Home Up The Orthodox Church Worship Schedule

Questions & Answers

1. Question: Why does the Orthodox Church use leavened bread for Eucharist?
Doesn't it make more sense to use unleavened bread as it was during the Passover time that the Eucharist was instituted?

Answer: We use leavened bread for the Eucharist because that is the practice that was handed down to us through the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Orthodox Church follows the chronology of John's Gospel which places Last Supper on Thursday 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, Thursday. Also there is some debate among scholars as to whether the Last Supper instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ derived from the once a year Passover Haggadah meal which used only unleavened bread or the weekly chaburah (fellowship) meal which normally used leavened bread. It is possible that the chaburah meal overlapped with the Passover Haggadah meal on the night that Jesus instituted the Eucharist. This might explain why the Roman Catholic Church uses unleavened bread while the Eastern Orthodox Church uses leavened bread. In any event both the Western and Eastern traditions are in agreement that the bread and the wine becomes the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic celebration.

------------

2. Question: I noticed that women do not have head-covers in the worship service in your church. Is it common in the Orthodox Church? How do you interpret I Corinthians 11 then?

Answer: It is a common practice among Orthodox women in Europe to cover their heads in worship. In America this practice is not as common, although some women have adopted this practice as they find it helpful in their worship of God. It is important to keep in mind that the Orthodox Church is not legalistic. We are more concerned with keeping the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. Paul's concern in I Corinthians 11 is that we dress appropriately and reverently in our worship of God. Also it is important to keep in mind that what may be appropriate dress in ancient Palestinian culture may seem out of place in modern Western culture.

------------

3. Question: What is the Orthodox position on the Sabbath? Should Sunday be held as Sabbath, thus withholding from any trade? Or should it just be considered the worship day?

Answer: The Orthodox Church sees Sunday as a day of worship. We see Sunday as the day of our Lord's resurrection. For us every Sunday is a feast day on which we commemorate Christ's victory over sin and death for our salvation. The Orthodox Church is not legalistic insisting that all its members refrain from work. However for Orthodox Christians Sunday should be a day for worship, not a day for work. If an Orthodox Christian has any questions about going to work on Sunday, they should consult with their priest as to how this would affect their prayer life. The late Father Alexander Schmemann wrote:

    "Christ rose from the dead on the first day after Sabbath. The life that shone forth from the grave was beyond the inescapable limitations of "seven," of time that leads to death. It was thus the beginning of a new life and of a new time. It was truly the eight and the first day and it became the day of the Church. The risen Christ, according to the fourth Gospel, appeared to this disciples on the first day (Jn. 20:19) and then "after eight days" (20:26). This the day on which the Church celebrates the Eucharist--the sacrament of its ascension to the Kingdom and of its participation at the messianic banquet in the "age to come," the day on which the Church fulfills itself as new life. The earliest documents mention that Christians meet statu die--on a fixed day--and nothing in the long history of Christianity could alter the importance of this fixed day (For the Life of the World)."

------------

 4. Question: As you know in some Protestant circles, there are many who think that Holy Communion should be celebrated only in a local church. I tend to agree with them. However, I see that in the Western church history there are some examples otherwise. (The Methodist Society, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, etc.) What is the belief of the Orthodox church in this area?

Answer:  In principle the Orthodox Church believes that the Sacraments are to be administered within the four walls of a local church.  Canon Law states that Sacraments must be celebrated in an Orthodox Church.  However there are exceptions.  Dispensation is needed from the bishop. 

I noticed that part of your question is in reference to monastic communities, e.g., the Franciscans and Dominicans.  The Liturgy can be celebrated in both a parish and monastic setting.  For a monastic community usually one of the monks will have been ordained to the priesthood and in that capacity is able to lead the rest of the community in the Liturgy.  When I was in Berkeley I had the opportunity to attend the Liturgy at a nearby monastery from time to time.  At the time there was a rather unusual situation where Father Sergius was asked by the bishop to help a local parish that was struggling.  Father Sergius celebrated the Liturgy at Sts. Kyril and Methodius on Sundays and during the week lead the liturgical services at St. Gregory of Sinai monastery.  From what I saw the liturgical services in both settings were identical in every respect. 

All this underscores the importance of the local church for Orthodox Christianity.  For Orthodoxy the building of the local church cannot be divorced from the congregation of believers that make up the local church.  Allowances are made in a mission situation where a congregation does not yet have a church; however, it is expected that in time they will have their own building for worship.  This underscores the reality of the local church as the body of Christ.  This is also consistent with the Old Testament pattern of worship where worship was situated first in the tabernacle then in the temple. 

It may be helpful to know that a priest cannot just celebrate the Liturgy on his own.  There needs to be at least one lay person present or else the Liturgy must be canceled.  That has happened when there is a Liturgy scheduled during the middle of the week and no one shows up.  On one occasion I was the only person to show up and I had to carry out the congregational responses!  Also the Orthodox approach to worship requires a consecrated altar.  When the priest travels to one of the outer islands in Hawaii, he takes with him a consecrated cloth called the antimension which he places on the altar of the rented church prior to celebrating the Liturgy.  The antimension functions as the consecrated altar in a non-orthodox setting. 

