Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ustav and typicon] Re: [orthodoxpsalm] Communion - subdeacon

Expand Messages
  • JAPROTO@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/3/01 1:54:30 AM, wshymans@NYCAP.rr.com writes:
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 3, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 8/3/01 1:54:30 AM, wshymans@... writes:

      << I know he has been attending St. Vladimir's Seminary but
      that does not say that is what he was taught while attending classes.
      >>

      I have attended classes at St. Vladimir's Seminary and been at Divine Liturgy
      there on and off over a period in excess of 30 years and have never been
      taught or seen of the practice of subdeacons receiving Communion with the
      clergy.

      A number of years ago, I recall reading in a source that there have been
      instances where the Holy Gifts were consumed by either pious subdeacons,
      altar-severs, or even laity under special circumstances where the priest was
      not able to - unfortunately the source of the information escapes me at
      present, but I will look through my library to see if I can re-locate what I
      remember reading a long time ago.

      However, it must be pointed out that the consumption of the Holy Gifts is
      something practical: it is a means of reverently disposing the Remnants - it
      is not a second communion. Everything that can be given is given in Holy
      Communion itself - the consumption of the Holy Gifts cannot add anything
      more. Holy Communion is a public liturgical act which has a profound
      theological significance - the Precious Body and Blood of Christ is taken
      corporately by the worshipping community in a specified order. It is complete
      in itself. Remember also that in the Orthodox Tradition we can only commune
      once within a liturgical day.

      I will say this - there is no doubt in my mind that, canonically, a subdeacon
      is not to commune with the clergy (bishop, priest, or deacon); I am not
      convinced that the "rules" are that clear with the consumption of the Holy
      Gifts, as it is NOT a second communion, but is a means of reverent disposal.


      In Christ,
      Fr. Dn. John
    • Walter Shymansky
      Father Deacon John... Just to make it clear the subdeacon NEVER received communion in the altar but is now consuming the Gifts at the end of communion for the
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 3, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Father Deacon John... Just to make it clear the subdeacon NEVER received
        communion in the altar but is now consuming the Gifts at the end of
        communion for the laity instead of the priest.
        Walter Shymansky


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <JAPROTO@...>
        To: <ustav@yahoogroups.com>; <typicon@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 8:28 AM
        Subject: [ustav] Re: [ustav and typicon] Re: [orthodoxpsalm] Communion -
        subdeacon


        >
        > In a message dated 8/3/01 1:54:30 AM, wshymans@... writes:
        >
        > << I know he has been attending St. Vladimir's Seminary but
        > that does not say that is what he was taught while attending classes.
        > >>
        >
        > I have attended classes at St. Vladimir's Seminary and been at Divine
        Liturgy
        > there on and off over a period in excess of 30 years and have never been
        > taught or seen of the practice of subdeacons receiving Communion with the
        > clergy.
        >
        > A number of years ago, I recall reading in a source that there have been
        > instances where the Holy Gifts were consumed by either pious subdeacons,
        > altar-severs, or even laity under special circumstances where the priest
        was
        > not able to - unfortunately the source of the information escapes me at
        > present, but I will look through my library to see if I can re-locate what
        I
        > remember reading a long time ago.
        >
        > However, it must be pointed out that the consumption of the Holy Gifts is
        > something practical: it is a means of reverently disposing the Remnants -
        it
        > is not a second communion. Everything that can be given is given in Holy
        > Communion itself - the consumption of the Holy Gifts cannot add anything
        > more. Holy Communion is a public liturgical act which has a profound
        > theological significance - the Precious Body and Blood of Christ is taken
        > corporately by the worshipping community in a specified order. It is
        complete
        > in itself. Remember also that in the Orthodox Tradition we can only
        commune
        > once within a liturgical day.
        >
        > I will say this - there is no doubt in my mind that, canonically, a
        subdeacon
        > is not to commune with the clergy (bishop, priest, or deacon); I am not
        > convinced that the "rules" are that clear with the consumption of the Holy
        > Gifts, as it is NOT a second communion, but is a means of reverent
        disposal.
        >
        >
        > In Christ,
        > Fr. Dn. John
        >
        >
        >
        > Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com
        > Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav
        >
        > More ustav information and service texts:
        > http://www.orthodox.net/ustav
        > http://www.orthodox.net/services
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • JAPROTO@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/3/01 1:31:17 PM, wshymans@NYCAP.rr.com writes:
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 3, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/3/01 1:31:17 PM, wshymans@... writes:

