1. Explaining Ukrainian Autocephaly: Politics, History, Ecclesiology, the Future, by Nicholas Denysenko
— Sheptytsky Institute (@Sheptytsky) November 2, 2020
2. Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Ukraine: Past, Present, and Future - Symposiumhttps://t.co/GEpJeXR2op pic.twitter.com/gFNEkgbfKC
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on the issue of the Autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine #orthodox_timeshttps://t.co/dZbhhvBjKH
— Orthodox Times (@orthodox_times) November 2, 2020
Not too late to join us on Zoom tomorrow for this panel on abuses of power in Christian organizations: https://t.co/5IC2YBDsTv
— A.A.J. DeVille, Ph.D. (@AAJDeVille1) October 8, 2020
Having Matins as a substitute for the Divine Liturgy may be appropriate, but could it be done at home?Sunday Matins or Typica (in-church)
One way to have a Sunday gathering while maintaining physical distancing guidelines is to celebrate a non-Eucharistic service without exceeding the maximum number of people for a safe gathering. Sunday Matins (Orthros) is already appointed to the regular weekly cycle. Parishes that normally celebrate Vigil on Saturday evenings are familiar with resurrection Matins, as are communities of the Greek and Arabic traditions, who celebrate Matins on Sunday morning before the Divine Liturgy. Sunday Matins features psalmody, hymnography, the eleven “eothina” resurrection Gospel readings, and the Great Doxology (Gloria). The addition of a homily to Matins would create a Sunday service honoring the Lord’s resurrection of about one hour, an appropriate way to praise his resurrection while receiving nourishment from his word until it is safe to return to the received Divine Liturgy.
The Typica service offers a viable alternative to Matins. This service features psalmody and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and allows for the addition of the appointed Epistle and Gospel readings. Many faithful are already familiar with the Typica, as it is often celebrated by the laity or with a deacon presiding when the priest is absent. Matins and the Typica allow for two non-eucharistic Sunday gatherings that honor the requirements of physical distancing.
Frequently, important texts dictate the deacon’s exercise of ministry. Lumen Gentium authorizes deacons to preside at baptisms and the rite of marriage. The deacon reads the Gospel. Orthodox service books appoint certain texts and ritual actions to the deacon, so the deacon performs those specific roles.Should the deacon be prepared to assume the responsibilities for administration, especially with respect to finances, and almsgiving on behalf of the community? What other analogous duties are there to the original duties given to St. Stephen and others? Preaching the Gospel and perhaps teaching, or supervising the community's catechists. Whether it is necessary for the presbyter to have oversight may be up for debate, if the oversight is provided by the bishop (in the monoepiscopate model of church governance). And the question of the role of deacons should raise the issue of clerical continence, as we have already seen a debate on whether the current reality of "permanent deacons" in the Roman rite conforms to the norms of Roman Canon Law.
The problem with the process is a lack of inquiry into ministerial gaps. The Church tends to view the priest/pastor as a minister of everything, except ordination. The priest/pastor not only presides, but is also expected to teach, preach, console, guide, heal, and pray. The administrative burden is heavy: represent, report, supervise, manage budgets, raise funds, and everyone’s favorite – lead meetings.
The seminary system sustains this model of the priest/pastor as minister of everything. Obtain competence in dogmatic theology and the fundamentals of liturgy, and then learn how to guide everyone and anyone through this life to God’s kingdom. Christians take this model for granted, and we shouldn’t mess with it, because parish vacancies depend on a steady supply of priest/pastors.
A properly formed deacon can share in the Church’s ministry of teaching, preaching, healing, consoling, praying, and administration. Online descriptions of diaconal service in Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches suggest that deacons and deaconesses engage service with breadth and depth. Most of us know what we cannot do – we cannot preside (unless a bishop or community asks deacons to preside for liturgies without a priest).
With regards to anointing of the sick, perhaps he is thinking that within Byzantine theology, the blessing of the oil and the physical anointing may be considered two different acts and the latter can be done separately by someone other than the priest. I have heard that this possibility has been discussed in Byzantine Catholic circles. But in such instances the anointing can done by even a layman? If so, then in an emergency when the presbyter or bishop cannot do it, why limit it to just ordained deacons? Just for the sake of appearances? In the context of a liturgical rite, what is the scripture or traditional justification for a deacon being able to minister holy unction? And if none exists, then how can it be justified that deacons but not laymen can do so in the case of emergency?
This notion of the sharing of the Church’s ministry is crucial. The priest/pastor presides, and much – not necessarily all of the rest – is shared with Christ’s body. It will be necessary to change the way we imagine ministry for an authentic renewal of the order of the deacon. The Church has to accept that deacons will anoint the sick, lead prayer, preside at some services (when a priest/pastor is unavailable), and represent the Church. Priests/pastors will have to learn to treat deacons as equals in Christ’s ministry – not as subordinates who are deficient in some way.
Having reflected on many years of visiting missions and serving in a non-liturgical space in Kyiv, I ask myself, is there an argument to be made for establishing Church communities that have no aspirations for permanent parish status, but gather where they can for prayer, fellowship, and perhaps learning and service? Are we comfortable with the possibility that we might have to fine-tune our rite to liturgize effectively in unfamiliar spaces? My initial response to these reflections is to suggest that liturgy in non-liturgical spaces illuminates the qualities of gathering for the privilege of offering liturgy, and embracing the fact that Christian identity need not be shaped solely by a particular parish community. Is there a future for mobile and nimble Church communities that do not aspire to become parishes?
