Metropolitan Photii of Triadisa: Regarding Frequent Communion

Metropolitan Photii of Triaditsa

Regarding Frequent Communion [1]

November 16, 2006 | Stamboliyski, Bulgaria

This question in the Orthodox world — I mean official Orthodoxy — began to be discussed relatively long ago; for us, it started later, in the 1990s, mainly under the influence of the works of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, a now-deceased professor of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York, located in the diocese of the Orthodox Church in America — generally an entirely modernist-inclined jurisdiction. Moreover, even earlier than with us, this question became relevant in the neighboring Republic of Macedonia — perhaps there was some influence from there as well; it is also relevant in the Serbian Patriarchate, and in Russia, where it is especially actively discussed in neo-modernist circles. In the journal Orthodox Word, we published an article by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, [2] which provides a characterization of the liturgical theology of Fr.  Alexander Schmemann. Fr.  Schmemann, in fact, becomes an exponent of certain contemporary Western theological ideas in the Orthodox world. His theology is distinctly modernist and is in harmony with avant-garde trends in contemporary Orthodox theology, bright representatives of which are, for example, Metropolitan John Zizioulas of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, the current rector of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York, and others. A contemporary of Fr.  Schmemann, whose ideas resonate with his, is Protopresbyter John Meyendorff. Their writings are perceived here as particularly prestigious, and, in short, it is they who mainly raise the issue of frequent communion among us — conversations, discussions, publications, and so on begin.

It is a fact that in early Christian times, Christians received communion at every Holy Liturgy, that is, this was the case in the first centuries of Christianity, approximately until the 4th century (a little further down I will provide evidence regarding the 4th century). It is a fact that in the first centuries of Christianity, the faithful approached the Holy Mysteries without mandatory confession. It is a fact that back then, many things were different: there was no iconostasis; the laity received communion under two kinds — the Body and Blood separately — a piece of the Holy Body was given to the layperson not with a spoon, but directly into the mouth by the priest, and the deacon brought the chalice, from which the laity drank. It is a fact that the first Christians, during times of persecution, had the right to keep a portion of the Holy Gifts in their homes, in the most sacred place.

But what is untenable in Fr.  Schmemann's views on the "return" (a little later, I will explain why I use the term "return" in quotation marks) to early Christian liturgical models? You see, fidelity to Christ's truth is in no way expressed in a simple archaeological reconstruction of the service as it was in the first three centuries, for example. The liturgical tradition of the Church, the spiritual teaching of the Church develops, but not as an addition of something new to the old, but in the way an embryo develops. In the embryo, the entire human being is already present, but the embryo goes through appropriate stages of development, and in the end, the result is a formed, complete human being. However, if a person in their development returns to the embryo, they will not become more complete because of this, right?

Therefore, from an Orthodox point of view, the development, if we can speak of development here, or rather the unfolding of the doctrinal, spiritual, and liturgical tradition of the Church in apostolic times and the era of the Holy Fathers — is truly the development of an embryo that, at a certain point, reaches its maturity. From this moment on, we must, so to speak, with bold humility accept the liturgical, doctrinal, and spiritual tradition of the Church in its mature form and fit into it, rather than try to develop it further by adding something new to the old or by a scholarly archaeological reconstruction of the original embryo.

We know that in the early centuries, the Church's order began to be composed, prayers were added that did not exist before, but this is the passing through various stages of the embryo's development. Christians began to receive communion less frequently. St. Basil the Great testifies quite clearly that in his time in Caesarea, Christians received communion four times a week. Christians began to receive communion after confession. Is this something new? Some kind of medieval innovation that has nothing to do with early Christianity? Should we abolish it to return to what was in the deepest antiquity? Is this correct? — No.

In reality, the goal of everything the Church has adopted, the goal of this development of the embryo, was to preserve and express as fully as possible the spirit that burned in the first Christians, which at that time did not need the external supports that were later established by the Church’s order, the regulation of services — all that the Church gradually set up — and this was not an end in itself. The meaning lies in preserving, to the greatest possible extent, the true early Christian spirit. That is why, if in the flame of early Christian fervor, in the flame of repentance of the first Christians, confession was not always necessary, we need it so that through it we may receive forgiveness of sins, strengthen our repentance, and partake of the spirit that they had. Fr.  Schmemann calls for communion at every Liturgy, but why then does he not demand that penitents stand in the narthex, and why does he not insist that penances today be the same as they were in ancient times? Where are the penitents asking forgiveness from every Christian entering the church, as it was in the first three centuries? We see nothing like that today, and the modernists do not speak about this at all. Therefore, their approach is one-sided, deliberate, driven by modernist intellectual speculations rather than by a desire to be faithful to the truth in its fullness. That is why we should not consider the frequency of communion as a question in itself or as a simple quantitative matter. The essential question is not how often to receive communion but how to receive communion. Yes, in principle, the more often we receive, the better, but this principle cannot be an end in itself.

Moreover, there have been many disputes about how often monks, for example, should receive communion. These disputes led to rather serious upheavals in the life of Athonite monks in the 19th century. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and his followers, the so-called “Kollyades,” defended the view that monks should receive communion every day after a short fast and without mandatory confession if their conscience did not accuse them of a more serious sin. But in Russia, for instance, the practice was established for Christians to receive communion four times a year — once during each fast, or at the very least once a year. This practice is also attested in some catechetical texts of the Russian Church. However, St. Theophan the Recluse repeatedly speaks in favor of more frequent communion. But notice, the Church has never decreed how many times one must receive communion. Yes, it is wonderful when everyone receives at every Holy Liturgy, but the essence is this: with what inner disposition do we approach the Lord’s table? “For he who eats [the Bread] and drinks [from the Chalice] unworthily, eats and drinks judgment on himself,” says the holy Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 11:29).