          << Father Deacon John... Just to make it clear the subdeacon NEVER received
          communion in the altar but is now consuming the Gifts at the end of
          communion for the laity instead of the priest.
          Walter Shymansky
          >>

          The purification of the cup - is not technically a liturgical act. Like I
          mentioned, I have read that it has been specifically done with subdeacon,
          altar servers, and laity under special situations. Just where and when I read
          it escapes me now - in may have occurred during the communist oppression in
          the Soviet Union and it would not surprise me if it happened in areas in
          Greece under the Turkish yolk. I haven't run across specific rules in any of
          the rubrics, nor have I run across any specific instruction in the canons -
          yet.

          If the priest has a medical problem and cannot consume substantial quantities
          of wine, then it should pose no problem - the alternative would be to let the
          Gifts spoil, or dumped on virginal ground, or even poured into a special dry
          well - none of these solutions, in my opinion, are better than having the
          remnants reverently consumed by a pious believer. Let us not forget that the
          purification of the cup is not a second communion. Yes, even though it
          contains the precious Body and Blood of our Lord after ccommunion,It is not a
          public act but the purification of the cup is part of keeping the holy
          vessels clean which is a duty of the subdeacon.

          I am far more concrned with those "Orthodox" who commune and believe that the
          "Holy Gifts" are not the actual Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
          are merely symbols (and the priest who administers the Gifts to them knowing
          this).

          In the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the mid-east, it has come to my
          attention that subdeacons have been pemitted to do the initial litanies up to
          the Third Antiphon.

          There is no mention of the purication of the cup in the "Holy Catechism of
          Nicholas Bulgaris, " except that it is the subdeacon's responsibility for the
          cleanliness of the holy vessels.

          In the Rudder I did find a reference to the subdeacon being able to touch the
          "Holy Mysteries" along with the deacon, priest, and bishop - Council of
          Carthage, XXXIII. But the discipline varies; in other cases, the subdeaconal
          limitations are the same as a reader or altar-server (p.309, The Rudder,
          printed by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957, reprinted 1983).
          It was apparent that the lowest order that can touch the Holy Mysteries was
          at one time and at one place was the subdeacon; at other times and places, it
          was the deacon.

          The bottom line is that I couldn't find anything specific regarding the
          purification of the cup. There is precedence from the regional Council of
          Carthage (circa 418 or 419) for the subdeacon to touch the Holy Mysteries.
          These same canons reflect Latin practice and require the subdeacon, deacon,
          priest, and bishop to abstain from relations with their wives, if there be
          any.

          This is a "tempest in a teapot". The letter of the "law" kills; but the
          spirit of the "law" is an eternal fountain of life.

          In Christ,
          Fr. Deacon John
        • Ploverleigh@aol.com
          In a message dated 8/3/01 9:20:59 AM, JAPROTO@aol.com writes:
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 3, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 8/3/01 9:20:59 AM, JAPROTO@... writes:

            << In the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the mid-east, it has come to my
            attention that subdeacons have been pemitted to do the initial litanies up to
            the Third Antiphon. >>

            It's not only in the middle east.

            This seems to be general and immemorial use among the Antiochians and
            Jerusalem patriarchate wheresoever they may be.

            Once, at the Greek seminary, when the Antiochain Bishop of Tripoli attended
            Vespers from the throne (he was famous for having a beautiful voice), he
            chanted the STichera of Vespers. A student who was a subdeacon from Jerusalem
            did the litanies. The celebrant of vespers is now a bishop known for his
            learning and piety and strictness in following the Holy Canons, no matter how
            obscure.

