Sermon for the Fifth Sunday of Great Lent

CATECHESIS 68: That We Must Be Renewed For What Is Ahead Through Endurance of the Trials That Fall Upon Us, Both Visible and Invisible.

by St. Theodore the Studite

Given On the 5th Sunday of Great Lent.

Brethren and fathers, because winter has passed and spring has arrived, we see creation flourishing again; the plants are flowering, the earth is growing green, the birds are singing and everything else is being renewed; and we take pleasure in all this and we glorify God the master craftsman who transforms and changes creation year by year, and it is reasonable to do so. "Ever since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made" [Rom. 1:20].

It is our duty not just to stay where we are, but to advance further and to examine carefully for ourselves the logic of creation. How? Because this renewal has winter as its cause. It would not have reached its prime had it not first undergone snows and rains and winds. And so it is with the soul; unless it is first snowed on by afflictions, troubles and difficulties, it will not flower, it will not fruit; but by enduring, it bears fruit and partakes in a blessing from God, as it is written: "Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated, partakes in a blessing from God" [Heb. 6:7].

Therefore, brethren, let us also endure every affliction, every trouble, every trial which assails us both visibly and invisibly. The fast we are drawing out as we hunger and thirst and are otherwise made wretched, so that we may bear fruit and partake of God's blessing; and not only that, but that we may nourish and welcome Jesus as our guest. For just as we enjoy the sight of creation, so He too enjoys the ripe beauty[1] of our souls. What are the fruits? "Love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-mastery" [Gal. 5:22]. By these He is nourished, by these He is entertained. And blest the one who nourishes Him, because he will be nourished by Him with eternal good things; and blest the one who receives Him as his guest, because he will be received by Him as his guest in the kingdom of heaven! Indeed! So if someone is to receive a king as his house guest, he rejoices and is extremely glad; how much more then someone who receives the King of kings and Lord of lords as his house guest. That he is received is clear from what He himself has said: "I and my Father will come and make our abode with him" [John 14:23]. And again: "One who has My commandments and keeps them, is the one who loves Me; the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I shall love him and manifest Myself to him" [John 14:21].

Therefore, since such are the promises, let us not only bear, but let us endure with joy all things, both those that are present, those that are whispered about, and those that are expected, as we listen to the Apostle when he says: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the Church" [Col. 1:24]. And again Saint James who says: "My brethren, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" [James 1:2-4]. Do you see then that in trials there is joy, and in tribulations gladness? For these are the things that are exchanged where God is concerned; and this is how the saints led their lives; this too how we, by doing violence to ourselves and yet greater violence, and by living our life in their footsteps, shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always and to the ages of ages. Amen.

1. The Greek has literally ‘the hour of our souls’, but the word can also connote ‘beauty‘, ‘ripeness’, ‘the bloom of youth’, ‘spring-time’. Hence, for example, the derivatives ‘beautiful’ and ‘ripe’.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Evgenios Voulgaris and the Icon of the Akathist

In 1753 Bishop Evgenios Voulgaris was teaching at the Athonite School on Mount Athos. He became very sick with a severe ulcer. His pain was so great that he prayed for death. They brought him to Dionysiou Monastery where there was a doctor with medical knowledge, but nothing helped him. The monks residing there told the groaning Evgenios about the miraculous icon of the Akathist residing at the monastery which was the original that saved the people of Constantinople. Hearing this Evgenios requested that they carry him there because he was bedridden. There he prayed fervently. Suddenly he felt himself being healed, his acute pain ceased, and the tears stopped. Gratefully Evgenios took his pen and wrote the following iambic verse to the Theotokos: "You gave me life which you brought in your arms, bringing life when death was under my arms."

"Ζωής δότην φέρουσα Σής ύπ' αγκάλης,
ζωοίς φέροντα θάνατον μ' ύπαί μάλης."

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Fifth Saturday of Great Lent: The Akathist Hymn

About the year 626, the Persians, Avars, and Slavs came with a great host and besieged the imperial city of Constantinople while the Emperor Heraclius and the main body of the Byzantine army were absent in the East. Enemy ships filled the sea, especially the Golden Horn, and on land the adversaries were ready for attack with foot-soldiers, horses, and engines of war. Though the citizens courageously withstood them, yet they were few in number and would be unable to repulse the attack of such a great host. Hence, they could not count on any other means of salvation, except the protection of the Theotokos. And truly, suddenly a violent tempest broke up all the ships and submerged them, and the bodies of the invaders were cast out near the Blachernae quarter of the city where the famous Church of the Theotokos stood. Taking courage from this, the people went forth from the city and repulsed the remaining forces, who fled out of fear. In 673, the city was miraculously delivered yet again, this time from an invasion of the Arabs. Then in 717-718, led by the Saracen general Maslamah, the Arab fleet laid siege once more to the city. The numerical superiority of the enemy was so overwhelming that the fall of the Imperial City seemed imminent. But then the Mother of God, together with a multitude of the angelic hosts, appeared suddenly over the city walls. The enemy forces, struck with terror and thrown into a panic at this apparition, fled in disarray. Soon after this, the Arab fleet was utterly destroyed by a terrible storm in the Aegean Sea on the eve of the Annunciation, March 24, 718. Thenceforth, a special "feast of victory and of thanksgiving" was dedicated to celebrate and commemorate these benefactions. In this magnificent service, the Akathist Hymn is prominent and holds the place of honour. It appears that even before the occasion of the enemy assaults mentioned above, the Akathist Hymn was already in use as the prescribed Service for the Feast of the Annunciation, together with the kontakion, "When the bodiless one learned the secret command," which has the Annunciation as its theme. It was only on the occasion of the great miracle wrought for the Christian populace of the Imperial City on the eve of the Annunciation in 718 that the hymn "To thee, the Champion Leader" was composed, most likely bySaint Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Historians have ascribed the Akathist Hymn to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople (638), to Saint George the Confessor, Bishop of Pisidia (818), or even to Saint Photius the Great (891), all of whom lived either at the time of or after the above-mentioned sieges. However, it appears most likely from its language, content, and style that the true composer of the Akathist Hymn is Saint Romanus the Melodist (6th century).

(Excerpt from Holy Transfiguration Monastery)

Read also: Three Miraculous Athonite Akathist Icons


Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
When the bodiless one learned the secret command, in haste he came and stood before Joseph's dwelling, and spake unto the Maiden who knew not wedlock: The One Who hath bowed the Heavens by His descent is held and contained unchanging wholly in thee. Seeing Him receiving the form of a servant in thy womb, I stand in awe and cry to thee: Rejoice, thou Bride unwedded.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
To you, Theotokos, invincible Defender, having been delivered from peril, I, your city, dedicate the victory festival as a thank offering. In your irresistible might, keep me safe from all trials, that I may call out to you: "Hail, unwedded bride!"

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Holy Fathers Slain at the Monastery of St. Savvas

Holy Fathers Slain at the Monastery of St. Savvas (Feast Day - March 20)

Saints John, Sergius, Patrick and others were slain in the Monastery of Saint Savva. During the eighth century the area around Jerusalem was subjected to frequent incursions of the Saracens. The monastery of St Chariton was devastated and fell into ruin. Twice the Saracens tried to plunder the Lavra of St Savva the Sanctified, but God's Providence protected the monastery. The monks would have been able to escape the barbarians by going to Jerusalem, but they decided not to forsake the place where they had sought salvation for so many years.

On March 13, the Saracens broke into the monastery and demanded all the valuables. The monks told them that there was nothing in the monastery but a meager supply of food and old clothing. Then the Saracens began to shoot arrows at the monks.

Thirteen men were killed and many wounded, and monastery cells were set afire. The Saracens intended also to torch the monastery church, but seeing a throng of people in the distance, they mistook this for an army sent from Jerusalem. The Saracens managed to get away, carrying off the little they were able to plunder. After the enemy fled, Father Thomas, an experienced physician, began to help those who remained alive.

On Great Thursday, March 20, the Saracens again descended upon the Lavra with a larger force and began to beat up the monks. The survivors were driven into the church, where they were tortured in order to force them to reveal where any treasure might be hidden. The monastery was surrounded, so no one could save himself by fleeing. The barbarians seized St John, a young monk, who had cared for vagrants. They beat him fiercely, then they cut the sinews of his hands and feet and dragged him over stones by his feet, which tore the skin from the martyr's back.

The keeper of the church vessels, St Sergius, hid the church vessels and attempted to flee, but he was captured and beheaded. Several of the monks nevertheless managed to hide themselves outside the monastery in a cave, but they were spotted by a sentry on a hill, and they ordered everyone to come out. Inside the cave St Patrick whispered to the brethren huddled with him, "Fear not, I will go alone and meet my death. Meanwhile, sit and pray."

