contend that God's healing power is half of the story. Understand this powerful word "synergia" and you'll understand the point of the disciplinary canons which merely reflect the Tradition of the Holy Church.

A blessed lent to you and your loved ones.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I certainly was not applying anything to you personally. I would never intentionally attack you personally.

Since you accused me (in a nice way) of not reading your posts carefully enough, and since I am at work right now, I am going to wait until later to answer your post so that I can do it more attentively.

Sincerely in Christ,

anastasios