Updated August 21, 2007
August 17, 2007 - The Elvis Fragments . . . a response
Dear Father Steven,
What a wonderful surprise to read your reflections today! (Perhaps especially your reference to Prof. Verkhovskoy's sensitivity to the sad fate of "Norma Jean.") It prompted me to recall that I was actually IN MEMPHIS when Elvis died, and will never forget the wild events of that week as the eyes of the world turned to Graceland.
Elvis indeed had become something of a living "patron saint" of Rock and Roll, with huge mega rock stars like Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones making pilgrimages to meet 'the King' while he was still alive, and to in some way 'receive his blessing', or have conferred upon them some measure of the charisma he himself possessed. (Similar to Elisha receiving the mantle from Elijah.) My idols in my raging teens were Led Zeppelin. Somehow their musicianship, their raw power, and their pseudo-mystical side all appealed to me. But I later realized the true idolatrous nature of it all, and when in my late twenties, I sold all my bootlegs, posters, books, etc.
These sorts of fascinations are not to be taken lightly. They can exercise a domination over one's soul that can be absolutely totalitarian. For the musicians, performers, actors or stars themselves, there is certainly an implicit Faustian bargain formed, which is all too difficult to get out of, which in many (if not most) of their cases results in their reduction to being way far less than they might have been, even as they are exalted more and more by their adoring fans. Truly, who cannot dispassionately look at performers like Mick Jagger or others still carrying on, and not see them as somehow sub-human, reduced to being merely an elemental power of some sort, stripped of real purpose and meaning, and only serving themselves the false idol they so eagerly set up decades ago! The ones who do not survive, like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean , Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, and, alas, Elvis, become somehow revered by their pop worshippers, yet in truth, they were destroyed by their lifestyles and the madness and despondency that was perhaps symptomatic of their souls aching to be freed from the very lie they were so intensely living. Perhaps this captures some of the pathos Prof. Verkhovskoy was expressing.
What might Elvis have become had he survived those awful, final bloated years in which he finally died? I think the finest example we could ask for of a true survivor from among our pop idols is Johnny Cash. As the movie 'Walk The Line' so achingly renders, he could have easily perished like so many of these others, and become the country version of Elvis, Hendrix or Morrison. But somehow, through love, and perhaps we may be so bold as to say, through God's Divine Love, he survived, persevered, and was truly redeemed through a long, fruitful and devotedly faithful marriage. Cash too was a legendary Gospel artist, and all the way through to his final recordings he eloquently expressed (or chose songs that did express) the theme of the repentant sinner in the hands of a loving and merciful God. One cannot but be impressed by the intense sincerity and honesty of his mighty voice, and be moved by the obvious thankfulness with which Mr. Cash lived the second half of his life. That he somehow balanced his creative spirit with his solid Christian faith and his resolve to live as a thankful penitent the rest of his days is a profound testimony to those seeking to be true to who they are, even along the difficult, and in its own way, narrow path of being a creative Christian artist in our crazy world hurtling towards chaos and destruction. As you and I have discussed before, there are several profound examples of this kind of artistic struggler in our Orthodox tradition, including Fr. Pavel Florensky, Ivan Kireyevsky, and of course your beloved Fyodor Dostoyevsky (who himself was 'saved and redeemed' through his marriage, his wife freeing him to create his greatest works in his later years).
Once he discovered his gift, Johnny Cash never doubted what he was called to do (make music), and after being brought to repentance and saved from the path to self (and perhaps eternal) destruction, he did not adopt a false piety of renouncing his gift, but - I believe - used his gift to give glory to God as best he knew how. His witness stands as an "anti-Elvis," as one who by his patience gained his soul.
Just some thoughts prompted by your reflections...
in Christ,
Ralph (Sidway)
April 30, 2007 - On the Genuine Christian Life
Dear Parish Faithful,
Christ is Risen!