The Saracens asked whether there was anyone else in the cave, and Patrick said that he was alone. They led him to the Lavra, where the captives awaited their fate. The Saracens demanded of them a ransom of 4,000 gold pieces and the sacred vessels. The monks were not able to give such a ransom. Then they led them into the cave of St Savva inside the monastery walls. They lit a fire on which they piled up dung in front of the entrance to the cave, hoping to suffocate the monks with the poisonous fumes. Eighteen men perished in the cave, among whom were Sts John and Patrick. The Saracens continued to torture those who were still alive, but got nothing out of them. Finally, they left the monastery.

Later, on the night of Great Friday, the monks hidden in the hills returned to the Lavra, they took up the bodies of the murdered Fathers to the church and buried them there.

The barbarians who plundered the monastery were punished by God. They were stricken with a sudden illness, and they all perished. Their bodies were devoured by wild beasts.

The martyrs of St Savva's Lavra commemorated on May 16 suffered in the seventh century, during the reign of Heraclius (610-641).

Source

Apolytikion in the Second Tone
Blessed is the earth that drank your blood, O prizewinners of the Lord, and holy are the tabernacles that received your spirits; for in the stadium ye triumphed over the enemy, and ye proclaimed Christ with boldness. Beseech Him, we pray, since He is good, to save our souls.

Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
Shunning all earthly and corruptible pleasures, ye chose a life of great ascetical struggles, disdaining worldly beauty and all fleeting fame; wherefore, ye dwell joyously in the Kingdom of Heaven with the Martyrs' holy choirs and the ranks of ascetics. Hence, we revere your memory and cry: From every peril, O Fathers, deliver us.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Punishment of God

God does not punish sinners because it gives Him gratification to destroy men. If that gave Him gratification, He would not have created man out of nothing.

He punishes man out of more important constructive reasons, of which two are most apparent to us: First, that by punishment He corrects them and leads him on the true path of salvation; second, to frighten others from sinning.

St. Isaac also thinks this when he says, "The just wise man is similar to God, for he punishes man, not to reproach him for his sin but either to correct man or to instill fear in others."

One recalcitrant young man, who ridiculed God and his parents, suddenly went insane. The entire city in which this young man lived saw, in this, the punishment of God and were terrified with the fear of God. The young man was held bound and isolated for three years. His mother wept bitterly and prayed to God for her son. One year, during the Feast of Pentecost, the mother brought her insane son to the monastery of St. Basil in Ostrog. After prayers, the insane youth was cured and became himself again. After that, he became an exemplary person and a true Christian.

- St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Prologue

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

EU Sets Up Committee of Orthodox Churches Representatives

Moscow, 19 March 2010, Interfax – The Committee of Representatives of Orthodox Churches to the European Union has initiated its work.

As was reported in communique, adopted on the results of the Committee session in Brussels and conveyed to Interfax-Religion on Thursday, the new structure members believe that "the dialogue between the political community and the Churches is very welcome as a manifestation of mutual respect and as a sign of hope for a better Europe and a sustainable world."

The Committee considers such a dialogue as an opportunity "for promoting the fundamental values and principles upon which European culture has based itself and along which it has developed."

Among such values are "justice, peace, protection of the environment, sensitivity in front of situations of poverty and suffering, reasonable distribution of financial assets, condemnation and avoidance of all sort of violence, protection of children and women, access to education for all, standing in solidarity with one another, freedom of communication and expression, protection of religious freedom concerning both minorities and majorities and the rule of law," the document reads.

Acting representative of the Russian Church to the European Union Archpriest Antony Ilyin told the agency that "the Committee of Representatives of Orthodox Churches is called to make visible the presence of the global Orthodoxy both for the decision-making political elites and for an expert community and mass-media in Brussels."

According to him, Europe is a common space united not only by acquis communautaire, the Roman law, the Renaissance culture and the Enlightenment project "but above all it is united by the idea of freedom and dignity of a human person created according to the image of God, by the idea of Christian personalism and sobornost. Ignoring them makes the whole European project losing its content and its historical mission."

The initiative of creating of the Committee of Representatives belongs to Metropolitan Hilarion, the Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department of External Church Relations and to Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, the representative of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the EU who agreed to assume the function of the moderator of the Committee.

Holding briefings, round tables, seminars and thematic conferences dedicated to the present challenges of today's Europe is among the prospects of the Committee. It implies forming the expert groups of all interested partners including the acting Orthodox politicians, media workers, scientific community and NGO's in Brussels.

Read more here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

Philip Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages, which has not been published but is already drawing controversy. One of these controversial issues deals specifically with the comparison of Biblical and Quranic violence. The article linked below presents different perspectives on the issue. Below that is also the Introduction to his book Jesus Wars. This more specifically deals with the issue of how Christology as we know it was formed and preserved in violence.

Read the article here.

Read an interview with Jenkins here.

Though Jenkins has a totally distorted view of Church history by focusing on everything with a bias for violence, even when violence is nowhere present, his true agenda and bias lies in the fact that he is reading the Bible, the Quran and Church history through the contemporary lens of post-9/11 Islamic terrorism, and he approaches history with an aim towards seeing violence in everything that lead to the formation of modern western religions without asking any really deep questions. His focus on this prevents him from successfully evaluating the much more complex issue of violence and religion and what sort of relationship they may truly have.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

Discovery Institute senior fellow Jay Richards has an excellent piece at The American titled, "When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’," that gives 12 criteria to help us decide whether it’s appropriate to doubt a particular “consensus.” Richards of course notes that the very term “consensus” is often used to shut down scientific debate—but that hardly means the scientific “consensus” is necessarily wrong. Indeed, some wrongly challenge the consensus when it ought to be affirmed. Richards threads this needle carefully, explaining why we must carefully examine the scientific, sociological, rhetorical, and political dynamics of a debate to determine if the consensus deserves our assent, or our skepticism.

Read the article here: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Cops Bust Alleged Gang Of Fake Priests

By Galina Stolyarova
The St. Petersburg Times
March 19, 2010

City police this week opened a criminal case against an alleged confidence scam involving fraudulent priests performing bogus burial services and other rituals.

The alleged scam involved false religious ceremonies at St. Elizabeth’s Church, located near Yelizavetinskaya Hospital at 14 Ulitsa Vavilovikh in the north of St. Petersburg. The phony priests also charged locals for access to fake sacred relics of Orthodox saints, including those of St. Nicholas and St. Panteleimon, police say.

“A group of swindlers disguised as Orthodox priests charged relatives of patients who died at the Yelizavetinskaya Hospital for the performance of religious rites at the hospital’s morgue,” the city police press office said Thursday. “A special notice on the wall said that the priests were operating with the blessing of the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga.”

Police said leaflets advertising the services were distributed across the city and that large numbers of worshippers had flocked to the church to light a candle by the fake relics at a cost of 50 rubles ($1.70) each.

“The victims of this scam were literally praying to God knows what,” said Vladimir Vigilyansky, head of the press service of the Moscow Patriarchy. “The scammers appear to have no fear of God whatsoever. The sacred relics that they mentioned are located in some of the world’s most important churches and are hardly ever moved. For example, the sacred relics of St. Nicholas are kept in a sanctuary at the St. Nicholas Cathedral in the Italian town of Bari. Needless to say, it is a world-renowned place of religious pilgrimage, and the relics are never moved.”

The alleged fraudsters were brought to the attention of the police after a series of complaints from local Orthodox believers. They questioned the authenticity of what were being presented as precious sacred relics and had noticed that the priests had even managed to get the name of the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga wrong — the Metropolitan is in fact called Vladimir, and not Ioann as stated on the leaflets.

Police say the confidence trick had been going on for more than five years.

Vigilyansky said that the men disguising themselves as priests were schismatics who had no relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. He said that the Moscow patriarchy had in recent years released numerous statements aimed at exposing the fraudulent practices.

For example, in 2006, there was widespread advertising in St. Petersburg of a temporary display of the holy relics of St. Serafim Sarovsky at St. Elizabeth’s, though the Moscow patriarchy and the St. Petersburg patriarchy both officially declared that the relics were fakes.

Investigators believe the group was founded and masterminded by Grigory Lourie, who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church for sacrilege in 2003. Earlier, Lourie had been accused of forming a club for people intending to commit suicide and encouraging several of its members to go through with attempts on their lives, though the police found insufficient evidence and eventually dropped the case.

Doctors from Yelizavetinskaya Hospital told reporters on Thursday that the hospital had no connection with the church or any fraudulent practices carried out there.

Read more here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Limits of Ecumenism

Dialogue is an important part of maintaining civil and appropriate relationships. Our Orthodox Christian faith gives us a capacity to enter into a conversation on the spiritual life with virtually anyone who is a seeker. We should all desire to see peaceful and respectful relationships among all groups of human beings. There are, however, necessary boundaries to the relationships we are trying to establish. Boundaries reflect a centre and are themselves part of our capacity to speak and care for each other while recognising who ourselves we really are. Or, to use an ancient adage, chastity is not a condition of withdrawal but a recognition of our limitations and thus a part of our capacity to respond to others in deeply human ways free of the fantasy that each of us is capable of everything. Ecumenism is an area in which proper boundaries have become blurred. Orthodox communities need to reassess the boundaries of participation without withdrawing from dialogue and confessing the Sacred Tradition and liturgical worship.