            I'm not mentioning names to keep temptation away from those who are prone to
            react rather strongly to being told things like this.
          • Karen Grisel
            As Archbishop Peter of the OCA used to say, you can find a canon to explain almost anything . And I hate to say it but this is why another OCA cleric used to
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 4, 2001
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              As Archbishop Peter of the OCA used to say, "you can find a canon to explain
              almost anything". And I hate to say it but this is why another OCA cleric
              used to say "there are 600 parishes in the OCA, and 600 typikons..."

              Yes, there may be an obscure canon somewhere, and well....maybe in Antioch
              subdeacons take petitions during ektenia, but the question should be "what
              has become the norm - what is local practise ?" Even a bishop avoids trying
              to create new precident.

              We all know of a higly explosive situation some years ago where an american
              hierach allowed one of his prominent priests (then divorced) to remarry - a
              woman from his own parish, and remain serving, in the same
              parish.......well, was there a canon to explain that ?
              maybe....somewhere.....

              It is highly abnormal to have a subdeacon consuming the chalice. As a priest
              friend of mine stated some years ago "when a bishop gives a dispensation
              from the holy canons - he is no longer a bishop". The times in which we live
              are no excuse for dispensing with, or dealing light-handedly with the
              canons. A canonical answer can be found to a situation which does not
              dispense with holy tradition and practise as we have been guided by the Holy
              Spirit...an answer which does not scandelize the faithful. If the priest in
              question can not perform his duties adequately, if it disrupts the order of
              the Church, then it becomes the bishops position to remove him and maintain
              church order.

              It is necessary to deal with situations, however painful, with love and
              compassion. This is also the duty of a hierarch, by the Grace of God.

              Father Basil Grisel
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <JAPROTO@...>
              To: <ustav@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 9:19 AM
              Subject: Re: [ustav] Re: [ustav and typicon] Re: [orthodoxpsalm] Communion -
              subdeacon


              >
              > In a message dated 8/3/01 1:31:17 PM, wshymans@... writes:
              >
              > << Father Deacon John... Just to make it clear the subdeacon NEVER
              received
              > communion in the altar but is now consuming the Gifts at the end of
              > communion for the laity instead of the priest.
              > Walter Shymansky
              > >>
              >
              > The purification of the cup - is not technically a liturgical act. Like I
              > mentioned, I have read that it has been specifically done with subdeacon,
              > altar servers, and laity under special situations. Just where and when I
              read
              > it escapes me now - in may have occurred during the communist oppression
              in
              > the Soviet Union and it would not surprise me if it happened in areas in
              > Greece under the Turkish yolk. I haven't run across specific rules in any
              of
              > the rubrics, nor have I run across any specific instruction in the
              canons -
              > yet.
              >
              > If the priest has a medical problem and cannot consume substantial
              quantities
              > of wine, then it should pose no problem - the alternative would be to let
              the
              > Gifts spoil, or dumped on virginal ground, or even poured into a special
              dry
              > well - none of these solutions, in my opinion, are better than having the
              > remnants reverently consumed by a pious believer. Let us not forget that
              the
              > purification of the cup is not a second communion. Yes, even though it
              > contains the precious Body and Blood of our Lord after ccommunion,It is
              not a
              > public act but the purification of the cup is part of keeping the holy
              > vessels clean which is a duty of the subdeacon.
              >
              > I am far more concrned with those "Orthodox" who commune and believe that
              the
              > "Holy Gifts" are not the actual Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
              but
              > are merely symbols (and the priest who administers the Gifts to them
              knowing
              > this).
              >
              > In the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the mid-east, it has come to my
              > attention that subdeacons have been pemitted to do the initial litanies up
              to
              > the Third Antiphon.
              >
              > There is no mention of the purication of the cup in the "Holy Catechism of
              > Nicholas Bulgaris, " except that it is the subdeacon's responsibility for
              the
              > cleanliness of the holy vessels.
              >
              > In the Rudder I did find a reference to the subdeacon being able to touch
              the
              > "Holy Mysteries" along with the deacon, priest, and bishop - Council of
              > Carthage, XXXIII. But the discipline varies; in other cases, the
              subdeaconal
              > limitations are the same as a reader or altar-server (p.309, The Rudder,
              > printed by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957, reprinted
              1983).
              > It was apparent that the lowest order that can touch the Holy Mysteries
              was
              > at one time and at one place was the subdeacon; at other times and places,
              it
              > was the deacon.
              >
              > The bottom line is that I couldn't find anything specific regarding the
              > purification of the cup. There is precedence from the regional Council of
              > Carthage (circa 418 or 419) for the subdeacon to touch the Holy Mysteries.
              > These same canons reflect Latin practice and require the subdeacon,
              deacon,
              > priest, and bishop to abstain from relations with their wives, if there be
              > any.
              >
              > This is a "tempest in a teapot". The letter of the "law" kills; but the
              > spirit of the "law" is an eternal fountain of life.
              >
              > In Christ,
              > Fr. Deacon John
              >
              >
              >
              > Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com
              > Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com
              > URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav
              >
              > More ustav information and service texts:
              > http://www.orthodox.net/ustav
              > http://www.orthodox.net/services
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • Philip Majkrzak
              One more question about icons. If a parish can only do Vespers and Litya for a feast, not Mattins, is there a time when the icon can be brought out of the
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 4, 2001
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                One more question about icons. If a parish can only do Vespers and
                Litya for a feast, not Mattins, is there a time when the icon can be
                brought out of the Altar, or should it simply be placsed on the
                Analogion before the beginning of the service? For example, could the
                icon be brought out at the Litya procession, and placed on the
                analagion before festal troparion? Thank you for help.