Marty Davis forwarded the following passage to me; and I, in turn, am forwarding it to everyone else. It is clearly connected to a few of themes from yesterday's homily about living out a genuine Gospel-based Christianity that does not succumb to the formalism of "organized religion." For what Br. Damascene critiques below can also be applied to our own churches, for living in the West, we can be influenced by the same tendencies. Br. Damascene is reminding of the true depths of our Orthodox Faith where we encounter Christ in all of His fulness: - Fr Steven
"In modern Western society; many people turn away from the Christianity of their formative years because they find its truths smothered under an unreal kind of religiosity. They see that the people in the churches are not changing and becoming better, but rather are comforting themselves and each other in their unregenerate state. They find the the spirit of the Western churches is, at its core, little different from that of the world around them. Having removed from Christianity the Cross of inward purification, these churches have replaced a direct, intuitive apprehension of Reality and a true experience of God with intellectualism on the one hand and emotionalism on the other. In the first case, Christianity becomes something that is acquired through rote learning, based on the idea that if you just get the words right - if you just memorize the key Scripture verses, intellectually grasp the concepts and repeat them, know how to act and to speak in the religious dialect of your particular sect - you will be saved. Christianity then becomes a dry, word-based religion, a legalistic system, a set of ideas and behaviors, and a political institution that operates on the same principles as the institutions of the world. In the second case, the Western churches add the element of emotionalism and enthusiasm in order to add life to their systems, but this becomes just as grossly material as religious legalism. People become hypnotized by their self-induced emotional states, seeing a mirage of spiritual ascent while remaining bound to the material world. This is not direct perception of Reality; it is not the Ultimate. It is no wonder, then, that Western spiritual seekers, even if they have been raised in Christian homes, begin to look elsewhere, into Eastern religions. It is also not surprising that so many are turning to the profound and enigmatic work of pre-Christian China, the Tao Te Ching. In reading Lao Tzu, they sense a spirit similar to that of Jesus Christ. They see a poetic glimpse of Christ in Lao Tzu - a reflection that is faint, but somehow still pure. And to them, this faint but pure image is better than the most vivid but tarnished image of Him that they encounter in much what now passes for Christianity. Some are satisfied to stay on this path. In others of us, however, a strange thing occurs. In one sense, we are making more spiritual progress than ever before, but at the same time we are inexplicably unfulfilled. In our newfound apprehension that there is something more than the realm of the ego and the passions, we become aware that there must be something EVEN MORE - more than even the authentic Chinese tradition supplies. And we find that although we have left behind the Western Christian confessions, we cannot leave Christ behind."
March 12, 2007 - Response to Meditation on Orthodox Missions
Dear Parish Faithful,
A very interesting response to last week's "Fragments for Friday" and yesterday's post-Liturgy discussion from one of our parishoners:
_____
Dear Fr. Steven,
After reading your e-mail I bought a copy of Jenkins' book The Next Christendom, and it is fascinating reading. I think he may be overreacting a little regarding some of the perceived trends in the decline of Christianity. From my visits to several newly-formed and steadily growing Orthodox missions in England and from my current involvement with an "Emergent" discussion group made up people from various "flavors" of Christianity - there definately is a "movement" toward "re-discovering" Christianity - or at least, re-presenting it to the culture of the 21st Century.
The reaction today in Church after our post-liturgy discussion was very interesting. It seems that there is a real hunger for truth, or at least a need to know more about the diversity of Christianity as it is practiced throughout the world.
I guess I'm a little concerned that many Christians (Orthodox and otherwise) do not seem to know what the Church REALLY believes, and how to interpret it for the 21st Century. Not only does this present another barrier for those who are investigating Christianity, but because there are so many "variations" of interpretation of doctrines that it appears the Evil One is doing a fine job of "muddying the waters" by pitting Christian against Christian and damaging positive attempts to bring the Church to unity within its own ranks.
It is obvious that the Orthodox Church in America (both OCA and other jurisdictions) has a tremendous responsibility going forward in the 21st Century. The Orthodox missions that I've visited in England no longer look primarily to Russia or Greece for their pattern of operation - they are looking at Orthodoxy in America as their example.
Our parish has a healthy attitude toward "converts" - but elsewhere there still remains a very subtle general "stigma" about being a convert. However, from what I've observed - and from comments that I heard at the "Faith of Our Fathers" conference (i.e. Bishop Mark of Toledo stated that 65 - 70% of the priests in the Antiochian jurisdictions are converts!) - it seems very likely that the future of Orthodoxy lays in the hands of those who will come into the faith by choice. The challenge then is to find a way to "promote" Orthodoxy without compromising its foundational doctrines and practices.
