We wish to hear your views on the current situation,
since your theology plays a great role in the present circumstances.
Metropolitan John: My theology, unfortunately, cannot be applied. In
Greece they have already closed the churches, and the Divine Liturgy is not
being served. Is it served in Serbia?
Taking into consideration the decision of the government
that the number of people in one place be limited, as well as the issue of
getting around and social distancing, the Patriarch Irinej’s newest decision is
that services be held in churches but without more than five people.
Metropolitan
John: That’s acceptable.
In America it was decided that the priest, chanter and
altar server be present, in order for the Liturgy to be served, so that they
might have the holy mysteries in order to commune the people. What do you think
about that?
Metropolitan John: For me, the Church without the holy
Eucharist is no longer the Church. On the other hand, the danger of
transmitting this virus to others imposes on us the need of doing
whatever is necessary, even if that means closing the Church. The Greek
government has taken drastic measures due to the very serious matter at
play.
Many have posed the question: What does John Zizioulas
say? Since everyone knows that you had once said that in Orthodoxy a “private”
Liturgy doesn’t exist.
The liturgy under the current conditions will be served for the life
of the world. One priest will serve in order to allow the people to take
communion. Let us not forget, the Liturgy is served “for those who are
absent with good reason.” Those, who cannot come, are now everyone. I
think it is an acceptable decision that a priest serves the liturgy in
the church with two or three people. How he will forbid other from
attending, I don’t know. I think the best decision, instead of
completely closing the church, is to have the priest serve with up to
five people. Therefore, the Liturgy should be served in churches, but
the possibility of spreading the virus should be reduced to zero.
The Church of Greece will broadcast the Holy Liturgy
via the Internet. Some in America will do the same. What is your opinion?
I don’t agree with the Divine Liturgy being transmitted
by television. I’m confined to my home and will not be able to attend Liturgy.
However, I will not turn the television on in order to watch the Liturgy. I
consider that an expression of impiety. It is impious for someone to sit and
watch the Liturgy.
We heard that the faithful in Greece will follow the
Liturgy on television. Where will the Liturgy be served?
Metropolitan
John: I think it will be televised from the Cathedral church
of the Archdioce of Athens. Personally, as I said, I don’t like the Liturgy to
be broadcasted on a TV channel. In Greece there is at least that one liturgy
that will be served in the Cathedral church.
In my opinion it could have been served in more churches, but there is
the fear of spreading the disease.
At the Liturgy one is either present or not present,
we have already read this in your writings. What can Christians do on Sunday
morning when they are prevented from attending Liturgy in a church and they
have to stay at home? What would you suggest Christians under these current
circumstances do?
Metropolitan
John: Let a person remain at home and pray. The Church can prepare some
service texts to encourage the faithful to read, for instance, the morning
service in their homes, but not to read the text of the Liturgy. The Liturgy
requires our presence. One cannot participate in the Liturgy from a distance.
Therefore, let the faithful pray from their homes.
When you say “prayer,” what do you mean specifically? To read
those prayers they know or to have the bishops and priests recommend
them something?
Metropolitan
John: The Dioceses can recommend a prayer rule; in my opinion, the Orthros (Sunday
Matins) is sufficient. The Church should distribute the text for Orthros, for
instance, in order for the faithful to read them at their homes during the time
the Liturgy is being served. A televised broadcast of the Liturgy is not the
right thing to do. On the other hand, a good solution is to have the Liturgy
served by a priest and two or three people and, if possible, to distribute Holy
Communion to the faithful. As far as I know, this is difficult now since we don’t
have deacons who could deliver Communion. In the ancient Church Holy Communion
was taken to those who were unable to attend. Thus, if this doesn’t exist, let
the Liturgy be at least with five people.
What do you recommend to the
faithful concerning individual (private) prayers of each Christian?
Metropolitan John: The faithful should
continue to pray, to offer their personal petitions to the Lord.
What would you call this state and this situation,
since it is now extraordinary? You said that the Church without the Eucharist is
not the Church and that the Eucharist must be preserved. This type or form of
the Eucharist, what would you call it, that it not be turned into a “private“
rite?