                Philip Majkrzak


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
                http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
              • Rev. John R. Shaw
                ... Though there is a widespread custom of bringing the festal icon out with ceremony at Matins, there is also another custom of preparing the icon in the
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 4, 2001
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Philip Majkrzak wrote:

                  > One more question about icons. If a parish can only do Vespers and
                  > Litya for a feast, not Mattins, is there a time when the icon can be
                  > brought out of the Altar, or should it simply be placsed on the
                  > Analogion before the beginning of the service? For example, could the
                  > icon be brought out at the Litya procession, and placed on the
                  > analagion before festal troparion? Thank you for help.
                  >
                  Though there is a widespread custom of bringing the festal icon
                  out with ceremony at Matins, there is also another custom of preparing the
                  icon in the middle of the church before the service begins.

                  In Russia prior to the revolution, according to Bulgakov, there
                  were places where this was done *even* with the Shroud (Plaschanitza) on
                  Good Friday: in some churches, the people found the Shroud already in
                  place when they came to church for Good Friday Vespers.

                  Therefore, if only Vespers are celebrated publicly, there is no
                  reason why a festal icon could not be prepared on a lectern before the
                  service began.

                  In Christ
                  Fr. John R. Shaw
                • Terry Hallock
                  ... I have served at a Vigil in which we did process with the festal icon at the Litiya as we went to the table with the bread, etal. I have also served where
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 4, 2001
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Though there is a widespread custom of bringing the festal icon
                    > out with ceremony at Matins, there is also another custom of preparing the
                    > icon in the middle of the church before the service begins.
                    >
                    > In Russia prior to the revolution, according to Bulgakov, there
                    > were places where this was done *even* with the Shroud (Plaschanitza) on
                    > Good Friday: in some churches, the people found the Shroud already in
                    > place when they came to church for Good Friday Vespers.
                    >
                    > Therefore, if only Vespers are celebrated publicly, there is no
                    > reason why a festal icon could not be prepared on a lectern before the
                    > service began.

                    I have served at a Vigil in which we did process with the festal icon at the
                    Litiya as we went to the table with the bread, etal.
                    I have also served where the icons are placed as above, because the custom was
                    to serve Orthros in the morning rather than a vigil.

                    Dn D
                  • Ploverleigh@aol.com
                    In a message dated 8/4/01 9:42:31 AM, philipjm711@yahoo.com writes:
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 4, 2001
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 8/4/01 9:42:31 AM, philipjm711@... writes:

                      << If a parish can only do Vespers and
                      Litya for a feast, not Mattins, is there a time when the icon can be
                      brought out of the Altar, or should it simply be placsed on the
                      Analogion before the beginning of the service? >>

                      This is what I've generaly seen. The Icon is placed out before Vespers.