Many people I know, who have rejected Western Christianity as it is today, have investigated Hinduism, Buddhism and Islamic Sufism because they are seeking an "experience" of God beyond pure emotionalism that many Pentecostals and Charismatics exhibit. There is a lot of interest in the "Jesus Prayer" - albeit sometimes devoid of any depth - still the "thirst" is there.
Have you considered an adult class on Jenkins' book? I think the discussions would be lively to say the least.
Let me know your thoughts
Marty
Martin (Marty) Davis
e-mail: martindavis@fuse.net
Marty Davis' Blog
Marty Davis has a wonderful blog site on which he posts his own reflections on becoming Orthodox, life in the Church, etc. He would be glad to have you visit at: http://lifeingrace.blogspot.com/
The Meaning of Sunday
Dear Parish Faithful,
I have been receiving a series of relatively short, but nicely-expressed passages concerning the meaing of Sunday and the liturgical cycle surrounding the "Lord's Day." I thought you may also find a good deal worth reading here.
~ Fr. Steven
About 15 years ago the Orthodox Churches of Central Florida held a festival at St. George Orthodox Church the Sunday of the Lake Eola Festival. A series of pamphlets that were passed out. This is the first of that series...
I. THE MEANING OF SUNDAY
In the Orthodox Church, Sunday is celebrated as the First Day of the New Creation, the day of Light and the day of new time. It is also celebrated as the eighth day, the day beyond the day or time of this world. It is the day of Resurrection, the day we celebrate Christ and our passover in Him to new life in His Kingdom.
In the Orthodox Church we continue to celebrate what the early Church celebrated on Sunday. It was then and is now the day of the assembly of God's people, the day of the Eucharist. It was and still is the day we celebrate the time we now live in, the time between the Ascension of Jesus and His second coming. Every Sunday is the day symbolic of all days. In the liturgical cycle in every Orthodox Church, in the Liturgy, we celebrate Christ the very cornerstone, the very foundation, of our lives. In the Sunday Liturgy that which is to be revealed, is experienced now as reality. This was the liturgical experience of the early Church. It is the liturgical experience of the Orthodox Church today.
In the Orthodox Church, Sunday doesn't mean something. It means everything. To express this, two important themes stand out in the Orthodox Liturgy; it is the day of light and the day we celebrate the mystery of our passover in Christ.
In Christian antiquity these themes were celebrated universally in the Church with a Vigil and the Eucharistic Liturgy. The Orthodox Church, being the bearer of the Tradition from apostolic times, remains faithful to this Lord's Day, Sunday, and the ancient Liturgy for this day. It is not man made. It is God given in His Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the day of the manifestation of the Kingdom of God, in Christ, through the power of His Holy Spirit. It is the day we give "glory to the Holy Consubstantial and Life-Giving Trinity". It is the day we bless the "Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". It is the day we "mystically represent the Cherubim" and "lay aside all earthly cares," "so that we may receive the King of all." It is the day beyond all days, the day beyond all time. This is revealed to us when we gather on the eighth day, the day of the new creation brought about through Christ's Passover. We enter into it every Lord's Day in the Lord's Day Liturgy beginning at the setting of the sun.
The Great Divide: Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity - an article by Jack Sauer
(Introductory Note from Fr. Steven: In our "Orthodox Question & Answer Forum," you will find a fairly lengthy article outlining the major differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. One of our parents had posed this question to me recently. Yet, I did not write the response. It was written by one of our parishoners, Jack Sauer. I believe he initially wrote it as a class assignment. I found the article very informative and clearly written. I made only a few minor editorial corrections. What is so impressive about Jack's article is that the fact that he is (only) fourteen years old! In addition to proving that fourteen year olds are capable of spending their time constructively, and can be engaged in their Faith, it simply remains an impressive piece from someone of that age. Congratulations to Jack and may God continue to bless his endeavors to know his Orthodox Faith better! Perhaps we will hear from him again in the future. )
For centuries, the Eastern and Western churches were united. They were governed by the same system and shared the same dogma. However, in 1054, the Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church. Since then, many differences have developed between the two churches. While some of the original Orthodox theology and practice remains present in the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholicism has adopted many new theological, liturgical, and administrative practices which have subsequently created a great divide.
Theology is the basis of religion. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism agree on many points of theology. The belief in the Holy Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin, and the belief in the Second and Glorious Coming of Christ are all taught by both churches. However, the two churches also have three major theological differences.