Since others will be presenting various point of view and perspectives on the question at hand, I will limit myself to four questions and a concluding statement. If we wish to discuss the limits of Ecumenism from an Orthodox Christian perspective, we can begin with four questions:

1. What was the purpose of the Ecumenical Movement at its beginning [its purpose from an Orthodox perspective and for Orthodoxy]?
2. What has the Ecumenical Movement become at present?
3. Is Jesus Christ always welcome at the table?
4. Is the priesthood necessary?

1. THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

Any readings about the origins of the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Movement in general will inform us of its original purpose. Protestantism had awakened to the reality that it is split and divided into several hundred differing denominations following different traditions and with sometimes radically different theologies. Protestant missionaries in the field were often overlapping and sometimes competing with each other. The competition was usually concerned with winning converts to their respective denominations. Although most of them built hospitals, clinics, orphanages and other compassionate and valuable charitable institutions, many realised that money would be more productively spent through cooperation. Of course many of the missionaries themselves did cooperate in the mission field even though their denominations did not cooperate at all in the homeland. The example of those working “in the field” induced the denominations to make efforts at unity.

In an effort to deal with this awkward reality, founding a movement that sought to reconcile these differences was a worthy undertaking for them. The Ecumenical Movement began as an effort to create doctrinal and administrative unity among Protestant denominations. I wish to suggest that, while it was appropriate for the Orthodox Church to have dialogue with this movement and with the World Council of Churches, it was not appropriate to join such organisations. It was not appropriate because it contradicts the self-awareness and dogmatic understanding of “ecclesia” with which the Orthodox Church has always defined herself. This would be particularly true if the Ecumenical organization thought of itself as “ecclesia” or sought to create “ecclesia”. One must admire the Roman Catholic position in this regard. Like the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism holds that it contains in itself the pleroma — the whole fulness of the divine revelation and the completeness of the divine presence and authority. Rome, therefore, saw no need to join something larger or greater than itself. While the Vatican entered into dialogue with the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Movement, it refused to join them. Rather, Rome took the position that she was guiding those in error back toward the truth, and that it was both strong enough and had enough to offer that it could engage as an “observer” and interlocutor treasuring and speaking out of its own gifts. The Roman Catholic Church thus remained faithful to herself, to her self-awareness and dogmatic concept of her nature. She maintained appropriate boundaries without refusing friendly dialogue.

It is my view that the fact that our Orthodox Church did not remain faithful to her own self-understanding in this regard is a great tragedy. It was often political expediency, and sometimes just a desire to be recognised by the non-Orthodox religious bodies, that led us to violate the premises of our own being and completeness. Some of our local churches entered this essentially liberal Protestant movement in order to gain support in their struggle with persecution. The Soviet State made use of the Russian Church membership in the World Council of Churches for propaganda purposes even while the Church itself was attempting to use the World Council of Churches in order to gain support in easing Communist persecution. The Greek patriarchate felt that it needed external support in its relations with the Turkish state, but there was also a fear of isolation, and a desire to be recognised in a special way, behind its membership in the Ecumenical movement. State churches such as those in Scandinavia entered into the WCC and found over many years that they had to be very careful not to speak out of their orientation to the Gospel but, as state churches, to always couch their statements as part of the civil state. As a result, for example, the Swedish state church finally sought and received disestablishment in the year 2000. The fact is that the purpose of the Ecumenical Movement was aimed at a doctrinal unity that could only be attained through reductionism and minimalism. What they had in common was a rejection of Sacred Tradition, a denial of the priesthood, and an essential negation of the Holy Mysteries. Since these are the central features of the Protestant tradition it should not surprise us. In one sense we should not have assumed that they would do otherwise nor should we ask them to reject their own special gifts of critic of these our treasured gifts and revelation.

2. WHAT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT HAS BECOME

The original intent of the Ecumenical Movement did not produce the desired results. Liberal Protestantism has dominated the movement, and doctrinal as well as faith and order consensus became increasingly out of reach. The need for Sacred Tradition and a legitimate priesthood could never be acknowledged. Even within the Anglican Communion, with its nominal priests, the meaning of the priestly office is optional and not understood.

As a consequence, the World Council of Churches and Ecumenism in general began to seek a new raison d’être and purpose. What emerged, in addition to cooperation in charitable work, was an ideology of utilitarian human rights (that is something beyond basic human rights). As an example, led by elements in the United Church of Canada (Methodist/ Presbyterian/Congregational), the more liberal membership began to accept readily available abortion as a human or civil right. The ordination of women followed naturally in the absence of a valid concept of priesthood within the Anglican Communion. The efforts to inject more spiritual and theological soundness by the Orthodox membership has not produced the desired results. On the contrary, we have seen the development of the “Jesus Seminar” which, though not officially connected to the WCC, is claimed by many who are part of member churches of the World Council of Churches. This organisation strives to reinterpret the four Gospels with a view to eliminating the words of Christ which they feel to be not authentic. The Moderator of the United Church of Canada, in an interview with The Globe and Mail, our national newspaper and then again in a 2002 sermon declared that the doctrine of the Incarnation is simply not true, the ever-virginity of the Theotokos is not accepted by the vast majority of members of the Ecumenical Movement, nor is the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Increasingly we have seen the precepts of liberal Protestantism being manifested among Orthodox Christians, particularly in North America. The concept of a “higher criticism of Scripture” (i.e. a more scholarly critique that calls the authenticity of books such as the Prophecy of Isaiah and Daniel into serious doubt), appears in lectures at Orthodox seminaries in America. Perhaps most disturbing is the omitting of Christ from much of the “interfaith” dialogue. It is not at all rare to hear both priests and laity in the Orthodox Churches in Canada and America declare that “we all worship the same God. All religions lead us to God.”

3. IS JESUS CHRIST ALWAYS WELCOME AT THE TABLE?

This brings us to the next question that we must ask. To what degree do Christians involved in dialogue with non-Christians display embarrassment that Jesus Christ is the God we worship. This is especially true in Ecumenical services in which Christians join with non-Christians in public prayer. I have been present at public events where even without the participation of non-Christians, mention of Christ is studiously avoided. As an example, at a Press Club luncheon in Toronto that I attended in 2005, the Anglican minister who gave the prayer, began with “O God—as each one understands him or her—bless us all here gathered…” At an Ecumenical service in Nova Scotia for the victims of a tragic Swiss Air crash, the organisers asked the Christian clergy participating to avoid “the particularity of invoking Jesus in the prayers.” The participating United Church and Anglican clergy agreed to this.

On the other hand, Professor David Goa, an Orthodox Christian layman who teaches Comparative Religion at the University of Alberta, has a different approach. Being highly respected and well known in all religious communities in Canada, he is often invited to events in Islamic, Jewish, Sikh and Buddhist communities. When he is invited to offer a prayer, he always begins with “Christ our God…”. At the same time, he is respectful of all these other communities. He recently told me, “Whether I am the host or a guest, I feel that I must offer the best that I have to offer. If I am asked for a prayer, Jesus Christ is certainly the best that I have to offer.” He continues to be invited.

Too many liberal Protestants have developed a form of self-hatred based on a gradual loss of a deep faith, a sense that their denomination has contributed to violations of human rights. In many instances this is true in their dealings with aboriginal populations.

Whatever the reasons, whatever the dynamics, Jesus Christ is not always welcome at the table, and we do have Orthodox delegates in the Ecumenical Movement who are willing to sit at a table at which Christ is not welcome.

4. IS THE PRIESTHOOD EVEN NECESSARY?

This is a serious question that Orthodox leaders must answer without equivocation.

At some point, many Orthodox leaders decided that, in the interest of Ecumenism, we should employ ekonomia and accept at least some of the sacraments of any Christian body that in one form or another confessed the Holy Trinity. Whether or not the denomination in question accepted or denied the existence of sacraments did not matter. This appears to be a friendly act, and I am not going to question the right of hierarchs to exercise ekonomia. Here is what makes this blanket application of ekonomia questionable:

1. Some Protestants do not acknowledge the concept of sacraments, but we would still be obliged to accept their non-sacramental baptisms and marriages.

2. Behind a sometimes superficial acceptance of the Trinity, there are real gaps. One can be a member in good standing, and participate in communion in some Protestant Churches without necessarily accepting the virgin birth of Christ and the Incarnation. What, then, does the use of a certain amount of Trinitarian language actually mean? In many Protestant churches the use of Trinitarian language is not part of the Lord’s Supper at all. The whole theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper shares nothing with an Orthodox understanding, shape or spiritual purpose. It would only be appropriate and friendly to take them at their word and acknowledge that the Trinitarian language of Protestantism does not express an Orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity, nor even one that is acceptable from an Orthodox perspective. True dialogue is not about collapsing differences. Rather, it is about taking our differences seriously and speaking and listening to the depth of their meaning.