                      And don't forget, the Greeks and Arabs don't usually serve Vigil.
                    • Ploverleigh@aol.com
                      In a message dated 8/4/01 3:42:42 AM, sraar@earthlink.net writes:
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 4, 2001
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 8/4/01 3:42:42 AM, sraar@... writes:

                        << As a priest
                        friend of mine stated some years ago "when a bishop gives a dispensation
                        from the holy canons - he is no longer a bishop". >>

                        Which notion ignores the entire principle of OIKONOMIA--which says,
                        basically, that if one of the canons is getting in the way of someone's
                        salvation, that canon does not apply.

                        I myself have diabetes, which was diagnosed only a few years ago. I have been
                        told by competent spiritual fathers and ordered by my own bishop (who is
                        diabetic himself) not to attempt to keep the fasts--not even the Eucharistic
                        fast if my blood sugar takes a dangerous dip. And what they have told me I
                        can assure you is the truth: eating in such a way as to keep my bgls under
                        control is a greater act of asceticism than keeping the fasts strictly, as
                        was my wont before.

                        Those who know me know what grief not being able to keep the fasts strictly
                        brought me.

                        So--are you saying that this bishop who so advised me is no longer a bishop?

                        <<We all know of a higly explosive situation some years ago where an american
                        hierach allowed one of his prominent priests (then divorced) to remarry - a
                        woman from his own parish, and remain serving, in the same
                        parish.......well, was there a canon to explain that ?
                        maybe....somewhere....>>

                        We all know who the hierarch involved is. And without mentioning any names,
                        HE is the one who will have to answer at the Bema of Christ for this. Not
                        you, not me, not anyone on this board.

                        <<A canonical answer can be found to a situation which does not
                        dispense with holy tradition and practise as we have been guided by the Holy
                        Spirit...>>

                        The tradition that is guided by the Holy Spirit is life and liberty in Jesus
                        Christ, and not legalistic bondage. Otherwise, Judaism would have sufficed.

                        <<If the priest in
                        question can not perform his duties adequately, if it disrupts the order of
                        the Church, then it becomes the bishops position to remove him and maintain
                        church order.>>

                        Right. It becomes his bishop. It doesn't become you, and it doesn't become me
                        to presume to discipline or censure or remove him. (Pun intended.)

                        If you don't want to allow a subdeacon to take the ablutions at your altar,
                        then don't. If another priest has this done, then simple charity demands that
                        you assume he had good reason for doing this extraordinary act. Not judging
                        others is traditional, too!

                        In any case, I believe that the entire question was hypothetical. (I may be
                        mistaken.)

                        <<It is necessary to deal with situations, however painful, with love and
                        compassion. >>

                        Which two qualities sound curiously missing from your posting, Father.
                      • Walter Shymansky
                        The question was NOT hypothetical. ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [ustav] Re:
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 5, 2001
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The question was NOT hypothetical.
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <Ploverleigh@...>
                          To: <ustav@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 1:01 AM
                          Subject: Re: [ustav] Re: [ustav and typicon] Re: [orthodoxpsalm] Communion -
                          subdeacon