I think that all this underscores the importance of the local church for Orthodox Christianity and the fact that Orthodoxy is not legalistic.  This also underscores the fact that the Orthodox approach to worship and the sacraments are profoundly rooted in the mystery of the Incarnation, i.e.,  the Word becoming flesh for our salvation. 

------------

5. Question:   The other question is about the canons of Bible. I am reading John of Damascus and realized that his list of the books in the OT is same as that of the Protestants. If the Orthodox church at that time believed that that much was the canon, why does the Orthodox church now believe otherwise?

Answer:   Actually a careful reading of Book IV Chapter 17 The Orthodox Faith shows John of Damascus (aka Yanah ibn Mansur ibn Sargun) describing the Old Testament canon pretty much in the way the Orthodox Church describes it.  Timothy Ware in his The Orthodox Church writes:

"...most Orthodox scholars at the present day, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament." (1963:208-209).

 Basically the Orthodox Church regards the Old Testament canon as consisting of the canonical books (those held in high regard and constitute an authoritative source for doctrine and practice) and the deuterocanonical books (those considered inspiring and edifying but not authoritative for doctrine and practice).  Although not used for the formulation of doctrine, the deuterocanonical books do play an important part in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church.  Thus the Orthodox Church's position is that the deuterocanonical books are canonical but having secondary authority. 

            In his The Orthodox Faith (IV:17) John mentions five groups of books: (1) the Pentateuch, (2) the historical books, (3) the wisdom literature, (4) the Prophets, and (5) the deuterocanonical books.  It is important to note that while John relegates the deuterocanonical books to a lower level, he does not altogether exclude them from the biblical canon.  He writes,

 

"...these are indeed admirable and full of virtue, but they are not counted, nor were they placed in the Ark". 

 

Although five groups are mentioned, John of Damascus privileges the first four over the fifth category that he regards as "admirable" and "full of virtue".  This corresponds to the Orthodox distinction between canonical and deuterocanonical.  Please keep in mind that the boundaries between canonical and non-canonical books is not as black-and-white for the Orthodox as it would be for Protestants. 

 

The Old Testament canon was compiled by Saint Athanasius the Great in 328 AD and ratified by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680 AD (Canon 24 of St. Athanasius; Canon 85 of the Apostles).  The fact that John of Damascus (c. 675 - c. 749) was a young boy at the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) gives us good reason to infer that he must have known of the Council's ratification of the Old Testament canon when he was an adult.  If John of Damascus' listing diverges from the Sixth Ecumenical Council I'm not all that surprised.  A decision of a council is not automatically binding upon the members of the Church, a council's decision must be received by the members of the Church (clergy and laity) on a general basis.  In time it becomes part of Holy Tradition.  The general reception of a council's actions by the Church as a whole reflects not only the catholicity of the Church but also the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth.

 

Surprisingly the position of Protestant Christianity regarding the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha is mixed.  I was surprised to find that the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), one of the earliest Reformed confessional statements, takes a position that is quite similar to Orthodoxy.

 

And yet we do not deny that certain books of the Old Testament were by the ancient authors called Apocryphal, and by others Ecclesiastical; to wit, such as they would have to be read in the churches, but not alleged to avouch or confirm the authority of faith by them.  As also Augustine, in his De Civitate Dei, book xviii., chapter 38, makes mention that 'in the books of the Kings, the names and books of certain prophets are reckoned:' but he adds that 'they are not in the canon,' and that 'those books which we have suffice unto godliness.' (Chapter I)

 

The Helvetic Confession both affirms the value of these books while denying them full canonical status.  The phrase "they would have to be read in the churches" points to these books being used in church services while the phrase "but not alleged to avouch or confirm the authority of faith by them" refrains from ascribing full canonical status to these books. 

 

It was only later that the Reformed tradition took a much harsher stance, in effect excluding deuterocanonical books and denigrating their theological value.  We find in the Westminster Confession (1646):

 

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human beings (Chapter I, III.).

 

This raises the question as to why the Reformed tradition contains two views on the apocrypha that are odds with each other. 

 

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Orthodox Church and Protestantism use different terms for the books in question.  The Orthodox Church refers to these books as the deuterocanonical books.  The term "apocrypha" is a term used primarily by Protestants and means "hidden, unrevealed".  There are subtle but significant differences in meanings behind the terms used here.  Where the term "deuterocanonical" implies that these books have theological and spiritual value, the term "apocrypha" has a less positive connotation.  Whenever I use the term "apocrypha" I do so out of convenience, although perhaps I should use the longer term "deuterocanonical" in light of my Church's teachings. 

I'm a little surprised that you did not raise the question about John's inclusion of the Apostolic Canon in the New Testament canon.  This inclusion points to the fact there has been a certain amount of fluidity in the biblical canon, both Old and New, and that the canon as we know it today is the result of a growing consensus within the Church.  Soon afterwards the Church of the East and the West shared a common understanding of the biblical canon, it was not until the Protestant Reformation that the question of the biblical canon was opened up again.  Even today canonical criticism is being much discussed among liberal scholars.  The question I have for them is: On what basis do you have the authority to revise the biblical canon? 

In closing, my research points to a certain continuity and consistency between Saint John of Damascus and historic Orthodoxy.  I hope that this lengthy reply has answered your question.