3. Most of the members of the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical movement do not acknowledge the existence of a sacramental priesthood, nor the need for one and, in most cases they are deeply critical to such an idea. The Anglican Communion has an ambivalent concept of such a priesthood, and one need not acknowledge a sacramental priesthood in the Anglican Communion. Many churches in this Communion do not acknowledge such a priesthood, and refer to their priests and priestesses only as “ministers.”

4. At least in North America, what was once an expression of ekonomia has become a principle rather than an ekonomia. A key question for us to think through is: what do we do when there has been an adoption of a principle, even informally, which displaces a part of our integral understanding? My perspective is not that we withdraw from dialogue because of this, but rather become conscious of this displacement and correct ourselves, making our concerns and considerations known to those with whom we are dialoging, in an honest and non-apologetic manner. All real dialogue is heart to heart and has nothing to do with blurring margins. In fact, blurring margins can be a form of diminished friendship.

5. We have instances on this continent in which clergy from various denominations have been accepted as Orthodox priests by means of only confession. And, how has this effected the way Bishops as well as those clergy understand what has happened to them when they entered the Orthodox Church. It has led directly to an assumption that there is no need for an ongoing formation for clergy, that the general (or particular Protestant pattern of study) they have had is all “Christian” and thus worthy, that the Orthodox mind can float on the surface of a general Christian education. The most serious challenge to Orthodoxy in North America is not liberal attitudes or morality but the entrance of the Evangelical Protestant mindset through the clergy who are accepted into Orthodox priesthood without any real Orthodox formation, in the full assurance that Orthodoxy is simply a kind of patina. “It adds colour to my faith and, besides which, it gives me authority and a place of importance that I did not have in my own church but have found in Orthodoxy.” Consequently, this mindset continues to harbour much of the original Protestant formation. One is tempted to think that the significance of the priesthood is not understood in our own midst either as a result, at least in part, of these ecumenical conversation that have taken up far more energy than has been given to the formation of our convert clergy. This is why many of them take a Protestant view of elements of Traditional Orthodox piety.

On an intellectual level, our delegates to the World Council of Churches and other Ecumenical bodies can explain away the contradictions to themselves, but ordinary Orthodox Christians become confused by these things. As we mentioned before, it is not at all uncommon to hear Orthodox priests and laity in North America express the idea that all religions, not just the Christian ones, lead to God equally. “We are all the same. Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Hindus all worship the same God. All religions lead to truth.” Such an attitude arises largely from our Orthodox participation in Ecumenism and Interfaith activities. But there is something even more insipid in this: it fails to take seriously the claims to “difference” and uniqueness that each of these remarkable religious traditions have as part of their self-definition. This failure is deeply unchristian and certainly not a part of the historical Orthodox theology of culture.

In the Anglican Church, some of the women bishops are more conservative than their male counterparts, others are radically liberal. But if sacramental baptism is performed under the authority of the bishop, do we in some way recognise the sacramental authority of women bishops? When an Anglican priest is accepted into the Orthodox priesthood only by confession, do we in some way acknowledge the sacramental priesthood of a woman bishop who ordained him? If so, what can prevent us from acknowledging the sacramental validity of the ordinations of women priests in the Anglican Church

What is the point of these questions? If religious bodies which do not accept the concept of a sacramental priesthood (or have no valid concept of it) can consecrate and sanctify, then is such a priesthood genuinely necessary? If so, what is the actual meaning and function of a sacramental priesthood? How do we define it, and how do we define the sacraments that, in the Orthodox Church, only a priest can fulfil? In particular, how do we define these things in relation to the Ecumenical Movement, in which the Orthodox Church alone has a valid and unequivocal concept of a sacramental priesthood?

These are all questions that must be considered in any serious discussion of the limits and boundaries of Orthodox Christian participation in Ecumenism.

CONCLUSION

I realise that I have raised questions and not given proposed answers to them. I can really only offer an opinion. The Orthodox Church is conciliar, and such questions must be answered by synods.

Please allow me to express a point of view, however, about the appropriate boundaries of Orthodox participation in Ecumenism. By no means would I advocate an isolationism or a withdrawal from dialogues. Moreover, I do believe that the Orthodox Church should be much more involved in issues relating to ecology and authentic social justice issues. Other Christian bodies and other religious communities are fine companions for such common human work.

I believe that the Vatican has taken the decision and role that is proper to her concept and teaching about the nature and position of the Roman Catholic Church. The same position and role would have been the one that is doctrinally and dogmatically consistent and appropriate for the Orthodox Church. The position we have taken manifests internal contradictions that are not so easily resolved in a manner consistent with the Orthodox Church’s own consciousness and dogmatic position about herself, about her nature and her “being.”

It could be more self-consistent and dogmatically proper and appropriate for us to dialogue with other Christian bodies from a position that Orthodoxy contains the pleroma, the whole fulness of the Gospel revelation and evangelical, sacramental life revealed by Jesus Christ and the Apostles as the proper life of the Body of Christ. Let us say that the Orthodox Church teaches and always has taught that she alone possesses the pleroma of the Body of Christ. How, then, could we join ourselves to a religious movement or spiritual body that sees itself as being greater (i.e., more complete) than the Orthodox Church?

I am only offering my opinions and point of view, but I sincerely believe that these are questions and considerations that must be given much prayerful thought and discussion as we seek our proper boundaries and limits in relation to the Ecumenical Movement. The limits of ecumenical dialogue for us should be to teach the “faith once delivered” (Jude 1:3), to preach the proper understanding of the Gospel, to confess the Sacred Tradition and to expand the role of our faithful in the sanctification of creation. Involvement and cooperation in ecology, issues of social justice and human rights should be done within the framework of our own doctrine, not within the framework of the Ecumenical social ideology. The role of the Orthodox Church in this world is to teach and to sanctify and to redeem. Let it be said of us in this generation that we “have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.” (Romans 6:17).

One final comment: only when a person or a communion speaks the best it has out of the depth of its mind and heart does it enter into whatever friendly and loving relationship the Holy Spirit offers us when we greet “the other” (i.e., other faith communities). Only when we pay attention to all that is best in us are we given the grace of seeing the other’s face in the manner that our Lord taught us. Dialogue is first and foremost a turning toward the other with all that is best in us. Our boundaries become connections rather than barriers but connections are not without form and limits. As human beings our limits are also part of our created glory and are not to be feared but claimed with an open and merciful heart. Ecumenism and dialogue should not be allowed to colonize the treasured mysteries that shape our faith and tradition.

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo
Bright Tuesday, 2009

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Celtic Christianity Rooted In Ancient Tradition

Rooted in the Tradition

Celtic Christianity is not as theologically unique as many have supposed.

Gilbert Márkus
Thursday, October 1, 1998
Christianity Today


Newly emerging churches nearly always recycle old, pre-Christian ideas to serve their new faith, stitching together the pagan past and the Christian present.

In the Mediterranean world, Christian philosophers reshaped neo-Platonism. In early Christian Gaul, thousands of pagan well-spring shrines were converted into Christian sites, while Pope Gregory the Great told the English church not to destroy pagan shrines but to reuse them, "changing them from the worship of devils to the service of the true God."

We see the same process in the early "Celtic" church—Christians who spoke the ancient Celtic languages: Gaelic, Welsh, and Pictish. These first Celtic Christians wove their new-found faith in Christ into their ancient languages and cultures. Columba, for example, reportedly blessed a Pictish well where a malign spirit lived and turned it into a Christian place of healing.

What was the nature of the Celtic Christianity that emerged from this enculturating process? Today many moderns long to find something different in Celtic Christianity—a beautiful spiritual tradition unlike the messy and compromised history of the larger Western tradition.

There is nothing distinctively Celtic about the sense of God's presence in the natural world.
But how different was it?

Nature lovers?

"The bird which calls from the willow, / Lovely its little beak with its clear call. / Tuneful yellow bill of the firm black fellow— / A lively tune is sung, the blackbird's voice." So wrote one ninth-century poet in Gaelic. This kind of writing is one of the most instantly attractive aspects to modern admirers of Celtic Christianity.

Celtic Christians have left us some lovely poetry celebrating the natural world as God's creation. But medieval Christians in England and Europe also delighted in creation. There is nothing distinctively Celtic about the sense of God's presence in the natural world. Consider Augustine of Hippo, seeking God in and through nature's beauties: "With a great voice they cried out, 'He made us.' My question was the attention I gave to them; their response was their beauty."

Celts were also aware of the dangers of the natural world, as an eighth-century Irish prayer makes clear: "Deliver me, almighty Lord God, from all dangers of land and sea and waters, and from the phantasm of all beasts and birds and quadrupeds and serpents … from lightning, thunder, hail and snow, from rain and winds, earth's dangers."

Saints are often shown having dealings with animals, yes, but such stories are not illustrations of some Celtic ecological consciousness. More often they were meant to demonstrate how God's grace and power were present in the holy man or woman.