Metropolitan
John: If there are five people at the Liturgy it is no
longer a private Liturgy. It is important that those who attend are not in danger
and cannot endanger others.
As for the danger, however, no one can say that there
is no danger in the matter of transmission.
Metropolitan
John: As doctors tell us, the danger is minimized if distance is maintained
and hygiene measurers are observed.
Therefore, it is excluded that the Eucharist can be
reduced to a private matter. If the Liturgy is performed in the presence of
several believers, is this danger avoided?
Metropolitan John: It is better than having fully closed Churches.
Some believe that in this case of limited participation of
the faithful, the Church no longer exists as a Eucharistic community and
assembly, and therefore they say that the Eucharist should not be
performed. And they add: if it is not done at all (which is beyond our
will and desire) then God will not leave us. So, they ask: if we do not
have a church community assembled, why should we serve such a “limited”
Liturgy?
Metropolitan John: A community (κοινωνία and κοινότητα) is
never complete in terms of the participation of the entire community.
There is always a minority present; however, it still represents and
acts on behalf of all those who are absent. And of course, we pray for
all those who are “absent for a reasonable cause,” i.e. who were
prevented from attending. This is not a novelty in our Church. There
have always been those who are absent from the Liturgy. Those who
participate in it pray for those who are absent. As we know, some may be
absent because they are ill or because they are on the road. However,
one may also be absent because the state does not allow him or her to
attend due to emergency. There is no substantial problem here because
there is a community or a congregation of those few. It is better to
have a community of a few than a state where there is no one in the
Eucharistic assembly.
Some believe that those who participate in this three- or
four-member liturgy are “privileged” and thus more favored than others?
Metropolitan John: What does “privileged” mean? Those who
are present would very much like others to be present but are aware that
they cannot. They do not look at it with exaltation or satisfaction
that there are no others. They are aware that they represent those who
are absent.
The dilemma some have is whether to deprive ourselves of the
Holy Eucharist and thus help others (stopping the spread of the
infection) or to serve the Eucharist in the hope that it will not harm
others. Is it sufficient to comply with all measures to prevent the
transmission of the infection?
Metropolitan John: We should prevent the spread of the
infection because it is a huge risk of transmitting the virus. Not only
to those who are in our immediate vicinity, but also to those who are
further away. This is spread throughout society and why should we be the
cause of such a spread of the virus?
Does the image of the Liturgy we now have, where it is
confined to several believers around the priest, violate liturgical
iconism? Does this limited gathering continue to iconize the Kingdom of
God, which is the meaning of the Liturgy?
Metropolitan John: The small community does not diminish the
image (iconization) of the future Kingdom. Very often, in many
countries in Europe, I went to parishes whose temples were used by very
few Orthodox believers. Yet the entire Holy Eucharist is offered for all
the universe. A parish represents not only the local community, but
also the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, the smallest temple
represents the universe and summarizes the whole world.
Many fear that some elitism does not emerge from this
state: those who are privileged in the Liturgy. Do you see any danger in that?
Metropolitan
John: No, I see no danger.
In what sense?
Metropolitan
John: It is enough for the local bishop or priest to allow an alternative
presence so that the same parishioners do not always come. This week there are
three or four, next week there will be another three or four faithful. The
participation of others will be gradually made possible until this situation is
over.
Many people put it this way: it is not a question of whether
the Church exists without the Eucharist, but whether faithful can
refrain from participating in the Eucharist for a month or two. There is
a view that we should not serve now because it is such a situation.
Liturgies were abolished in some dioceses, where state authorities
ordered a ban on gathering at the Liturgy. The bishops had to completely
prevent the participation of believers, as in Greece. Are you satisfied
with the decision in Greece that the Liturgy cannot be served until the
end of the pandemic?
Metropolitan John: I don’t think that’s good. I believe that
they could find another solution where the liturgy could be celebrated
with the small participation of lay people. They chose that solution,
but I do not think it was the best one. The decision not to attend the
Liturgy could have been avoided.