                          > In a message dated 8/4/01 3:42:42 AM, sraar@... writes:
                          >
                          > << As a priest
                          > friend of mine stated some years ago "when a bishop gives a dispensation
                          > from the holy canons - he is no longer a bishop". >>
                          >
                          > Which notion ignores the entire principle of OIKONOMIA--which says,
                          > basically, that if one of the canons is getting in the way of someone's
                          > salvation, that canon does not apply.
                          >
                          > I myself have diabetes, which was diagnosed only a few years ago. I have
                          been
                          > told by competent spiritual fathers and ordered by my own bishop (who is
                          > diabetic himself) not to attempt to keep the fasts--not even the
                          Eucharistic
                          > fast if my blood sugar takes a dangerous dip. And what they have told me I
                          > can assure you is the truth: eating in such a way as to keep my bgls under
                          > control is a greater act of asceticism than keeping the fasts strictly, as
                          > was my wont before.
                          >
                          > Those who know me know what grief not being able to keep the fasts
                          strictly
                          > brought me.
                          >
                          > So--are you saying that this bishop who so advised me is no longer a
                          bishop?
                          >
                          > <<We all know of a higly explosive situation some years ago where an
                          american
                          > hierach allowed one of his prominent priests (then divorced) to remarry -
                          a
                          > woman from his own parish, and remain serving, in the same
                          > parish.......well, was there a canon to explain that ?
                          > maybe....somewhere....>>
                          >
                          > We all know who the hierarch involved is. And without mentioning any
                          names,
                          > HE is the one who will have to answer at the Bema of Christ for this. Not
                          > you, not me, not anyone on this board.
                          >
                          > <<A canonical answer can be found to a situation which does not
                          > dispense with holy tradition and practise as we have been guided by the
                          Holy
                          > Spirit...>>
                          >
                          > The tradition that is guided by the Holy Spirit is life and liberty in
                          Jesus
                          > Christ, and not legalistic bondage. Otherwise, Judaism would have
                          sufficed.
                          >
                          > <<If the priest in
                          > question can not perform his duties adequately, if it disrupts the order
                          of
                          > the Church, then it becomes the bishops position to remove him and
                          maintain
                          > church order.>>
                          >
                          > Right. It becomes his bishop. It doesn't become you, and it doesn't become
                          me
                          > to presume to discipline or censure or remove him. (Pun intended.)
                          >
                          > If you don't want to allow a subdeacon to take the ablutions at your
                          altar,
                          > then don't. If another priest has this done, then simple charity demands
                          that
                          > you assume he had good reason for doing this extraordinary act. Not
                          judging
                          > others is traditional, too!
                          >
                          > In any case, I believe that the entire question was hypothetical. (I may
                          be
                          > mistaken.)
                          >
                          > <<It is necessary to deal with situations, however painful, with love and
                          > compassion. >>
                          >
                          > Which two qualities sound curiously missing from your posting, Father.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          > URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav
                          >
                          > More ustav information and service texts:
                          > http://www.orthodox.net/ustav
                          > http://www.orthodox.net/services
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Stephen Reynolds
                          -- On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:53:31 ... OK, the icon can be placed on the analogion before Vespers. I think this still leaves one questions open: is it an
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 5, 2001
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --

                            On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:53:31
                            Ploverleigh wrote:
                            >
                            >In a message dated 8/4/01 9:42:31 AM, philipjm711@... writes:
                            >
                            ><< If a parish can only do Vespers and
                            >Litya for a feast, not Mattins, is there a time when the icon can be brought out of the Altar, or should it simply be placsed on the
                            >Analogion before the beginning of the service? >>
                            >
                            >This is what I've generaly seen. The Icon is placed out before Vespers.
                            >
                            >And don't forget, the Greeks and Arabs don't usually serve Vigil.
                            OK, the icon can be placed on the analogion before Vespers. I think this still leaves one questions open: is it an acceptable alternative practice to bring it out in procession at the litiya? Or may it be carried in procession at the litiya at all? I don't see anything about this in the limited resources available here.

                            Stephen Reynolds>


                            Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
                            http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
                          • Philip Majkrzak
                            Thank you, Father John and Deacon D. Philip __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 5, 2001
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thank you, Father John and Deacon D.

                              Philip

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
                              http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
                            • Priest Seraphim Holland
                              Come on boys and girls, place NICE! Please do not make me be the bad guy - emotional posts about medical reasons for fasting, and bishops not being bishops
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 5, 2001
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Come on boys and girls, place NICE!

                                Please do not make me be the bad guy - emotional posts about medical
                                reasons for fasting, and bishops not being bishops because of broad
                                brush generalizations that offend those with medical problems are not
                                welcome on this list.

                                Those with medical needs should treat non-fasting (according to the
                                letter of the law) food as medicine. Therefore, instead of a steak,
                                plain hamburger, without condiments; instead of salmon, tuna fish,
                                out of the can, eaten over this sink with a fork; instead of
                                flavoured yogurt, plain yogurt; instead of baked chicken, boiled
                                chicken, eaten plain, etc, etc.

                                Let this be the last word, PLEASE!

                                > The question was NOT hypothetical.
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: <Ploverleigh@...>
                                > To: <ustav@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 1:01 AM
                                > Subject: Re: [ustav] Re: [ustav and typicon] Re: [orthodoxpsalm] Communion -
                                > subdeacon
                                >
                                >
                                > > In a message dated 8/4/01 3:42:42 AM, sraar@... writes:
                                > >
                                > > << As a priest
                                > > friend of mine stated some years ago "when a bishop gives a dispensation
                                > > from the holy canons - he is no longer a bishop". >>
                                > >
                                > > Which notion ignores the entire principle of OIKONOMIA--which says,
                                > > basically, that if one of the canons is getting in the way of someone's
                                > > salvation, that canon does not apply.
                                > >
                                > > I myself have diabetes, which was diagnosed only a few years ago. I have
                                > been
                                > > told by competent spiritual fathers and ordered by my own bishop (who is
                                > > diabetic himself) not to attempt to keep the fasts--not even the
                                > Eucharistic
                                > > fast if my blood sugar takes a dangerous dip. And what they have told me I
                                > > can assure you is the truth: eating in such a way as to keep my bgls under
                                > > control is a greater act of asceticism than keeping the fasts strictly, as
                                > > was my wont before.
                                > >
                                > > Those who know me know what grief not being able to keep the fasts
                                > strictly
                                > > brought me.
                                > >
                                > > So--are you saying that this bishop who so advised me is no longer a
                                > bishop?
                                > >
                                > > <<We all know of a higly explosive situation some years ago where an
                                > american
                                > > hierach allowed one of his prominent priests (then divorced) to remarry -
                                > a
                                > > woman from his own parish, and remain serving, in the same
                                > > parish.......well, was there a canon to explain that ?
                                > > maybe....somewhere....>>
                                > >
                                > > We all know who the hierarch involved is. And without mentioning any
                                > names,
                                > > HE is the one who will have to answer at the Bema of Christ for this. Not
                                > > you, not me, not anyone on this board.
                                > >
                                > > <<A canonical answer can be found to a situation which does not
                                > > dispense with holy tradition and practise as we have been guided by the
                                > Holy
                                > > Spirit...>>
                                > >
                                > > The tradition that is guided by the Holy Spirit is life and liberty in
                                > Jesus
                                > > Christ, and not legalistic bondage. Otherwise, Judaism would have
                                > sufficed.
                                > >
                                > > <<If the priest in
                                > > question can not perform his duties adequately, if it disrupts the order
                                > of
                                > > the Church, then it becomes the bishops position to remove him and
                                > maintain
                                > > church order.>>
                                > >
                                > > Right. It becomes his bishop. It doesn't become you, and it doesn't become
                                > me
                                > > to presume to discipline or censure or remove him. (Pun intended.)
                                > >
                                > > If you don't want to allow a subdeacon to take the ablutions at your
                                > altar,
                                > > then don't. If another priest has this done, then simple charity demands
                                > that
                                > > you assume he had good reason for doing this extraordinary act. Not
                                > judging
                                > > others is traditional, too!
                                > >
                                > > In any case, I believe that the entire question was hypothetical. (I may
                                > be
                                > > mistaken.)
                                > >
                                > > <<It is necessary to deal with situations, however painful, with love and
                                > > compassion. >>
                                > >
                                > > Which two qualities sound curiously missing from your posting, Father.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > > CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                > > URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav
                                > >
                                > > More ustav information and service texts:
                                > > http://www.orthodox.net/ustav
                                > > http://www.orthodox.net/services
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                > URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav
                                >
                                > More ustav information and service texts:
                                > http://www.orthodox.net/ustav
                                > http://www.orthodox.net/services
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >


                                Priest Seraphim Holland St Nicholas Orthodox Church, Dallas, Texas, USA
                                seraphim@... Ph:972/529-2754 MOBILE & VOICE MAIL 214 336-3464
                                FAX: 603/908-2408 Home Address: 2102 Summit, McKinney, TX 75070, USA
                                WEBMASTER FOR: St Nicholas Home Page - http://www.orthodox.net
                                Official ROCOR Page - http://www.rocor.org
                                10 questions (many subjects) http://www.orthodox.net/questions
                                Thoughts on the Sunday gospels http://www.orthodox.net/sermons
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.