Not just monasteries

The early Celtic church had a strongly monastic element. From the beginning, Patrick had established primitive communities of monks and nuns, just as his contemporaries had in Gaul and Italy. By the end of the seventh century, abbots controlled monasteries and "families" of monasteries whose wealth, power, and influence were enormous. In some tellings, the picture, especially of Ireland, is of a church almost entirely composed of monks (and a handful of nuns) dedicated to work and prayer.

This view is partly a result of distorted evidence. There were no cities like those in Europe, which had powerful bishops who could support libraries and scholarship on an impressive scale. In the rural Celtic world, monasteries were the only institutions with the resources to create the manuscripts we now depend on. Small rural churches serving local lay populations left no such traces.

In fact, ordinary Christians and their ministers played important parts. Laws written around A.D. 700 show that bishops had a central pastoral role. The so-called Rule of Patrick mandates "a chief bishop for every tribe, to ordain their clergy, to consecrate their churches, to be confessor to princes and chiefs, and to sanctify and bless their children after baptism." Furthermore, the highly status-conscious laws give the bishop honor equal to that of the king.

The Rule of Patrick also describes the ordinary pastoral and sacramental roles of the clergy. They must baptize, "for there is no dwelling in heaven for the soul of someone who has not been baptized with lawful baptism." The clergy must also say Mass and give Communion, and they must pray for and bury the dead.

Lay people and their pastors, though they have left little trace in the great monastic writings, clearly abounded in large numbers. In Ireland alone, there are more than 6,000 place-names containing the element Cill-, the old Gaelic word for church.

Praying with the Celts

Far from being culturally and religiously isolated from Europe, the Irish and Welsh prayed in Latin for most liturgical purposes, just as their Christian brothers did throughout the Western Church. We still have several Celtic manuscripts in which the prayers of the Mass, baptism, and anointing of the sick are recorded—all quite similar to those in other parts of the European church. In monasteries, the psalms formed the core of common prayer and private devotion. Psalm 118 in particular, the Beati, was greatly loved and honored: "As a man at the foot of the gallows would pour out praise and lamentation to the king, to gain his deliverance; so we pour forth lamentation to the King of Heaven in the Beati, to gain our deliverance."

Alongside the psalms, biblical canticles (such as the Magnificat), and hymns—both Latin and vernacular—were popular.

Vernacular prayers—we have more in Gaelic than in Welsh—were less ecclesiastical in feel. They reflect a more personal or domestic use. Such prayers include praises of God, prayers to his saints, requests for protection, and blessings. Some even seem more like magical charms than prayers.

A prayer against headache runs: "Head of Christ, eye of Isaiah, forehead of Noah, lips and tongue of Solomon, throat of Timothy, mind of Benjamin, chest of Paul, joint of John, faith of Abraham: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts."

Cult of saints

Celtic churches are also said to have had a singular devotion to their saints. But in this too they are very much like their sister churches in Europe. A vast literature focuses on the spiritual powers of these saints and of their relics and the need for devotion to them. According to one eighth-century source, a certain man died and went to heaven: he had never done any good at all, except that "on lying down and rising up he recounted the saints of the world."

Particular saints were closely associated with particular places. Many great saints were also linked to powerful noble families, lending an aura of divine approval to whole dynasties. In fact, if a local saint was not already linked to a rising dynasty, his life story might be rewritten to give religious legitimacy to the new rulers.

Unity and difference

Far from being different, Celtic Christianity was very much like the faith of the church elsewhere. And there's a good reason for this. A striking feature of early Celtic literature is its close connection to European writing.

The island monastery of Iona, for example, may seem exotically remote to many moderns, but it was fully immersed in the international theological culture of its age. By the early eighth century, the Iona library contained works by Basil and John Cassian, Jerome, Augustine, Philip the Presbyter, Sulpicius Severus, Athanasius, Gregory the Great, and many others.

Of course, there was also a great deal of what we might now call "folk Christianity"—the faith of a largely peasant population—as well as native poetry and lore. But monks and clergy were also great scholars in European terms and contributed greatly to international learning.

There were differences in detail between the Celtic Christians and their continental neighbors: church architecture, Easter dates, inheritance laws, and local traditions. But almost all the main features of early Celtic Christianity could be found anywhere in Catholic Europe, where every tribe and tongue and nation made the gospel their own.

The Celts found their own way of retelling the old story all the while sharing one recognizable faith.

Gilbert Márkus is a Dominican friar, Catholic chaplain at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, and an honorary research fellow in the department of Celtic of the University of Glasgow.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Defense of Papoulakos

During his lifetime in the 19th century Papoulakos was a controversial figure and was persecuted and misunderstood by the Church of Greece which he faithfully served. Sadly there are still some clergy today who maintain that Papoulakos is still a controversial figure who should not be as honored as he is. An excellent 13-page defense of Papoulakos was written by Metropolitan Epiphanios of Thera which fully justifies the sanctity of Papoulakos and why he is worthy of honor.

The full text of this epistle in Greek can be read here and here (pdf).

To read more about Papoulakos, see here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The "Theotokos" Clinic in Medan, Indonesia

Medan is the capital of the province of North Sumatra in Indonesia. An Orthodox mission is established there for the poor and the needy. It is primarily supported by an Orthodox parish in Australia. As a part of their mission, a clinic is there dedicated to the Theotokos which was opened on February 13, 2010. It has 10 hospital rooms, 19 beds, a pharmacy, and offices for the doctors and workers. There are presently two doctors and four nurses. It costs 10,000€ annually to support the staff and mission. So far over 500 people have come to the clinic for free services, 170 of these were mothers who have had problems with their pregnancy. A major problem in this area is that pregnant women do not receive the necessary tests, which is why a clinic such as this can provide needed help.

The Theotokos Clinic will offer the following programs coinciding with major feasts of the Theotokos:

1. During the month of August the clinic will offer free tests to all pregnant women, estimated to cost about $2500.

2. On the Feast of the Presentation on November 21 infants will receive free tests and vaccines. This is estimated to cost about $2500.

3. On January 1, for the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, free circumcisions will be offered to the Muslim neighbors who live in Namorambe. The purpose of this is to make known to all the inhabitants the Orthodox mission in the area.

For more about these missionary efforts and how to contribute, see here.

Below are pictures from the clinic with Father Chrysostomos who leads the mission there:










Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saints Chrysanthos and Daria the Martyrs

Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria and those with them (Feast Day - March 19)

Today we celebrate the Holy Martyrs Chrysanthos and Daria and with them the Martyrs Claudius the Tribune with his wife Hilaria and their sons Jason and Maurus, and Diodorus the Presbyter and Marianus the Deacon.

St Chrysanthos came from a pagan family who had moved to Rome from Alexandria. He received a fine education, and among the books he read were those in which pagans discussed Christianity. The young man, however, wanted to read books written by Christians themselves. He finally managed to find a copy of the New Testament, which enlightened his rational soul.

Seeking someone to instruct him in the Holy Scriptures, he found the presbyter Carpophoros hiding from persecution, and received holy Baptism from him. After this, he began to preach the Gospel. Chrysanthos' father tried to turn his son from Christianity, and finally married him to Daria, a priestess of Minerva.

St Chrysanthos managed to convert his wife to Christ, and the young couple mutually agreed to lead celibate lives. After the death of the father, they began to live in separate houses. St Chrysanthos converted several young men to Christ, and many pious women gathered around St Daria.

The people of Rome complained to the eparch Celerinus that Sts Chrysanthos and Daria were preaching celibacy and attracting too many young men and women to monasticism. St Chrysanthos was sent to the tribune Claudius for torture.

The torments, however, did not shake the bravery of the young martyr, since the power of God clearly aided him. Struck by this, the tribune Claudius himself came to believe in Christ and accepted holy Baptism together with his wife Hilaria, their sons Jason and Maurus, and all his household and soldiers. When news of this reached the emperor Numerian (283-284), he commanded them all to be executed. The Martyr Claudius was drowned in the sea, and his sons and soldiers were beheaded. Christians buried the bodies of the holy martyrs in a nearby cave, and St Hilaria constantly went there to pray. Once, they followed her and led her off for torture. The saint asked that they give her a few moments to pray, and as soon as she finished, she gave up her soul to God. A servant buried the saint in the cave beside her sons.

The torturers sent St Daria to a brothel, where she was protected by a lion sent by God. A certain man who tried to defile the saint was knocked to the ground and pinned down by the lion, but the lion did not kill him. The martyr preached to them about Christ and set them to the path of salvation.

They threw St Chrysanthos into a foul-smelling pit, into which all the filth of the city flowed. But a heavenly light shone on him, and the pit was filled with a sweet fragrance.

Then the emperor Numerian ordered Sts Chrysanthos and Daria to be turned over to the executioners. After many cruel tortures, the martyrs were buried alive in the ground.