If we are talking about the Church’s Eucharistic theology or about the spiritual disposition, the inner state, the thoughts and feelings with which we should approach the Mysteries of Christ, let us read the prayers before Holy Communion. Who composed them? — St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. John of Damascus, St. Symeon Metaphrastes, and St. Symeon the New Theologian — these are the authors of the prayers before Holy Communion. Look at the reverence, the fear of God, the awe before the holy things, and at the same time the deep longing, the strong desire for communion with Christ through partaking of the Holy Mysteries that these beautiful prayers are filled with! If we could receive communion at every Holy Liturgy with such reverence, such awe, such faith, and such hope — by all means, commune at every Liturgy. But if we cannot and feel our weakness, then we should determine the frequency of communion according to our ability, so that we may prepare as best as possible in conscience, striving, as far as possible, to internalize the holy thoughts and holy feelings with which the prayers before Holy Communion are filled.

To prepare means to observe the fast — such as the one our spiritual father blesses us with, for although the Church has established a seven-day fast, it is not an absolutely mandatory condition. This fast, as we know, can be reduced to three, two, or even to one day. Therefore, the Church has entrusted the pastoral discretion of the priest to determine the length of the fast before Holy Communion. Secondly, when we prepare to approach the Holy Mysteries, we should be as deeply and sincerely penetrated by the spirit of repentance as possible — this is felt so clearly in the prayers before Holy Communion. What else, besides the sacrament of Confession, can help us in this? Therefore, the Church’s practice, although formally different from ancient practice, in its essence — in spirit and truth — agrees with it, for its goal is to awaken in us the thoughts and feelings, the spiritual disposition that was so abundant in many of the first Christians. The frequency is not as important, although the Optina Elders also called for more frequent communion during difficult times, because the Lord says, “Whoever does not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood will not have life in him” (cf. John 6:53). But the most essential thing is with what inner disposition, with what spiritual preparation we approach the Holy Mysteries.

St. Symeon the New Theologian says that if we do not bring forth spiritual fruit after Holy Communion, this Communion is for our condemnation. And what does it mean to bring forth spiritual fruit? — It means to behave in such a way that the strength we receive from partaking of the Holy Mysteries, the gracious strength — for we partake of Christ Himself! — is not lost on the same day, and that we do not fall into one, two, or three sinful distractions, but rather attempt to draw closer and closer to the Lord. If we approach the Holy Mysteries with such thoughts, feelings, and dispositions, if we approach with fear and trembling, knowing that it may be for judgment and condemnation, if we approach with the desire, by the mercy of the Lord, to partake not unto condemnation, then we become worthy participants in the Lord's table. Worthy is the one who deeply realizes his unworthiness. I repeat: read the prayers before Holy Communion, and you will feel the spirit that needs to be kindled within yourself before partaking of the Holy Mysteries.

St. Seraphim advised his spiritual children to receive communion on the feasts of the Lord and the Mother of God, that is, approximately once a month. A person may commune more frequently, but I ask you, do not watch others, do not observe who receives communion and when: “Such and such a person, why is he communing today — didn’t he commune last week and the week before? Did he fast again?” This is disgusting and degrades the divine dignity of the Holy Mysteries; you degrade a brother or sister who may be approaching the Holy Chalice with such repentance and trembling that we do not even imagine. The most essential thing is preparation — that the sense of repentance be alive, that reverence be alive, that the sense of holiness intensify. Then the Lord gives, and gives abundantly. But when a person, as it happens among Orthodox modernists, approaches the Holy Chalice every time casually, without proper preparation, and thinks that in this way he is faithful to the early Christian traditions, he is mistaken, and this error has its tragic, even horrifying illustrations. For example, priests of the Orthodox Church in America consume alcohol and food before Communion. The laity approach the Holy Mysteries without fasting. Not to mention the practice among Protestants and Roman Catholics. One can even have breakfast — no one limits you. Is this fidelity to early Christian tradition? I think you understand the level to which I am trying to elevate this issue. From this moment on, in principle, I repeat, the more often a person partakes of the Holy Mysteries of Christ under such conditions, the better.

Question: Is it necessary to receive a blessing from the priest for each communion?

Answer: In principle, such a blessing is received when one approaches the sacrament of Confession. However, there is a danger here. A person might begin to commune frequently out of spiritually unhealthy motives — there are people in delusion who insist on frequent communion. Conversely, there are people who, also due to an unhealthy attitude towards the holy things, say, "We are unworthy, and therefore we will not commune often," but incidentally, they are gravely mistaken. "I am unworthy, so I will not confess in order to commune" — this is absurd. Unfortunately, such attitudes are often encountered among Orthodox Christians.

Here, much also depends on the spiritual father's ability to assess the Christian's motives for relatively more frequent communion, but I repeat, this is a matter of the heart and conscience; one cannot limit the preparation for communion to formal requirements and formal observance of prescriptions. Because, as I repeat, everything that the Church has established has one sole purpose — to ignite within us the true Christian spirit, which is the focus. Take, read the prayers before Holy Communion in Bulgarian, and reflect on them. If something is unclear to you, if questions arise, ask your priest. I believe this will help each of us feel what our spiritual preparation for partaking of the Holy Mysteries of Christ should be.

NOTES:

1. From a conversation of Bishop Photii of Triaditsa with parishioners from Plovdiv and Pazardzhik, held at the Church of St. George the Great Martyr in the city of Stamboliyski on November 16, 2006.

2. Prot. Michael Pomazansky, “The Liturgical Theology of Fr. Alexander Schmemann” — Orthodox Word, no. 3-4/1999, pp. 22-29.

Original Bulgarian: https://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/ef/works1-ru/ef-chestprichast-ru.html