If this happens in the whole world, what do you think, would the Church cease to exist then?
Metropolitan John: It is just a hypothesis. I do not think
in reality that can happen. There will always be people who serve the
Liturgy, for example, in monasteries.
Some say it only “keeps the flames going” (eucharistic
flame) which is a nice, poetic image. Is that the theological and substantive
answer?
Metropolitan
John: That’s not the answer. Whenever something is not our choice but a
necessity that comes from the outside then we do what is called an oikonomia.
A lot of things are not quite right in practice, but since what is right cannot
be valid, then we accept it only as oikonomia. And here we have just
that today: we apply oikonomia things to deal with one serious problem.
I view this as a measure of oikonomia.
You said and wrote that in ecclesiology
it is not only taking Communion of the sacred gifts (communio in sacris) that is crucial, but also
participation in the community of the saints (communio sanctorum). Some
forget that we do not merely some “thing” from the Holy Altar which is taken
and absorbed in the organism, but that with communion we participate in the
community of All Saints. What can you say on this topic during this era of the
coronavirus?
Metropolitan John: That community
of Saints certainly exists, even when there is a small number of faithful and
laity. It is the community of
Saints, and not merely a community in a sanctuary.
Do you have any comments on the manner of receiving
communion? I assume that you have heard the current arguments on this
topic. While some insist on giving communion from the same spoon, others
are searching for other ways, in order to respond to the challenges of
the epidemic and show their social responsibility. One of the local
Churches ordered mandatory spoon disinfection, while another began using
disposable spoons. What do you say? What oikonomia or dispensation should be applied here?
In the Liturgy
of St. James the Brother t the faithful take communion separately, the Body separate
from the Blood of the Lord. As we know, according to the order of this ancient
liturgy, these are not both placed in the chalice. There are, therefore,
various ways. I don’t agree with having disposable spoons for each person. I
don’t think this is good. Instead, it is better for the faithful to receive the
Body of Christ which would have been dipped in the Blood of Christ beforehand.
In this manner the spread of the virus will be avoided. This is an ad hoc answer, of a provisional character. But I
think ways can be found. Although the Church has not given much thought to
other ways, I think it should do so.
Communing
with a spoon dates back to the 11th or 12th century?
Metropolitan
John: Yes. This is a considerably later practice and I think, at least
temporarily, we should go back to the ancient solutions. I believe we will
discover them. But who thinks of them today!?
Some have
suggested the following solution. Priests should prepare the particles of the
Body of Christ from the Lamb and then steep the particles with the Blood of
Christ. Then the people
approach and take that Communion. What do you think of that?
Metropolitan
John: I think this is a
very good solution, since there is already fear among a group of faithful.
Personally, I would like and desire that the faithful have no fear (from the holy
Communion). I consider that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly the receiving
of medicine immortality and I don’t think it is dangerous. Personally, it
wouldn’t bother me to commune from one chalice during an epidemic or, even to
use one common spoon. However, since there are those who, as the Apostle Paul
says, are weak in faith,
we must avoid scandalizing them. The Church must find a solution for them as
well, to meet their needs, in order to avoid accusations that we Christians
transmit infections or disease.
We notice that you consider that accusation, or testimony,
which comes from outside the Church to be important. Do you think that
the Church should be careful what image or impression it has on the
world?
Metropolitan
John: With the prevailing
practice of taking Communion, I think that, in the event this disease spreads,
many will accuse Christians of being guilty and many will say that the Church
spread the infection.
Is there a
responsibility of the Church towards society and creation?
Metropolitan
John: There certainly is.
Your
Eminence, we owe you much gratitude for this conversation. It is wonderful that our readers will
have the opportunity to see your answers to these current issues.
Metropolitan John:I hope the one who reads this will read it
correctly and not misinterpret me. I pray that the Lord helps us deal
with this situation in the right way.
Translated from Serbian by Fr. Bratislav Krsic and Fr. Milovan Katanic
Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a
forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to
Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely
the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors
or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.
.png "English"){kind=small}