In a cave near the place of execution [near the Via Salaria Nova, the catacombs in Rome], Christians began to gather to honor the anniversary of the saints' martyrdom. They celebrated Church services and partook of the Holy Mysteries. Learning of this, the pagan authorities sealed the entrance to the cave, and those within received the crown of martyrdom.

Two of these martyrs are known by name: the Presbyter Diodorus and the Deacon Marianus.

Later, when the tomb of Sts. Chrysanthos and Daria was looked for and found, the bones of these martyrs, and even the liturgical silver vessels, which they used for the celebration of the Eucharist, were also discovered. Everything was left as it was found, and a wall was erected so that no one could enter the place. Only through a window-opening in the wall could be seen the tomb of Sts. Chrysanthos and Daria, as well as the bones of the Christians killed in the tomb. This tomb, like so many others, was embellished by Pope Damasus, who had poems in praise of the martyrs engraved on marble and placed there. Gregory of Tours describes this sanctuary in an interesting chapter of his "De gloria martyrum", I, xxxviii (P.L., LXXI, 739). During the invasions of the Goths the sanctuary was desecrated, but later it was restored, as a metrical inscription composed at that time and falsely attributed to Pope Damasus asserts.

In the 9th century, some of the remains of Chrysanthos and Daria were brought to Prum in modern-day Rhineland-Palatinate, but the cult remained largely local. In 1011 Pope Sergius IV gave Fulk Nerra, Count of Anjou, some of the martyrs' relics upon his return from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Fulk gave them to the monastery of Belli Locus which he had recently established. The relics of Sts Chrysanthos and Daria are found in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Rome.

HYMN OF PRAISE

By St. Nikolai Velimirovich

Saint Chrysanthos counsels Daria,

O virgin, forsake the lie

And do not venerate the idols as gods;

Neither seek, you, truth from the world.

The truth is in the One God,

The One Triune God

Who created the heavenly armies

Of angels and heavenly powers;

Who created the whole universe,

And of the universe, man, the crown.

The only One, immortal and living,

He, out of the earth, creates wrappings

And the clothing of spiritual wealth.

Our soul is spiritual wealth

Wrapped up in the dust of the body.

The soul should be tenderly nurtured

As a bride to make ready for Christ.

Forsake, O virgin, the bodily,

It leads to suffering and sorrow.

God does not look into the vessel of the flesh

But at the flower which grows in it.

O virgin, clothed in death

Today, tomorrow consumed by death:

Adorn your soul with the flower of virtues,

Sow the flower with faith in the Lord,

Enclose it with hope and love,

Water it with the Life-creating Spirit,

Weed it of the weeds of sins,

Let grow the flower of virtues,

Let grow the flower of piety,

Let grow the flower of charity,

Let grow the flower of repentance,

Let grow the flower of patience,

Let grow the flower of abstinence,

Let grow the flower of obedience.

As a hymn of Paradise, your soul is,

Let it smell like a garden in May.

And may God to dwell therein,

For which He created it.

Daria listened to Chrysanthos,

Her soul to Christ she wedded,

Her body to torture she submitted

With Chrysanthos, her spiritual brother.

And God transplanted them to Paradise,

With them, adorned the garden of Paradise.

Apolytikion

Let us honor the like-minded pair of Martyrs, Chrysanthos scion of purity, and supremely modest Daria. United in holiness of faith, they shone forth as communicants of God the Word. They fought lawfully for Him and now save those who sing: Glory to Him Who has strengthened you; glory to Him Who has crowned you; glory to Him Who through you works healings for all.

Kontakion

O Chrysanthos, in the sweet fragrance of holiness thou didst draw Daria to saving knowledge. Together in contest you routed the serpent, the author of all evil, and were worthily taken up to the heavenly realms.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Pancharius, Beheaded at Nicomedia

Pancharius was born in Villach, Germany [present day Austria]. He was a high-ranking officer at the court of Diocletian and Maximian. At first, he denied Christ but, being counseled by his mother and sister, he returned to the Faith of Christ and died for it in the year 302 A.D.

"That mercy [of God] that resurrects us and against which we sin later on is even greater then that mercy that He bestowed upon us before He gave us being; when we did not exist. Glory O Lord to Your immeasurable mercy!" Thus speaks St. Isaac the Syrian. He wants to say that greater is the mercy that God showed toward us when, through Christ, He saved us from the corruption of sin and death, than when He created us out of nothing. Truly, it is so. Even our earthly parents show greater mercy to the perverted and fallen son when they embrace him again, forgive him all, make him civilized, cleanse him, heal him and again make him their heir, than when they gave him birth.

When the young Pancharius, surrounded by royal honors, denied Christ, his mother wrote him a letter full of pain and sorrow. "Do not be afraid of men," wrote his mother, "but it is essential to fear God's judgment. You should have confessed your faith in Christ before emperors and lords and not to have denied Him. Remember His words: `But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before My heavenly Father'" (St. Matthew 10:33). Being ashamed of himself, the son accepts the advice of his mother, confessed his faith in Christ before the emperor, and died a martyr's death for Christ in order to live with Him eternally. And so the blessed mother of Pancharius brought about a new birth for her son, a spiritual birth more important than the first, physical birth.

- St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Prologue for March 19

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Prayer With The Non-Orthodox?

A Question Pertinent to our Time

By Reader Michael Astley
March 19, 2010

"When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared on them divided tongues,as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

- The Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2:1-4

The ecumenical movement has brought about much good. This cannot be denied. Many people have been exposed to the Orthodox Faith who would otherwise never have encountered the pearl of great price that is the Truth of Christ. Many of them have scorned us, while others have remained indifferent. Yet others have sought to incorporate part of what they have found in Orthodoxy into their own confessions. While we must not hastily rejoice in such blending of traditions, we must remain steadfast in our trust of God’s faithfulness and that the life-giving Trinity will allow this seed to grow and bear fruit. Others have searched the depths of their hearts and allowed themselves to answer the call to become one in Christ’s Body, the Church, for which God be praised.

However, at what price comes this good? As the reader will be aware, the word ecumenism has different shades of meaning and does not solely refer to conversations with our friends of other confessions for the purposes of mutual understanding – itself no bad thing. It also bears connotations that are much more sinister, though subtly so. Ecumenism can also refer to the acceptance of beliefs and practices as Orthodox that are actually contrary to the Orthodox Christian Faith. In being less than careful in our presentation of the Faith to others, do we who have been incorporated into the Body of Christ and who, through the laver of new birth, have received the adoption of sons by God’s grace, run the risk of selling our own birthright for a mess of pottage? Those of our Orthodox brothers and sisters who are heavily involved in the ecumenical movement will tell us that this is not the case but one has to wonder at some of the things that we see. This short article is intended to deal with one element of our Tradition: namely, the matter of prayer, and with whom it can be offered in the Orthodox understanding of Church.

One positive result of the ecumenical movement is that many of our friends who are not Orthodox have developed a better understanding of our practice of sharing the Mysteries only among the Orthodox. More and more, they realize that we cannot, because of what we understand to be a proper Christian ecclesiology, recognise those outside of Orthodoxy as being part of the Church, because of what we understand Christ’s Church to be; and that we see the Mysteries – especially Baptism and the Eucharist – as being intrinsically bound to the life of the Church. However, if we act with love and generosity, they should also realise that we do not, (and indeed would not wish to), deny their sincerity in striving to live according to what God would have us all be, even though we cannot make Eucharist with them because of the separation that exists between us. They realise that our actions are not born of smugness or pride but out of faithfulness to Christ and love for his people, and our beliefs about the nature of the Church. Another positive result of the ecumenical movement is that we who are Orthodox are forced to challenge and uproot any pride that may be lurking in our hearts as we strive to explain this to our families, friends, and acquaintances without causing undue offence. Our understanding of the nature of the Church as a microcosm of the consubstantial and undivided Trinity – not embracing fragmentation, disconcord, and division within itself - is one that is difficult for many to swallow, yet it is one that we believe to be true, and it is imperative that we harbour no sense of superiority when sharing the Faith with others, recognising that it is only by God’s grace that we are a part of this Church.

Unfortunately, this good has often been undone by the idea propagated by the ecumenical movement that, whatever separates us, we can take comfort in the fact that we can at least pray together. This is an example of the false ecumenism that subtly undermines the Christianity that we have received from those before us, by deceptively presenting itself as something positive. To the Orthodox mind, prayer, like the entire mystical life in Christ, is shared among those who are one in Christ through Baptism. Sadly, even some Orthodox people are heard to say things such as, ‘I do not receive communion when I go to a church that isn’t Orthodox but I’m glad that I can pray with them.’ The very fact that sincere Orthodox Christians can say such things and quite honestly not see that this is contradictory to Orthodoxy is itself evidence that the ecumenical movement has had the effect of diluting Orthodoxy in the minds and hearts of at least some Orthodox people, and this is no small matter, for it is not just our own deification that is stunted. What are we presenting to our non-Orthodox and non- Christian friends when we ourselves hold to a version of Orthodox Christianity that is impoverished and incoherent, and unfaithful to the nature of the Church, which is Christ’s Body?