The first theological difference regards the Procession of the Holy Spirit. According to the Nicene Creed, which is recited in its original form in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit "Éproceeds from the Father." They argue that Scripture states, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26). This means that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. However, at the Council of Lyon in 1274 AD, the Roman Catholic Church added what is known as the filioque (Latin for "and the Son") clause to the creed, making the entire phrase read that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." It is this form of the creed that is still recited and taught in the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox do not accept this change, since no mention of a second Procession is ever made in the Creed and no mention of a second Procession is made in Scripture. The Roman Catholics say that the dogma of a second Procession strengthens the dogma of the Holy Trinity, but the Orthodox argue that it disrupts the Trinity. Obviously the names "Father" and "Son" denote very clear personal distinctions, are in no sense interchangeable, and cannot in any case refer to the common nature of the two entities. Unfortunately the nature of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father does not have such clear distinctions.
Along with the disagreement over the Procession of the Holy Spirit, there are also discrepancies over the concept of Original Sin. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that every person is born into the sin of Adam and Eve, that all humans carry a hereditary stain because of the sin. It teaches that all humans are guilty of this Original Sin, and Sin is indeed a crime to be punished. They teach that Adam fell from a state of perfection, and as such the Fall is incredibly severe in its consequences. The Orthodox Church believes that Adam did not fall from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but more from a state of spiritually incomplete simplicity. As such, he should not be judged to harshly for this action. The Orthodox teach that Adam turned away from the path of God and set his own will against the Divine will, and that all of his posterity retain his disobedience. In the Orthodox view, humans are born with the sin of Adam and Eve, and we suffer because of this sin, but we are not guilty of this sin. Instead, humans are born with Adam's corruption, mortality, and inclination to sin. Many theological differences have their roots in the disagreements over Original Sin, the most famous of which is the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Until 1854, the dogma of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not differ regarding the Virgin Mary. Catholics had long believed in the Immaculate Conception, but it was never officially a part of the church's dogma until the Pope made a decision on the issue in 1854. Since then, Roman Catholic Church has taught that Mary was born without Original Sin. They say that the only way for Mary to be able to bear Christ was if she was free from sin. The Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. They believe that Mary was indeed born with the sin of Adam, that she was born with the propensity to sin but chose not to sin. She is the only human ever to refuse sin, which is why she was able to carry the Son of God.
The third theological difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the teaching of Purgatory. Both churches agree that those who have not repented for their sins are condemned to eternal hell. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes in Purgatory, a state or place entered by those who have not made up for their venial, or lesser, sins while on earth. They have to be cleansed by some form of punishment (many Western theologians say by fire) before entering Paradise. There is never any Scriptural reference to Purgatory, and as such Orthodoxy discounts this teaching. The Orthodox instead believe that those who die and are meant to go to heaven pre-enjoy paradise, while those condemned to hell pre-suffer torment. All those who are dead continue to pre-enjoy or pre-suffer until the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment of mankind.
Liturgical practice is another area where the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches share similarities and differences. Both of the churches are liturgical, meaning that they have a certain way that the service should be performed. This is the major similarity that the two churches share that separates them from many other Christian denomiations, such as Evangelicals and Baptists. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy use the first part of the service, before the Epistle and Gospel readings, to pray for the congregation, the faithful, the clergy, and the departed. This is commonly called the "Liturgy of the People." After the readings, both churches prepare for the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Both Churches believe in the Seven Sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, Chrismation, Marriage, Monasticism (Holy Orders), and Unction.
One liturgical difference between the two churches is the Roman Catholic practice of granting a priest the ability to perform more than one Liturgy (Mass) on the same day (and even on the same altar), while Orthodox priests may perform only one Liturgy per day. Also, the Orthodox do not condone changing the Liturgy in any way. They teach that if a priest changes any part of the Liturgy, then he is not proclaiming the true faith and is therefore a heretic. While both the Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Roman Catholic Mass have the same basic structure described above, the Roman Catholic church has a less stringent set of rules for altering the Mass. Since the Second Vatican Council, priests have been allowed to alter the Mass "within reason," and as such, the presentation of a Catholic Mass may differ greatly from one priest to another.
The two churches also have many differences regarding the sacrament of Holy Communion. The Roman Catholic Church uses primarily unleavened bread in the Eucharist, while the Orthodox use leavened bread. This difference is rooted in the fact that the churches use different scriptural timelines to determine what type of bread Christ used at the Last Supper. The Orthodox Church follows the chronology of John's Gospel which places Last Supper on the evening before the beginning of Sabbath and Passover on which fell on Friday evening; Western Christianity on the other hand follows the chronology of the synoptic gospels which places the Last Supper and Passover on the same day. Additionally, in the Orthodox Church, the Body and Blood of Christ are placed in a chalice and the priest alone gives Holy Communion to the Faithful on a spoon, placing the Sacrament into their mouths. The Roman Catholic Church originally administered Holy Communion by having the priest place the Body onto the tongue of the recipient. Since the Second Vatican Council, they have taken to administering Communion by placing it into the hands of the faithful. Also, administering the Sacrament is no longer limited to the priest in Roman Catholicism. Those who have undergone training by the priest may distribute the Eucharist to the faithful. While the original form is considered acceptable, the new Roman Catholic method of administering Holy Communion is not approved of by Orthodoxy. The Orthodox argue that such a method defiles the Sacrament (as a point of fact, the new Catholic distribution method originated in Protestantism, where it was meant to show that the Sacrament is not really the Body and Blood of Christ). Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe that the Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Orthodox say that administering such a special Divine gift using the Roman Catholic methods is defiling and not respectful.
The third major liturgical difference regards to the Sacrament of Baptism. The word "baptize" means to immerse something in water, and there are scriptural references to Christ being immersed in the river Jordan by John the Baptist. Therefore, the Orthodox Church administers the Sacrament of Baptism by triple immersion into water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This practice is not only rooted in Scripture, but this is the only method ever mentioned in any ancient liturgy. However, the Roman Catholic Church has taken instead to performing baptism by sprinkling water over the head of the person. Many reasons were given by the Roman Catholics in support of baptism by sprinkling. None, according the Orthodox, justify such an innovation in a sacrament which is basic for the salvation of souls.
There are other smaller liturgical differences, which include:
ˇ The Orthodox fast on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the entire year, abstaining from meat, dairy, wine, oil, and eggs. This was the original practice of the Church. Since the split, however, the Catholics has, over the years, changed to only fasting on Fridays, only from meat, and only during Lent.
ˇ Orthodox do not kneel during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday; Roman Catholics kneel during the preparation of Holy Communion.
ˇ Orthodox have no "Stations of The Cross;" Roman Catholics put the Stations of the Cross (depictions of the Passion of Christ) around their churches.
ˇ Orthodox priests and deacons may marry before ordination; Roman Catholic clergy are celibate.
ˇ Orthodox churches point East, so that the people pray facing the Holy Land. Roman Catholic churches do not necessarily face East.
ˇ There are no orders of Orthodox monks (male and female) as there are among Roman Catholics (Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, Cistericans, etc.). More recently, many Roman Catholic monks and nuns have put away their traditional habits to become more like the laity.
ˇ Orthodox clergy wear beards; Catholic clergy are not required to do so.
Accompanying dissagreements over theology and liturgical practice are controversies regarding the administrative system of the Churches. Before the Split, the two churches were governed by a system in which an Archbishop ruled over a certain area of land, Bishops served under Archbishops, and other clergy served under Bishops. When theological controversies arose, the Bishops and Archbishops convened to discuss the controversies and then make a decision on them. These gatherings are known as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox follow all of the ancient Cannons laid down by the first seven Ecumenical Councils and still use the system of government employed by the old united church. The government of the Catholic Church is totalitarian in nature, with the Pope considered to be the supreme ruler of the church on earth. The Roman Catholic Church regards the Pope as infallible when he makes a decision on a question of faith, even to the extent that he has the power to overrule the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox regard the Ecumenical Councils as infallible, and they say, bluntly, that the Pope is only human and cannot possibly have wisdom beyond that of the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox view the Pope as a first among equals, but not as the supreme leader of the church.
While the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches share common roots, the passage of time has lead to the evolution of two distinctly different churches. Roman Catholics adopted many new dogmas which were rejected by Orthodoxy, and after many of these occurrences, a great divide formed between the Churches. However, Jesus said, ". . . and there will be one fold, one shepherd" (John 10:16). This prophecy will one day be fulfilled, and the church will unite under the true teachings and word of God. May the Lord Jesus hasten the coming of that day.
Fr. Steven,
Why do we venerate the icon before receiving communion since we have already venerated icons upon entering the church? We were always taught to cross ourselves first, then receive communion and then cross ourselves after receiving communion.
Why is there wine on the table with the bread? Is the wine blessed?
_____
This questions allows us the opportunity to explore some of our liturgical and Communion practices. Broadly speaking - and there are, of course, exceptions - we can distinguish between a Byzantine/Greek "style" of liturgical worship, together with certain practices; and a Russian/Slavic "style" and set of practices. These differences developed over many centuries and it is even difficult to trace the reasons behind such differences. Actually, this is a good example of "diversity" within a greater unity of Faith and sacramental life, and should be seen as a positive safeguard against an artificial standardization. Such diversity is evident also during Baptisms, Weddings and Funerals.
The questions above are a good example of such diversity, and also of the difficulty of tracing the exact origin or purpose of such practices. In other words, I cannot give you a precise answer! Or, at least, I have never come across one in all of my reading and study. It is much more common in the Russian/Slavic practice to find an analoy (icon stand) in the middle of the nave with a central icon placed on it for veneration. That is the practice in our own parish. (But I have also seen such an icon stand in some churches of the Byzantine/Greek tradition). Since we pass by the icon as we line up for Communion, it is only natural that we venerate the icon without simply passing it by on the way toward the Chalice. I believe that it is as simple as that.
As for the bread and wine that we partake of following Communion, we should point out that in the Byzantine/Greek tradition only the blessed bread is offered. This is what I grew up with as an Orthodox Christian of Macedonian ethnic background. I will assume the same for the Orthodox of the Middle East. (Someone please correct me if I am mistaken). When that bread even appeared is also something I cannot trace. Any bread distributed outside of Communion is called antidoron meaning, literally, "instead of the Gifts" - the Gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ, that is. Initially it was meant for those who were not receiving Holy Communion at a given Liturgy. This could be due to the fact that the unfortunate practice developed of the laity not receiving the Eucharist with any regularity, so the practice developed that they would receive something that was blessed. It could also be distributed because people keep a complete fast up to the reception of Holy Communion. Such blessed bread could provide some sustenance for those who had been fasting.
The bread and wine is characteristic of the Russian tradition. I have heard two explanations, both very practical: it further helps in "washing down" the Holy Communion, to ensure that we consume the totality of the Holy Gifts that we receive. Also, that in the colder climate of Russia, it served to "warm" those who partook of it following Holy Communion. Usually, many of our practices have such practical purposes behind them. By the way, no one is obligated to take either bread or wine. It is a matter of choice. The wine, by the way, is not blessed. The bread is taken from the prosphora loaf used for Holy Communion, and is thus "blessed" for that very reason.
Again, I cannot pretend that my answer is a "scholarly" one about this particular difference - bread only or bread and wine following Holy Communion. But I am here offering an "educated guess" together with the imput of others on this issue.
Thanks for the question!
Dear Parents,
Another idea has come to me, so please bear with me.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to get together with any consistency. But we can communicate through cyberspace, as I already do to the parish as a whole through the Monday Morning Meditations, and the "In the Life of the Parish" emailings. We could begin to do the same among ourselves as priest/pastor and parents. Therefore, I would like to begin a Question & Answer Forum among ourselves this summer. Please forward any questions that you may have concerning just about anything that touches our lives in the Church together. My answer will then go out to everyone on this list - and that should include all of the parents of children in the parish. Ask about the Bible, the Liturgy - including questions of practice and behavior - contemporary issues that relate to our children, Christian parenting, comparisons with other churches or religions, etc. Let me know if you would want me to answer as if speaking to your child, or if you are seeking information/direction as an adult that you will relate to your children. If you prefer, I could keep the questioner's name anonymous. This way, you could ask a question that you might hesitate to ask in a different setting. My experience is that there are no "bad questions" regardless of how basic or obvious. All questions lead to further clarity and understanding if posed in a genuine spirit of concern and charity. If I feel inadequate to answer a particular question, I will hopefully admit as much and point you toward other resources.
This should provide us with the possibility of a conversation of sorts among ourselves over important topics of church life.
I am eagerly awaiting the first question! If the questions pile up, I will get to them in the order that I receive them; but I will make an honest attempt to get to a particular question at some point in time.
In Christ,
Fr. Steven