The fact of the matter is that prayer with those who are not Orthodox is no different from sacramental Communion with those who are not Orthodox, or recognition of those outside of Orthodoxy as being one with the Church despite their separation from us in ecclesiastical fact and in matters of faith and worship. These things are all contradictory to Orthodoxy for they all deny the unity of the Church, suggesting that the Trinity is divided. It is precisely these ideas and practices based thereon which fall under the anathema against the heresy of Ecumenism[1], which has been pronounced in our hierarchical services[2] every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy since its affirmation in 1983. The canons are quite clear on this matter:

"One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."

- Laodicia XXXIII

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

- Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles

"Concerning the fact that those belonging to the Church must not be allowed to go visiting the cemeteries or the so called martyria of any heretics, for the purpose of prayer or of cure, but, on the contrary, those who do so, if they be among the faithful, shall be excluded from communion for a time until they repent and confess their having made a mistake, when they may be readmitted to communion."

- Laodicia IX

"If any clergyman or layman enter a synagogue of Jews or of heretics to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

- Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles

These words may sound harsh to our 21st-century ears but our ears ought to be primarily Orthodox and not led by the spirit of the age of ecumenism.

To further complicate matters, it is not unheard of for some Orthodox people to argue that these canons do not apply to joint prayer with non-Orthodox Christians today, as the term heretic cannot properly be applied to them. Yes, it is true that in some – perhaps even most – cases, our friends of other confessions cannot properly be called heretics. A heretic is one who, claiming to be a Christian and understanding the Christian Faith, chooses to adopt and profess a distortion of that Faith as though it were Christianity, thereby setting his own will and reasoning above the Body of Christ. Most people in non-Orthodox churches today are not guilty of this but have simply inherited such distortions. Their forbears may indeed have been heretics but those today are simply professing what they have always known, and have themselves made no conscious decision to depart from the true Faith. It would be wrong of us to attribute to them the sort of pride of which they have not been guilty. Therefore, they are properly referred to as heterodox, which simply means “other believing” or “other worshipping”[3]. They confess beliefs other than those which are Orthodox and they conduct their lives and worship according to those beliefs. Therefore, it can be reasonably argued that the word heretic does not apply to them.

However, none of that is of any relevance to the matter at hand. These canons are not condemnatory – they do not accuse our heterodox friends of being wicked heretics – for that is not their purpose. No, the purpose of these canons is to clarify that the Orthodox may not pray with those who are separated from us because of the Christian understanding of communal prayer. Whether or not those who are separated are personally responsible for that separation is not relevant here. The point is that the separation is real and that we do not pray with those who are not of one heart and one mind with us, who do not share in our Baptism and our Faith, and our sonship as children of the same heavenly Father. To do so would be to give the false impression that the Church sanctions these separations, and that the incorrect beliefs and manner of living that exist in these traditions are in keeping with the life in Christ, which would be dishonest and extremely unfair to our non-Orthodox friends, not to mention a betrayal of the blood of the Martyrs who have suffered and died for the Faith.

Therefore, when the Orthodox heart, having seen past the initial discomfort caused by the strong wording of the canons, examines why these canons are in place and the meaning behind them, it cannot help but realise that, far from being simply a consolatory action engaged in by those who cannot share in anything more due to their divisions, communal prayer is in fact an action of the Church – an action of those who are of one Faith and are united in a sacramental bond of fellowship brought about by their oneness in Christ, with a common Father, through their common Baptism. It is a sign and outworking of communion in Christ.

This is certainly what we find in Scripture. The opening quotation of this article tells us of the disciples at Whitsun, who had gathered “with one accord”. In the book of Daniel, when Ananias, Azarias, and Misael were cast into the fire at the command of King Nebuchadnezzar, and sang their hymn of praise to God, they were said to sing “as if with one mouth”[4]. St Paul, in his epistle to the church at Rome, has this to say:

"Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

- St Paul to the Romans 6:5-6

He exhorts the faithful of the church at Philippi to “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel”[5]. Time and time again, we see throughout the Scriptures that it is simply assumed that prayer and worship are offered by those of one mind, one heart, one faith, and not by those who are divided and fragmented by schism and heresy.

This Scriptural understanding of prayer and worship permeates the Tradition of the Orthodox Church from the beginning to the present.

Tertullian, writing in the late second or early third century AD, introduces his treatise, On Prayer, with a chapter explaining Christian prayer, and that the Lord's Prayer is the new prayer of the New Covenant, taught by Christ Himself, and that all forms of prayer before this are fulfilled in the Lord's Prayer, which is the prayer of those who are made God's children through their faith and sonship in Him. He calls it a summary of the Gospel. All of the prayer of the Christian faithful stems from the Lord's Prayer.

He goes on to say:

"It begins with bearing witness to God and with the reward of faith when we say: 'Father, You Who are in the heavens.'

"For we are praying to God and confessing the faith of which this mode of address is an indication. It is written: 'To those who believe in Him, He gave power to be called children of God' (John 1:12). For that matter the Lord most frequently proclaimed to us that God is Father, indeed, He also demanded that we should call nobody 'father' on earth, except Him Whom we have in heaven (Matthew 23:9). Therefore, when we pray in this way, we are being obedient to that direction; happy are they who acknowledge the Father! It is on these grounds that Israel is reproached, because the Spirit calls heaven and earth to bear witness as He says: 'I have begotten sons and they have not acknowledged me' (Is 1:2).

"However, when we say 'Father' we are also naming God in a form of address which demonstrates both devotion and power. Moreover, the Son is invoked in the Father, for He says: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). Nor is the mother, the Church, neglected, since the mother is found within the Father and the Son, for the name of Father and Son find their meaning in her. Therefore, under one term and with one name we honour God along with those who are his, both recalling God's commandment and scorning those who have forgotten the Father."

- Tertullian, "On Prayer" chapter II

He clearly associates oneness in the Father with oneness in the Church. St Cyprian makes this even more explicit in his treatise, On the Lord’s Prayer, which was intended as instruction to catechumens, and in which he links the sonship and the ability to truly call upon God as Father directly to the renewal, regeneration, and adoption of Baptism, (chapter IX), and gives this as the reason for the practice of the newly-baptised saying the Lord's Prayer immediately after rising from the water, (which practice, unfortunately, seems to have fallen into disuse in our present-day baptismal liturgies).

In chapter ten, he writes:

"Dearest brothers, we should turn our minds and understand not only that we call Him "Father, Who is in heaven," but that we add to this and say: "Our Father," that is of those who believe, of those who have begun to be children of God, sanctified through Him and restored by a birth of spiritual grace..."

He dedicates three chapters to this point, emphasising that those who have "abandoned Him", (speaking specifically at this point about those of the Jewish confession), cease to have Him as their Father. In chapter 11, he exhorts his catechumens not to fall away, and that none would have dared use this name (Father) in prayer unless God Himself had authorised us to do so.

Immediately prior to this point, and laying the foundation for it, he emphasizes in chapter eight unity in the God of peace and concord as pre-requisite for common prayer. He says that prayer is not individual, and that if we pray by ourselves, we pray only for ourselves. He stresses that we pray to Our Father, and not to My Father, and that we ask for our daily bread, and so forth. Picking up on the point made earlier about prayer being offered by those of one faith, and offering more scriptural support for this, St Cyprian writes:

"The three youths shut up in the furnace of fire observed this law of prayer by joining together in harmony of prayer and agreement of spirit. The reliability of divine Scriptures declares this; and while it teaches the manner in which they prayed, it gives an example which we should imitate in our prayers, inasmuch as we are able to be like them. It says: 'Then those three sang as from one mouth and blessed the Lord' (Daniel 3:51). They were speaking as from one mouth and, though Christ had yet to teach them to pray, their speech as they prayed was availing and efficacious because a peaceable and simple and spiritual prayer was pleasing to God.

"We find that the apostles, together with the disciples, prayed in this manner after the Lord's ascension. It says: 'All were persevering with one mind in their prayer with the women and with Mary who was the mother of Jesus, and his brothers' (Acts1:14). They persevered in prayer, being of one mind in their prayer, as their constancy and unanimity together showed that God, 'Who causes persons to dwell in a house with one mind' (Psalm 67:7), does not admit anyone to the divine and eternal home apart from those whose prayer is of one mind."

Not only is this understanding an ancient one but it is also one that has never been rejected by the Church. Throughout the centuries, the Church has demonstrated this understanding of prayer in the way she worships God, both in terms of explicit statements and actions in the Liturgy and in more subtle arrangements of the structure of the Liturgy.

Bearing in mind the teaching of Tertullian and St Cyprian that the Lord's Prayer is the basis of Christian common prayer, and that such prayer is offered by those who are in union with each other in common faith and as those who have received the adoption as sons of a common Father, it would certainly explain the location of the Lord's Prayer in the Orthodox Eucharistic rites of both east and west. It falls between the Anaphora, (the heart of the corporate worship of God by his people at which, traditionally, those present would be those baptised into oneness with Christ and each other), and the Communion, (demonstrating and feeding that unity and communion with each other and God). Indeed, in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the Anaphora itself ends with the words, "...and grant unto us that with one mouth and one heart we may glorify and hymn thy most-honourable and majestic Name..."[6].

Also, Tertullian's linking of Christian prayer to Baptism and St Cyprian's elucidation of it for the sake of the catechumens both seem to fit in with the Church’s liturgical practice surrounding catechumens. While the deacon is leading the litany for the catechumens, the priest says the following prayer:

"O Lord our God, Who dwellest on high and lookest down on things that are lowly, Who unto the human race hast sent forth salvation, thine Only-Begotten Son and God, our Lord Jesus Christ: look upon thy servants, the catechumens, who have bowed their necks before Thee, and vouchsafe unto them at a seasonable time the laver of regeneration, the remission of sins, and the garment of incorruption; unite them to thy Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and number them among thy chosen flock, that they also with us may glorify thy most honourable and majestic Name: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."[7]

In this prayer, the priest asks that the catechumens may be made one with the faithful in order that they may glorify God along with the faithful. It expresses a direct link between oneness in Christ through Baptism and common faith on the one hand, and the common offering of prayer and worship to God on the other. Immediately after this, the catechumens are dismissed from the gathering, for the faithful are about to make Eucharist. The deacon says:

"As many as are catechumens, depart; catechumens, depart; as many as are catechumens, depart; let none of the catechumens remain."[8]

This is even more explicit in the Liturgy of St James:

"Let none of the catechumens, let none of the uninitiated, let none of those who are not able to join with us in prayer remain."[9]

If followed strictly, with no other factors taken into account, this would seem to require that all those who are not baptised into the Orthodox Church should leave at this point for they cannot offer the Eucharist with the Church of which they are not part, for to join in Christian prayer with the Church is to claim God as Father, and “He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother.”[10] However, such a legalistic reading of the canons is not the Orthodox way. General practice today is that, visitors, who may be unaccustomed to the theology of the Orthodox Church and may be confused or offended by the dismissal, are customarily permitted to stay and observe. Catechumens, however, have already committed themselves to embrace the Orthodox Faith and should act in accordance with this. Therefore, as they are still not united with us in Baptism, there is no excuse for them to remain after this point except where strong pastoral reasons exist in particular cases. In our times, (and as further evidence of the negative influence of the ecumenical movement on the Church), there are some places where the catechumens are routinely encouraged to stay and participate fully, with the exception of not receiving Communion. It is difficult to determine what effect this has on the catechumens’ understanding of the nature of the communion that is the Church and their place in relation to it but it does seem more prudent to maintain the traditional practice.

Now, where does all of this leave us who are in the west, in lands which have lost most of their Orthodox heritage of a thousand years ago, or indeed lands which may never have been Orthodox? We are once again in a missionary situation and our practice must reflect this. The canons of the Church are not hard and fast rules that must be strictly followed in every circumstance but rather exist for the maintenance of the good order of the Church, for the salvation of souls. They are not secular laws, designed to cover every single eventuality and they must be applied more strictly or more leniently according to the particular needs of those to whom the Church is ministering. We see this time and time again in the manner in which we fast, in the manner in which people are received into the Church, and in many other aspects of Church life – such a loving mother the Church is that we are met where we are and nurtured according to what God would have us be.

This does not mean that the canons are cast to the wind but that we must consider how we apply them. In a culture in which the Orthodox presence is minuscule, is it beneficial to require visitors and enquirers to always leave with the catechumens? These are not proud people who have consciously rejected the Orthodox Faith. Rather, these are good people who may be experiencing their first taste of Orthodoxy and may not understand the reasons for this. Of course, it is not intended as a means of hurting people but, confronted with what is to them an unfamiliar practice, without the sensitive explanation of the doctrine behind it, non-Orthodox people may indeed wrongly perceive it as a rejection of them. Is this the best way to bring souls to Christ? Is this reflective of the love that Christ showed? Surely, we should welcome them. On the other hand, in this culture where the Truth is little known, and where other Christian confessions are prevalent, is it prudent for us to behave as though those who subscribe to these other confessions are indeed one with the life of the Church? Are we not misleading them? I have certainly known people who have experienced this in some Orthodox churches, thinking it to be generous and loving, only to have their hearts broken when they have realised that they cannot receive Communion in Orthodox churches, and the reasons why this is. They have felt hurt and deceived by those very Orthodox people who at first seemed to be so warm to them and, in some cases, they have never returned. I am in no position to answer these questions and do not envy our priests who must weigh up all of these things, but they are matters that we must consider in our missionary situation, and we must support our priests as they seek to best meet the needs of those people who are taking their first tentative steps towards the Fountain of Immortality, bearing always in mind the words of Blessed Seraphim of Platina:

"...the royal path of true Orthodoxy today is a mean that lies between the extremes of ecumenism and reformism on the one side, and a 'zeal not according to knowledge' (Rom. 10:2) on the other. True Orthodoxy does not go 'in step with the times' on the one hand, nor does it make strictness or correctness or canonicity, (good in themselves), an excuse for pharisaic self-satisfaction, exclusivism, and distrust, on the other. This true Orthodox moderation is not to be confused with mere luke-warmness or indifference, or with any kind of compromise between political extremes. The spirit of 'reform' is so much in the air today that anyone whose views are moulded by the 'spirit of the times' will regard true Orthodox moderation as dose to fanaticism, but anyone who looks at the question more deeply and applies the patristic standard will find the royal path to be far from any kind of extremism."

- From “The Royal Path”, Sept/Oct issue of “The Orthodox Word”.

I trust in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church[11] but I do pray that those within the Church are not waylaid by the innocent appearance of the ecumenical movement which, while it does much good, can also do much damage through its subtle encouragement of the abandonment of element after element of our Holy Tradition.

All of what precedes is solely my own reading of the Scriptures, the fathers, the canons, and the Church’s worship, in light of my limited experience of the Tradition of the Church, and carries no authority beyond that. However, it is presented here in the hope of conveying to those who read it – Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike – some understanding of the Orthodox practice of not joining in prayer with those who are not Orthodox and the dangers of either extreme of conservatism or liberalism. Any errors are my own and I ask the reader’s forgiveness and prayers. This effort is intended to give those who are not Orthodox some insight into the doctrine that underpins the actions of their Orthodox friends who may be hesitant to accept their invitations to join them at church services and may alleviate any feelings of upset caused by this. It may also go some way to explaining the recent re-structuring of the worship format at gatherings of the World Council of Churches in light of the objections of Orthodox participants[12], which caused confusion to many people who, despite all sincerity of effort, could not understand the concerns. For Orthodox people, it is hoped that this may give some food for thought, and perhaps may form part of the basis for decisions about how to respond to invitations to attend others’ churches, how much or how little to participate, if at all, and how to maintain one’s Orthodox integrity and see to one’s own deification while not causing undue offence to family, friends, and acquaintances. The guidance of the spiritual father should always be sought, especially where sensitive events, such as weddings and funerals, are involved. Finally, may we always act out of love for Christ and each other, for the sake of our salvation and deification, and for the salvation of the world.

"O Thou Who hast bestowed upon us these common and concordant prayers, and Who hast promised that when two or three are agreed in thy name Thou wouldst grant their requests: do Thou Thyself now fulfil the requests of thy servants to their profit, granting us in this present age the knowledge of thy Truth, and in that to come, life everlasting."

- from the Liturgy of St Basil

Notes

[1] ‘Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!’ – The anathema against ecumenism, added to the anathemas pronounced on the Sunday of Orthodoxy by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian church Abroad.

[2] That is to say, in parishes, monasteries, and missions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

[3] Hetero = “other”, Doxia = “practice of worship/faith”

[4] Daniel 3:51

[5] Philippians 1:27

[6] The Jordanville Prayer Book, Holy Trinity Monastery. Jordanville, New York.

[7] See 6.

[8] See 6.

[9] The Order of the Divine Liturgy of the Holy and Glorious Apostle James, the Brother of God, and the First Hierarch of the Church of Jerusalem, The Monastery of St Mark of Ephesus, New Jersey.

[10] St Cyprian of Carthage On the Unity of the Catholic Church

[11] Matthew 16:18

[12] Until relatively recently, worship at gatherings of the World Council of Churches was structured according to the flawed understanding that joint prayer would be acceptable to all present, so there were joint services of blended traditions. Recent objections to this from Orthodox representatives, (not to mention the complete withdrawal of two local Orthodox churches), has led to a restructuring, allowing the current arrangement to continue alongside an additional provision for different member churches to conduct worship according to their own traditions, with others invited to be present. This seems to have gone some way to easing the burden on those Orthodox representatives who could not in conscience fully participate under the previous structure which, while perhaps well-intentioned, was by its nature exclusive of some members.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr