Thursday, 30 January 2014
I believe in God, I believe in man
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
The Gospel in Action
Monday, 27 January 2014
Towards Unity
By Met. Georges Khodr
http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/01/met-georges-khodr-on-christian-unity.html
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Saint Silouan on Love
"Where there is pride there cannot be grace, and if we lose grace we also lose both love of God and assurance in prayer. The soul is then tormented by evil thoughts and does not understand that she must humble herself and love her enemies, for there is no other way to please God." + Saint Silouan on Love
Fr Zacharias of Essex visiting Toronto, Ontario, Canada
St John the Compassionate Mission is having a Retreat for Clergy Only (Feb 13th), for Adults (Feb 15th) and Youth (Feb 14th) with Archimandrite Zacharias (Disciple of Fr Sophrony who was in turn a disciple of Saint Silouan).
Please share this information with anyone who would be interested.
Please RSVP to Fr Deacon Theo at frdeacon.theo@gmail.com or +1416-466-1357 Ext. #34
St John the Compassionate Mission, St Silouan the Athonite
155 Broadview Ave., Toronto, ON M4M 2E9
Tel: +1416-466-1357 Fax: +1416-466-3517
Charitable #89328 1832 RR0001
www.stjohnsmission.org www.stsilouan.org
http://tinyurl.com/stsilouandirections
Saint Silouan and the Mystery of God
St Silouan and the Mystery of God
Friday, 24 January 2014
Thoughts on Missions
and
"a Liturgy served faithfully according to Russian practice and a Liturgy served faithfully according to Greek practice have an awful lot in common. It’s at least going to be recognizably the same ethos, even if the details are different."
One could add, Liturgy served according to Coptic, Bulgarian, Georgian, Armenian rites are likewise reflective of ethos. What is meant. Who is encountered.
Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.
Lex Orandi Est Lex Credendi.
Thoughts on new Orthodox missions
Source: http://leitourgeia.com/2012/09/19/thoughts-on-new-orthodox-missions/
Envy, Justice and the Evil Eye
In my high school world religions class we were taught that superstition and magic are primarily rooted in fear. It is this fear that paralyzes and which can also give way to envy. It is a reminder that Christian life is rooted in love and not in envy. Perfect Love casts out fear. Love seeks the interiority of the other, the compassionate heart desires even the wellbeing of ones 'enemy'. That all might grow in life of the Holy Trinity.
One is also reminded of Elder Sophrony's story of a conversation that Saint Silouan had with another monk:
"I (Elder Sophrony) remember a conversation between him (St. Silouan) and a certain hermit, who declared with evident satisfaction, 'God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.' Obviously upset, the Staretz said, 'Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell fire -- would you feel happy?' 'It can't be helped. It would be their own fault,' said the hermit. The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance: 'Love could not bear that,' he said, 'We must pray for all.'"
May we learn the kind of love and that kind of justice which the Saints have been crowned with.
The entirely of Fr Stephen's post is reblogged for reference below. May we learn and live compassion and seek help when occupied with our fallen passions, when we seek the ill of another or that justice be metered out according to our envy. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on us sinners.
+++
With Envy and Justice for All
by Father Stephen Freeman
http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/01/23/with-envy-and-justice-for-all/
Thursday, 23 January 2014
The Betrothal Prayers in the Coptic Orthodox Rite
Prepared by Fr. Jacob B. Nadian
Procession into the Church
The Bridal procession enters the Church and the Singers, Readers, Sub-Deacons, Deacons and Congregation sing the Hymn “O King of Peace” (ie. Epouro):
O King of peace, grant us Your peace, render unto us Your peace, and forgive us our sins.
Disperse the enemies, of the Church, and fortify her, that she may not be shaken forever.
Emmanuel our God, is now in our midst, with the glory of His Father, and the Holy Spirit.
May He bless us all, and purify our hearts, and heal the sicknesses, of our souls and bodies.
We worship You O Christ, with Your Good Father, and the Holy Spirit, for You have (come) and saved us.
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Metropolitan Anthony Bloom on The Christian Life
Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1971
Source: http://masarchive.org/Sites/texts/1971-00-00-1-E-E-C-EM02-036ChristianLife.html
The Great Blessing of the Waters
The Great Blessing of the Waters by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (AD 634-8)
From Frederica.com
On the Feast of the Theophany, Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ’s baptism. The service includes the blessing of all the holy water that will be used during the coming year. This water is sprinkled on people, icons, candles, and other things as a blessing; people also sip the holy water when they are ill. Worshippers keep bottles of holy water at home in their icon corners.
This text was written by St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem from 634 to 638. It was during his patriarchate that the Muslim army conquered Jerusalem. The text below has been copied fromhttp://www.mliles.com/melkite/holytheophanywaterblessprayer.shtml
********
Priest: O Trinity, transcendent in essence, in goodness and in divinity, O Almighty, invisible and incomprehensible, who watch over all, O Creator of intelligent essences, of natures endowed with speech, O Goodness of utter and unapproachable brilliance, who enlighten every person who comes into the world: enlighten me also, your unworthy servant! Illuminate the eyes of my mind, that I may venture to praise your immeasurable goodness and your might; may the prayer that I offer be acceptable for the people here present. Let not my sins prevent the descent of the Holy Spirit upon this place, but permit me now without condemnation to cry out to You, O all-good Lord, and to say:
We glorify You, O Master and Lover of Mankind, Almighty King before eternity!
We glorify You, Creator and Maker of all!
We glorify You, only-begotten Son, who have no father with your Mother, and no mother with your Father.
In the preceding feast, we have seen You as a child, and in this present feast we see You as a perfect Man, O our perfect God, appearing out of Perfection:
For today we have attained the time of feasting, and the ranks of saints have joined us, and the angels celebrate together with men.
Today the grace of the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, comes down upon the waters.
Today there shines the Sun that never sets, and the world is sparkling with the light of the Lord.
Today the moon shines upon the world with the brightness of its rays.
Today the glittering stars adorn the universe with the radiance of their twinkling.
Today the clouds from heaven shed upon mankind a shower of justice.
Today the Uncreated One willingly permits the hands of his creature to be laid upon Him.
Today the Prophet and Forerunner comes close to the Master, and he stands in awe, a witness of the condescension of God towards us.
Today through the presence of the Lord the waters of the Jordan River are changed into remedies.
Today the whole universe is refreshed with mystical streams.
Today the sins of mankind are blotted out by the waters of the Jordan River.
Today paradise has been opened to mankind, and the Sun of righteousness has shone upon us.
Today the bitter water, as once with Moses and the people of Israel, is changed into sweetness by the presence of the Lord.
Today we are delivered from the ancient mourning, and, like a new Israel, we are saved.
Today we escape from darkness and, through the light of the knowledge of God, we are illumined.
Today the darkness of the world vanishes with the appearing of our God.
Today the whole creation is brightened from on high.oday errors are canceled, and a way of salvation is prepared for us by the coming of the Lord
Today the heavenly dwellers rejoice with those of the earth, and the dwellers of the earth with those of heaven.
Today the noble and eloquent assembly rejoices, the assembly of those of the true faith.
Today the Lord comes to be baptized, so that mankind may be lifted up.
Today the One who never has to bow inclines Himself before his servant so that He may set us free from bondage.
Today we have acquired the kingdom of heaven: for the Lord’s kingdom shall have no end.
Today the land and the sea divide between them the joy of the world, and the world is filled with gladness.
The waters saw You, O God, the waters saw You and shuddered.
The Jordan River turns back its course as it beholds the fire of the Godhead coming down upon it and entering it in the flesh.
The Jordan River turns back its course as it beholds the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, and hovering above it
The Jordan River turns back its course as it beholds the Invisible made visible, the Creator existing in the flesh, and the Master in the form of a servant.
The Jordan River turns back its course, and the mountains shout with glee as they behold God in the flesh.
And the clouds give voice, and are filled with awe by the One who is coming, Light of light, true God of true God, for today in the Jordan River they saw the triumph of the Master. They saw Him drown in the Jordan River the death of sin, the thorn of error, and the bond of Hades, and bestow upon the world the baptism of salvation.
So also am I, your unworthy and sinful servant, encompassed by fear as I proclaim your great wonders; and I cry out reverently to You, and say:
The priest then says in a louder voice:
GREAT ARE YOU, O LORD, AND MARVELOUS ARE YOUR WORKS AND NO WORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PRAISE YOUR MARVELS.
GREAT ARE YOU, O LORD, AND MARVELOUS ARE YOUR WORKS AND NO WORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PRAISE YOUR MARVELS.
GREAT ARE YOU, O LORD, AND MARVELOUS ARE YOUR WORKS AND NO WORD IS SUFFICIENT TO PRAISE YOUR MARVELS.
For by your divine will You brought forth all things out of nothing into being; by your might you control all creation; by your providence You govern the universe, O You who made the whole world out of four elements and crowned the cycle of the year with four seasons.
The immaterial powers tremble before You;
the sun praises You;
the moon glorifies You;
the stars bless You;
the light obeys You;
the tempests tremble,
and the springs adore You.
You have spread out the heavens like a tent-cloth;
You fixed the earth upon the waters;
You have walled about the sea with sand;
You let the air flow about for our breathing.
The angelic powers minister to You;
the ranks of archangels worship You;
the many-eyed Cherubim and the six-winged Seraphim, standing around You and flying about You, hide their faces in fear of your unapproachable glory.
And You, O God, while remaining boundless, without beginning, and beyond all words deigned to come down upon earth, to assume the likeness of a servant, and to become like man.
Because of your compassionate mercy, O Master, You were unable to endure and to behold the race of mankind under the tyranny of the devil. For this reason You have come to save us.
We acknowledge your grace. We proclaim your mercy. We do not conceal your gracious acts. You have set mankind free; by your birth You have sanctified the Virgin’s womb; and since your manifestation all creation praises You.
For You, O our God, have appeared on earth and have dwelt among men. You sanctified the waters of the Jordan by sending down your Holy Spirit from heaven, and you have crushed the heads of the dragons who lurk there.
The Priest makes the sign of the Cross over the water three times, each time saying:
THEREFORE, O KING AND LOVER OF MANKIND, ALSO BE PRESENT NOW THROUGH THE DESCENT OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT AND SANCTIFY + THIS WATER.
THEREFORE, O KING AND LOVER OF MANKIND, ALSO BE PRESENT NOW THROUGH THE DESCENT OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT AND SANCTIFY + THIS WATER.
THEREFORE, O KING AND LOVER OF MANKIND, ALSO BE PRESENT NOW THROUGH THE DESCENT OF YOUR HOLY SPIRIT AND SANCTIFY + THIS WATER.
And give to it the grace of redemption and the blessing of the Jordan. Make it a source of incorruptibility, a gift of sanctification, a remission of sins, a remedy for sickness, a destruction of demons, inaccessible to the adverse powers, and filled with the might of your angels, so that all who drink and receive of it may be blessed in their souls and bodies, healed of their sufferings, sanctified in their homes, and may receive every befitting grace.
For You are our God, who, with water and the Spirit, restored our nature made old by sin.
You are our God, who drowned sin in the waters at the time of Noah.
You are our God, who in the sea, and at the hands of Moses, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of Pharaoh.
You are our God who cleaved the rock in the wilderness, so that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed, and your thirsty people were satisfied.
You are our God who, with fire and water and at the hands of Elijah, delivered Israel from the errors of Baal.
THEREFORE, O MASTER, SANCTIFY THIS WATER BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.
THEREFORE, O MASTER, SANCTIFY THIS WATER BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.
THEREFORE, O MASTER, SANCTIFY THIS WATER BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.
Grant sanctification, blessing, cleansing and health to all those who touch it, and to those upon whom it is poured, and to those who receive of it.
Save, O Lord, your servants, our public authorities. Keep them under your protection in peace; subdue under their feet every enemy and adversary; grant them the means of salvation and eternal life, so that your all-holy name may be glorified by the elements, by the angels, by men, by visible and invisible creatures, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always and for ever and ever.
People: Amen.
Priest: Peace to all.
People: And to your spirit.
Deacon: Bow your heads to the Lord.
People: To You, O Lord.
The Priest, bowing his head, says the following prayer quietly:
Incline your ear, O Lord, and hear us. O You who sanctified the water when You consented to be baptised in the Jordan River: bless us all who, through the bowing of our heads, have signified our bondage, and make us worthy to be filled with your sanctification through the reception and the sprinkling of this water. Let it be, O Lord, for the health of our soul and body.
Louder:
For You are our sanctification and we give glory to You, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and always and for ever and ever.
People: Amen.
The Priest holds the cross upright and dips it into the holy water three times, recites the Troparion of the Theophany:
TROPARION (First Tone)
At your baptism in the River Jordan, O Lord, the worship of the Trinity was revealed, for the voice of the Father bore witness to You by calling You beloved Son; and the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed the truth of these words. O Christ God, who appeared and filled the world with light, glory to You!
He then processes through the sanctuary sprinkling the walls and the people with holy water, while all sing this hymn:
IDIOMELON (Sixth Tone)
Choir: Believers, let us praise the great plans of God who works for us: for the only pure and spotless One, being incarnate on account of our fall, purifies us in the Jordan River, sanctifies us together with the waters, and crushes the heads of the dragons in the waters. O brethren, let us therefore draw water with joy, for those who draw it in faith shall be invisibly endowed with the grace of the Spirit, through the presence of Christ God, the Savior of our souls.
On Modernity, Economics and Choice
A few of the posts in the series have been included in their entirety below. I highly recommend reading through the comments section for each post on Fr Stephen's blog as the discussions are quite interesting.
ps. for another fascinating series check out Michael Cannaverde's series "(Post)Modernity and Christianity" http://eremos--poustinia.blogspot.ae/p/modernity-and-christianity-series.html
Monday, 20 January 2014
How Orthodox Sinfulness Prevents Reunion
A humbling post...
Reblogged from Red River Orthodox Blog http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/2014/01/20/spitting-in-romes-eye-a-reflection-on-how-orthodoxys-sinfulness-prevents-reunion/
----
Spitting in Rome’s Eye: A Reflection on How Orthodoxy’s Sinfulness Prevents Reunion
In my previous post, I mentioned some of the internal problems besetting the Orthodox Church, causing dysfunction (which I termed “implosion”). I noted how it affects the Great Commission and how our relationship with Rome is part of that larger picture (for a unified front between these truly-mega-churches would give strength in spreading the Gospel). I noted how Moscow currently rejects the Ecumenical Patriarch’s (legitimate) claim to primacy, in wanting to convoke a pan-Orthodox council and in engaging in serious dialogue with Rome. It doesn’t take a very long search for someone to see that many Orthodox Christians agree with Moscow, calling Rome heretical and, furthermore, expressing not a little invective (or at least heated rhetoric) when taking that stance.
An important factor in this is that the kind of careful historical and theological analysis (not to mention humility) that occurs within official Orthodox-Catholic dialogues is not seeping into the Orthodox groundwater. Many Orthodox prefer to dismiss Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin, as though Orthodoxy is completely separate from them. If it weren’t for the fact that such an attitude is based on ignorance, it would be audacious in the extreme. Take, for example the North American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. They haven’t skirted the issues that need to be addressed and yet they have produced helpful starting points, free from anti-Westernism (based, ironically, on rather Western models):
Moreover, there has been a real shift in attitude in Rome. In the early 20th c., one could still easily find anti-Orthodox attitudes and statements. Today, however, I believe Fr. Taft expresses well the currently dominant Roman Catholic view here:
“Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.”
He made this statement in the context of the notion of “Sister Churches.” You may find it in context here:
Granted, a few of the comments to that link were Roman Catholics upset by what he was saying, so it is not as though Catholics are blameless “on the ground,” but I suspect Orthodox are more likely to oppose such a statement. Certainly, in today’s climate, it is difficult to find Orthodox willing to take a position similar in humility to the statement above given by Taft. We do have scholars doing this, though, and one starting point may be the newly published Orthodox Constructions of the West. A great example may also be found in Adam DeVille’s work on this very ecumenical dialogue: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy. Somehow, we have to get these perspectives “on the ground.” A great step forward would be for our seminaries to start requiring these as reading materials. Orthodox priests often (though not always) play key roles in shaping how laity read and understand Orthodox history, theology, and piety. Humility has to start with our clergy.
Pastorally, there are good reasons for us to adopt the virtue of humility. If ever reunion could happen, it could have practical, pastoral edification in the lives of many. Recently, Fr. Stephen Freeman, a good (and popular) priest, commented on Catholics wanting communion at his parish, reducing their desire to a “Modern project.” By this, he meant they wanted communion based on what they believed to be true (that in the Orthodox liturgy it is bread and wine and also body and blood). He even emphasized the “I” when quoting them. My point here is not to engage in culture war language nor to analyze a classical versus modern dichotomy, etc. That would be a different series of posts. Rather, what I would want to interject and say is that in my experience, a lot of Roman Catholics saying such things are not saying that what matters is their intellectual ability to create something in their minds. What they are saying is that they recognize a sacramental presence in our services. Sure, many Roman Catholics in America may have a superficial faith and just feel they can take communion anywhere, but that is not always the case and indeed, many look at Orthodoxy through thoughtful eyes and gracious hearts. More than that, we have many “mixed marriages” and other situations where Orthodox-Catholic reunion could have a real healing and gracious effect. In other words, as long as we don’t disregard issues of importance (which our official dialogues have not), the humility to engage Rome willingly and openly could beget some real grace “in the pews,” if you will. At minimum, it would help us avoid reducing Roman Catholics desiring communion to some sort of modern neo-gnostic mentality.
My fellow Orthodox, let’s be honest here. With regard to Orthodox-Catholic relations the humility struggles are primarily on our side. They are evidenced in internet chatter, in parish dining halls, amongst our seminarians, publicly displayed in sermons by our clergy, and (indirectly, if nothing else) advertised for the world to see in official statements. We Orthodox sure like to talk about the virtues, the Desert Fathers, etc., but when it comes to ecumenical relations, humility too often goes out the window. I, for one, think it’s time to close that window. The sectarian draft has a real chill to it.
Ecclesiology and Nationalism
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices/ecclesiology_and_nationalism_in_the_postmodern_era
Ecclesiology and Nationalism in the Postmodern Era
January 16, 2014 Length: 18:38
Bobby Maddex interviews Dr. Paul Meyendorff, the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology and the editor of theSt. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly journal, about a 2012 conference on Orthodox ecclesiology and nationalism that took place at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies, the papers from which have just been published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly.
Transcript
Mr. Bobby Maddex: Welcome to Voices from St. Vladimir’s Seminary. I’m Bobby Maddex, Operations Manager of Ancient Faith Radio, and today I will be your host. Joining me is Dr. Paul Meyendorff, the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology and the editor of theSt. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterlyjournal. The most recent edition of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly features papers presented at a conference called “Ecclesiology and Nationalism in the Postmodern Era,” and this took place in May of 2012 at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies in Volos, Greece.
Dr. Meyendorff was a presenter at this conference and is here to talk about both it and this special issue of the journal that he edits. Welcome to the program, Dr. Meyendorff.
Dr. Paul Meyendorff: Thank you very much. It’s good to be with you.
Mr. Maddex: So tell me about St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly: what is it, what is its purpose, and what sort of content does it typically feature?
Dr. Meyendorff: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly is an academic journal published by the faculty of St. Vladimir’s Seminary. It just completed its 57th year, so it has been in continuous publication since the late 1950s, and it is probably the preeminent Orthodox theological journal in the English-speaking world.
Mr. Maddex: All right. And then, as I mentioned, the papers from this conference are being presented in the journal this time, but give us an idea of what kinds of things would appear in the journal on a regular basis.
Dr. Meyendorff: Well, we receive submissions from scholars, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, from across the world on any number of topics. Most commonly we publish papers on patristics, on liturgical theology, on ecclesiology, but then every so often, we get the opportunity, as in this case, to publish the entire set of papers from an academic conference. This is the most recent. There was a conference in 2010 at St. Vladimir’s on Hellenism and Orthodoxy that also resulted in a double issue containing all the papers from that conference. So when we get either a conference or sufficient papers on a particular topic, then we like to publish thematic issues, because this is an excellent way to encourage kind of academic and theological dialogue in the Orthodox world.
Mr. Maddex: Now if our listeners wanted to get a look at these papers or just get a look at the journal in general, what is the best way for them to do that?
Dr. Meyendorff: Well, they can subscribe, obviously, to the journal, and they can do that through the website of the St. Vladimir’s Seminary Bookstore. For readers, especially academics, who have access to ATLAS serials, American Theological Library Association Serials, the full run of The Quarterly is available online by subscription, and usually theological libraries will have a subscription so that patrons can get access.
Mr. Maddex: Excellent. So let’s talk a little bit about the conference now. What was this conference all about? What was its purpose?
Dr. Meyendorff: The conference in Volos, as its title indicates, addressed a critical issue in contemporary Orthodoxy which is obviously the link between Church and state, Church and nationality, Church and ethnic group, and especially for us in America, this is a critical topic, given the current disunity in Orthodoxy in America and the search through agencies such as the Assembly of Bishops to kind of reach a solution to this problem which has now been ongoing for some 90 years.
Mr. Maddex: And then how did you come to receive an invitation to the conference?
Dr. Meyendorff: I had met Dr. Pantelis Kalaitzidis, the director of the Volos Academy, at several ecumenical and intra-Orthodox meetings over the years, and in particular I had given a paper at a conference in Paris three years ago on Fr. John Meyendorff’s role in the autocephaly of the OCA, so I was very glad to be invited, because this gave the opportunity for a voice from the Orthodox Church in America to be heard at an international conference, where our voice is often not heard because of the canonical situation of the Orthodox Church in America, not being recognized by Constantinople and especially the Greek-speaking Orthodox churches.
So it was because of that paper that I had given and because of their desire, obviously, to have a broad spectrum of voices, including someone from North America. I was the only speaker there from North America.
Mr. Maddex: In addition to having written this paper on autocephaly, what in your background, academic or otherwise, prepared you for this conference and the subject matter that it tackled?
Dr. Meyendorff: I was born in France and came to America in 1959 as a child when my father came to teach at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, so I was on the scene in the ‘60s when the question of Orthodox unity in America was a very hot topic, and I was aware of all the conversations that were going on that resulted in the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America. So I was there on the scene, and obviously since then I have been a professor now at St. Vladimir’s for the last 27 years. I’ve been involved in representing the Orthodox Church in America ecumenically in the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, so obviously I have a strong, vested interest in Orthodoxy in North America and, in fact, in the vision that was given to us by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, by my father, John Meyendorff, in promoting both Orthodox unity in America and a local, autonomous or autocephalous church.
Mr. Maddex: Was it your decision, Dr. Meyendorff, to feature the papers from the conference in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, or how did that come about?
Dr. Meyendorff: In a conversation that I had with Dr. Kalaitzidis, we were talking about the best way to promote this, and given the importance of the topic he suggested and I readily agreed to publish the papers in The Quarterly, because obviously as the primary English-language journal for Orthodox theology in the world, this was certainly the appropriate place to put that, especially since English is now the international language. Even when Orthodox of different national churches meet together, English is the only common language. So clearly, publication in English was the best way to have the results of this conference be broadcast as widely as possible.
Mr. Maddex: Did any new questions and/or concepts arise at the Volos Conference and in these papers that were particularly surprising or intriguing to you?
Dr. Meyendorff: I think probably the most striking factor was the disconnect between academic theologians and historians and their interpretation of history and what is the official line of the various churches. I think Orthodox theologians are generally agreed that identification of Church and state is a problem. They agree that Orthodox unity is desirable, especially in the so-called Diaspora; in other words, how they call North America. But one does not have that same feeling shared at the ecclesial level, on the level of synods of bishops and primates. This is obviously a huge challenge for Orthodoxy, because in fact the result is that we are not living up to our own theological vision.
Mr. Maddex: Could you give a few example of the history of Church-state relations and nationalism in the context of Orthodox Christian nations? What lessons can we glean from these as Orthodox Christians here in North America?
Dr. Meyendorff: The situation in North America is radically different from traditional Orthodox countries. In most Orthodox countries, Orthodoxy is the primary religion, the faith of the vast majority of the people, so there is a natural connection between society, the state, and the Church, which has its obviously positively characteristics as well as negative, although obviously the danger is, if the Church gets too close to the state, it can lead to problems, as we see for example in Russia today, where the Church has largely become an extension of the state in promoting its foreign policy and so on. Whether one agrees or not with that foreign policy, what happens if the state changes and the state’s policies change? It creates a problem where the Church kind of loses the respect and the trust of the people if it engages, therefore, too much in political affairs.
In North America, the situation is different, first of all, because we have a constitution that promotes the separation of church and state, but also because the Orthodox here are a tiny minority. We represent maybe one, or two at the most, percent of the population. Therefore, the situation here is radically different. Our problem is unity and the necessity to create a local Orthodox church, free of control, in fact, from other churches, many of which are controlled by states. I mean, that was exactly the case back in the ‘60s and 1970, when the OCA received its autocephaly.
If the listeners will remember, the situation was that since the Russian Revolution and the years following the revolution, the old Metropolia, which was the remnant of the old Russian mission, became de facto autonomous. Its canonical status was dubious; it was not recognized by all the other Orthodox churches, although we remained in communion with them and they never said that we were not Orthodox.
But then in the 1960s, when we tried to resolve this canonical situation, we first actually approached Constantinople to see if we could possibly go under them or find some mechanism for solving the canonical problem. They even refused to meet with us, and they said, “Your problem is with Russia. Go to Russia.” This is what then led to the beginning of conversations with the Russian Orthodox Church, and the granting of autocephaly, in other words, independence, from Russia. We certainly had no desire to go under the Russian Church, which at that time was controlled by a Communist government, and we were not able to go to resolve our problem with Constantinople, so autocephaly came out to be almost accidental.
But then obviously the vision behind that and the hope behind that was that this would eventually lead to the reunification of all the Orthodox in this country in one autonomous or autocephalous church, the creation of a territorial church in North America, which is still our dream, but unfortunately now the situation in the Episcopal Assembly is that one sees that that is not a dream that is shared by everyone. The ironic thing is that the only churches that really effectively do share that vision of a united territorial church [are] the Orthodox Church in America and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which also has a vision of a Church that is not nationalistic and that is based on a territorial principle of Church organization. Where we disagree with the Church of Constantinople is the mechanism, the way by which autocephaly is granted, by the way in which such a local church is actually created. Obviously, this is what is on the table in the Episcopal Assembly in the United States right now.
Mr. Maddex: Maybe you could give voice to the other side for a second. How does someone justify not wanting unification to take place in North America? What is the other side’s argument?
Dr. Meyendorff: The other side’s argument is precisely, unfortunately, based on a nationalistic view of the Church. If one sees the Church as the body which allows an ethnic group, whether Russian or Serbian or Bulgarian and so on, to maintain its identity and its links with a mother church and with therefore the society back home, then that is the rationale, then, that is given.
The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, considers itself as the church for Russians within Russian territory, but then also all those of Russian background who willingly submit themselves to her jurisdiction and therefore this provides a kind of rationale of maintaining a kind of colonial structure, which obviously makes unity impossible, especially here in America where even the old Metropolia, the OCA, is now either fifth- or sixth-generation Russian or ever-increasing numbers of converts and a sizeable new emigration from Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, it represents a radically different vision of the Church and ecclesiology, in other words, Church structure and organization, than in fact what is the traditional Orthodox view.
Mr. Maddex: As more and more people do convert, as the motherland and the so-called Diaspora here continues to grow apart, is there a chance that things will change?
Dr. Meyendorff: Well, we can always hope and pray. I think the vision is never totally gone, although, frankly, I think we can honestly say that the dynamism that existed in the 1960s when everybody was talking about Orthodox unity and the need to create a local church, that seems to have declined. One does not hear those voices so much any more, ever since Ligonier, when Archbishop Iakovos presided a meeting that could have led to a united Orthodox Church. As we all know, he was quickly retired, and ever since then things have been, in fact, going in a negative direction.
There was some hope that the Episcopal Assembly would kind of help to foster that vision and bring it about, but I think developments in the last year have indicated that many of the mother churches are not willing to let go and are not willing to support this kind of vision. I think the important thing at this point is to keep the conversation going and to get out of the maze that we find ourselves in, where there’s all these false starts and false endings.
The hope is that we can kind of regain that vision and the urgency of the situation. If our bishops really believed in this vision, this could happen. It almost happened after Ligonier, and in fact we have enough bishops here to create a local council, so in fact all it would take is all these bishops saying, “Let’s get together. Let’s form a local synod,” and present the mother churches with a fait accompli.
If one looks at the historical evidence, in fact, that’s how most autocephalies took place. Typically, they were a fact on the ground and then were recognized, sometimes 20, 30 years later. Actually, in the case of the Church of Russia, it was 150 years after the de facto autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church that this was formally recognized by a council presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch. In other words, things in Orthodoxy move at their own pace, not necessarily at our own pace, and we simply have to hope and pray, and sometimes be brave and courageous.
Mr. Maddex: Very interesting stuff, Dr. Meyendorff. Is there anything else that you’d like to add before I let you go today?
Dr. Meyendorff: Just to express my gratitude. I’m very happy to have this opportunity through The Quarterly and through our conversation to get these issues out on the table and to get our people, at all levels of the Church—bishops, clergy, and faithful in the parishes—to kind of focus once more on these issues.
Mr. Maddex: Well, once again, to acquire a copy of this most recent issue of the St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, you can go to the St. Vladimir’s Bookstore website, and you can subscribe there. I thank you so much for talking to me about this today, Dr. Meyendorff.
Dr. Meyendorff: You are very welcome. And they can also order individual copies, of this issue or back issues.
Mr. Maddex: Oh, that’s good to know. Very good.
Dr. Meyendorff: We printed extra copies, because we thought there might be some demand.
Mr. Maddex: Very good. Once again, I have been speaking with Dr. Paul Meyendorff. He is the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology and the editor of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly.
The Pro-Life Cause, Orthodoxy, and Hope
by Kh. Frederica Mathewes-Green http://www.frederica.com/writings/the-pro-life-cause-orthodoxy-and-hope.html
[a talk for an Orthodox Christian Pro-Life Event; January 22, 2012]
Today is the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion—through all 50 states, for any reason whatsoever. When I was a college student, back in the 70’s, I was in favor of legalizing abortion. I wasn’t a Christian then, but I was a feminist, the first feminist in my dorm, and I was loudly in favor of social revolution and women’s rights. I took it for granted that abortion was necessary, if women were ever going to be equal to men.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
On the Eve of Theophany
Nofri Shai! Happy Feast!
By Metropolitan Anthony Bloom
Friday, 17 January 2014
Abortion: Ignoring the Facts
by Kh. Frederica Mathewes-Green http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/abortion_ignoring_the_facts
I’m recording this on January 22nd, 2008, the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion all through America—through all 50 states, through all nine months of pregnancy. People question that sometimes, because the Roe decision says that abortion should be available to a woman under any circumstances, until the point of viability. It said that, after that, states can begin to have some laws protecting the unborn child, after viability. But there’s a companion decision to Roe v. Wade, called Doe v. Bolton. It came down the same day, and it governs how that proposed post-viability period can be legislated in the states. It says that states may do nothing to restrict a woman’s access to abortion if she wants the abortion for some aspect of her health. Well, the result is that you can have a legal abortion at almost any point in pregnancy if you are willing to travel for it. There are specialists who go into these post-viability late-term abortions, that’s what they specialize in offering.
And I think that the outcome has been not at all what I expected, when I was a college student back at the time of Roe v. Wade, when I was not a Christian and was very much in favor of abortion law repeal. I thought that abortion should be available to anyone who wanted it under any circumstances; and at the time my friends and I thought that it would be used only in the most extreme and most terrible circumstances. I thought that abortion would be very rare because clearly it’s so horrible; who would want to go through this? And we thought we would make it legal just for those few cases where it truly seemed to be the only alternative.
And something very different happened. It seems that once abortion becomes available, it begins to look like the most convenient solution, if not to the woman who’s pregnant, to the people around her. To her boss, it looks like it would be better for her to go ahead and have an abortion, then you wouldn’t have her leaving on maternity leave and coming back again. If she has a scholarship, an athletic scholarship to college, again, how crazy would she have to be not to have an abortion in that circumstance?
When I wrote my book Real Choices, 14 years ago, I interviewed women who had had abortions, and most of the time they told me that the reason they had an abortion was because somebody that they cared about, usually the father of the child, but in many cases her own mother, really pressured her to have the abortion. They kept telling her, “This is the right thing to do, this is what you ought to do.” That kind of pressure really is influential to a pregnant woman. It’s an open question whether abortion really is what women choose, or whether it’s what they feel they have to choose, because the alternatives look so bleak.
Well, far from being rare, there have now been over 48 million abortions in America since the Roe v. Wade decision. And at present about one in every four pregnant women has an abortion. About one out of every four pregnancies is aborted.
This is nothing like what we imagined. One in four pregnancies: it’s astounding. And so it just goes to show you that there are unintended consequences, and that people’s behavior is not always something that you can predict.
In retrospect, though, I can see how the availability of abortion, the fact that it’s in the yellow pages—you know, if you haven’t done this, look in your local yellow pages under “A” and see. How do abortion providers advertise? What kind of little pictures do they put in their ads? How do they phrase things? It’s chilling to think that this is actually a business, a multi-million dollar business that can advertise in the yellow pages.
Well, one of the things I had been looking at recently was the attitude of the early Church toward abortion. Rodney Stark wrote a wonderful book a couple of years ago called The Rise of Christianity. And one of the points he made was that the early Christians opposed abortion, and that was one of the reasons that Christianity was attractive to women. Because in the Greco-Roman culture, it was not the woman’s choice whether her pregnancy continued or her newborn child was allowed to live, but rather the choice of the father of the child. And he could wait until the child was born and then decide whether or not he wanted it. Is it a boy or a girl, does it have any deformity that would be unsightly? Sometimes these children were strangled after birth; other people, who considered themselves pious, would instead practice exposure of the child, that is that they would take the newborn baby and just put it outside somewhere, telling themselves, comforting themselves with the thought that surely some compassionate person will pass by and take up this child and raise it as his own. And sometimes that did happen, sometimes these babies were picked up, taken home and raised, and then put into service as prostitutes in their early adolescence. Not a very happy outcome for them.
And that’s perhaps still all little bit better than what happened most of the time, which is that nobody would take up that child, and the first to find it would be dogs or other wild animals or birds, and the child would be killed and eaten. So this was a pretty horrible thing for young women and mothers to endure in that society, to know that the child which they nurtured under their heart could be taken away and fed to dogs, and they had no say about it. Well, the fact that Christians forbade abortion made Christianity very attractive to women; that was the kind of faith that they wanted to be part of.
As I was saying, Christians stood very strongly in opposition to the accepted cultural norms of the time, when it came to abortion and infanticide. It goes right back to the beginning, to the Didache, which is one of the earliest Christian documents. Some scholars think maybe it was written about 70 or 80 AD, so it was about the same time as the Gospels. And in the list of things describing what Christians do and don’t do, one of the sentences in the Didache is,
You shall not murder a child by abortion.A little bit later, around 125 or so, a text called the “Letter to Diognetus” describes what Christians are like and what Christians do. And one of the points it wants to make is that Christians aren’t totally weird, they act a lot like normal people do, no matter what the culture or country that they live in. The letter to Diognetus says,
They marry, as do all others. They beget children, but they do not cast away fetuses.That is, they do not cast the unborn child out of the womb; they do not practice abortion.
On the other hand, what are the pagans like? Clement of Alexandria, writing around 200, says that pagans keep parrots and curlews, pagans keep these exotic birds,
Although keeping parrots and curlews, pagans do not adopt an orphan child. Rather, they expose children who are born at home. And yet they take up the young of birds. So they prefer irrational creatures to rational ones.Clement also pointed out that some of these children that do survive are raised only to be put into prostitution. Clement says,
Fathers, forgetting about their children that have been exposed, unknowingly have intercourse with a son who has debauched himself or with daughters who are prostitutes.That’s a particularly horrible twist there.
Basil the Great, who is of course the author of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, one of the heroes of our Orthodox Church, Basil the Great wrote,
The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us.Now let me say something about that. It was Aristotle’s theory, and in fact the best scientific knowledge of the time, that as far as they could tell from women who had miscarriages, that up to a certain point the fetus looks unformed; you don’t really see a baby there. But after a certain point, you start seeing a baby. Aristotle’s theory was that it’s not really human and alive until it was formed. There couldn’t be a human soul, in it until it had a human shape to retain that soul.
And this, in fact, became the general opinion in the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries, that up until 40 days - this was Aristotle’s thesis - 40 days for a male child, 80 days for a female child, that it did not yet possess a human soul. And so to lose a child before that time would not be an abortion, and would not be the death of a human being. Of course, there was no way to tell whether it was male or female, so there was no way to apply this practically, if you wanted to have an abortion. And it was not an excuse for abortion, which was never approved by the Church, East or West.
But we do see that the Eastern fathers disagreed with the Western perspective that it is not really a human being before the 40 or 80 days. As Basil says, “The hair-splitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us.”
So you look at all these things together, and you see that we in Christian Orthodoxy have had an unbroken tradition of recognizing that the being in the womb is completely human, from the very beginning. It is completely alive, fully alive. And it is unique. It is a precious, unique individual from the very moment of conception.
And one of the signs that you can see that this has always been our belief is in feasts like the feast of the Annunciation. That’s March 25th , the feast when the angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin Mary that she would conceive a son. From March 25th count exactly nine months and there you are at December 25th. Early Christians believed that life, that a new human being begins at the very beginning of that nine months. It doesn’t begin some later time when the mother first feels the baby moving, or when the body of the fetus is fully formed.
We see this, too, in the feast of the Conception of the Theotokos on December 9th. The Theotokos is conceived on December 9th and she is born on September 8th, again, practically down to the wire, nine months. And the icon of the Conception of the Theotokos shows St. Joachim and St. Anna, embracing in their bedroom in front of their bed. I mean, there is no confusion among our fathers in the faith about where new life comes from, or how it is achieved. So there wasn’t this fuzzy idea of some 40 or 80 day span where it wasn’t really human yet. We’ve always been clear about when life begins.
The kind of arguments that people make in favor of abortion, it’s hard for me to believe people living in a scientific age can actually believe that the life in the womb is not a living human being. Because we know so much more than medical people of early centuries did. We know that at the moment that sperm dissolves in the ovum, that that is a being that is alive. When life begins, there’s no debate about this, scientists know when life begins. Life begins when the sperm dissolves in the egg, and it is alive from then on. If it was not alive, you wouldn’t need to have an abortion to kill it. You know? If it was not alive, then a natural miscarriage would set in. It’s definitely alive. For people who are in favor of abortion, that’s the whole problem, is that it is alive. It is alive and it continues to grow. It’s alive and it has a heartbeat from 21 days.
So it is very much a living human being.
It is human, too. If you would look at a cell from the growing unborn child under a microscope, you would say, “Yes, that’s human. That’s not chimpanzee, it’s not watermelon. It is human.” This is a human. A living human in there.
And the third point to make is it is a *unique* living human. That if you could take a cell from the mother, a cell from the father, and a cell from the unborn child, that if you could look at all three of those and analyze the DNA, you would say, “There are three individuals here.” This unborn child may be dependant on its mother for sustenance at this point in its life; after it’s born it will still be dependent on her for milk. It will dependent on the father and the mother to provide shelter and food and care. It will be dependent for a long time. But it is not a part of the mother because it does not have her DNA. It is a separate human being.
So we know that from the very beginning this unborn being is alive. It is human. It is unique. And that has been the basis of the Orthodox belief that abortion is wrong from the very beginning.
Now having said all that, I always need to say that a lot of women who’ve had abortions didn’t want to have them. Or they wanted to at the time because they were terrified, and in the years afterward they regret it, they wonder if they did the right thing, they may feel very miserable. And there is quite a conspiracy of silence, that if you’ve been through this harrowing experience, there’s really no opportunity to talk about it.
When I was writing my book Real Choices, I remember one woman who, at the time of her abortion she was pro-choice. And then afterward she felt terribly sad, and she felt ambivalent about being sad. She said to me, “I couldn’t tell anybody how I felt. I couldn’t tell people that I felt distressed after this abortion, though I didn’t really know why.” She said, “If I’d told my pro-choice friends that I felt so depressed, I feel so miserable, I’m not sure I did the right thing, they would say to me, ‘Are you a traitor? It was your choice. You had your choice; now you should be happy with it. Having your choice is the only important thing.’”
She said that she knew they would not recognize that you could choose something and then be in despair about it afterwards, sometimes for many years afterwards. She said, “So I couldn’t tell my pro-choice friends that I had grief after my abortion. I couldn’t tell my pro-life friends because if they found out that I had had an abortion, they would say, ‘Well, you’re a murderer. We won’t have anything to do with you.’”
So there are many, many, many millions of women in our country, and certainly some must be Orthodox Christian women, who have this in their past and it’s a burden or grief for them, and they feel like they’re not free to talk about it. I would urge you please to talk to your priest about it. Believe me, there’s nothing you can say to a priest that he hasn’t heard somewhere before. He’s never going to be shocked. And as priests often say when they hear a confession it makes them admire the people more, who love God so much that they’re willing to share so intimately. So please don’t keep this in. If you hide this grief inside it feels even bigger and more overwhelming than it is.
So please go to your priest. Schedule a talk or schedule a confession, if that’s what you’d like to do. And begin to find that support that can help you be freed from this guilt, because God has forgiven you. You know, you weren’t able to erase that child’s existence. It may not have had much of an earthly life, maybe only a few weeks within your womb, but its eternal life will go on forever. One of the Psalms says,
Though my mother and my father reject me, you will take me up.And God the Father has taken that child up. And if you persevere on the path of theosis, on the path of holiness, one day you’ll be reunited with that child in the place where all sorrow and sighing has fled away, and the tears have been wiped from every eye.
I know at this year for women who have had abortions, all the messages they hear about how terrible abortion is can wound very deeply. And so that’s why I wanted to conclude my podcast by urging you to seek the healing that you deserve. To lay this burden down. Go to your priest. Go to your spiritual father or your spiritual mother.
And even when you look in the yellow pages, look below the abortion clinics, look at abortion alternatives. And you will find there pregnancy care centers, which are not there just help to pregnant women, but to help women who have had abortions. Nearly all of them offer some kind of abortion grief counseling, so that they can help you work your way through this and resolve it and move on in joy.
Abortion sure has torn up our nation for a long time. Like the argument that led to civil war 150 years ago over slavery, it’s a very similar thing because we’re arguing about the full right to life, the full personhood of a living human being. At that time there as a Supreme Court decision that said that African-Americans were not the equal of a regular white person. They only represented two-fifths of a person. And that was a Supreme Court decision; that was the law of the land. And it took awhile for that to be overturned. But this is the situation we are in with the abortion issue, that this Roe v. Wade decision declared that these living, unique human beings aren’t really persons.
And it sounds almost like a religious opinion to say they can be alive, they can be human, they can be genetically distinct - no other life ever seen on earth like that before - but somehow they’re not persons, whatever personhood means; it’s almost like a philosophical or theological concept. I don’t think that we can write laws based on private religious interpretations. Let us look just at what science tells us: it is alive, it is human, it is unique. As a result it deserves protection.
I hope that by the time the next Roe v. Wade anniversary rolls around, we will see the abortion numbers dropping and dropping further every year. Until finally we get to the point where we realize, we really don’t need this. We don’t need to kill our own children in order to be liberated. We can do better than that.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
Are Orthodox Christians Imploding Before the Great Commission?
http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/2014/01/16/are-orthodox-christians-imploding-before-the-great-commission/
The Orthodox Church has a venerable tradition of evangelism. In many sectors of Western Christianity, it is largely unknown, despite its great success. After all, Orthodox Christianity reached Alaska somehow and Christianity has existed in Eastern Europe and Asia since times before that. Often, one looks to the work begun by Ss. Cyril and Methodios, putting the Gospel into the language of the Slavic peoples, but it was there before that. There are, of course, complications in any narrative, especially when one realizes past societies did not share all of our values, but all in all, Orthodoxy was spread and spread well. In some situations, it even spread through the work of Orthodox clergy and monastics finding creative ways to integrate with the local cultures (though flat out imperialism also occurred).
The Challenge of Paradosis
In spite of these initial concerns, the article does raise facinating areas of focus which Orthodox families and parishes can cultivate, offer and live in prayer, beauty and within the 'ethos' of the Church.
What Orthodox Families Must Do to Keep the Kids Orthodox
by Father Geoffrey Korz
http://www.pravmir.com/what-orthodox-families-must-do-to-keep-the-kids-orthodox/
It is common in Orthodox parishes to find faithful people asking, why aren’t more kids coming to church? It’s an important question, since it raises two deeper issues: firstly, where will the Church in the Western World (outside traditionally Orthodox countries) be in twenty years, and secondly (and perhaps most critically); what on earth have Orthodox families been doing for the last few decades that has resulted in most parishes being almost devoid of young people?
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
A Week After Christmas
In imagination we think ourselves 2000 years back. What wonder should fill us: a week, and the world has become different. The world that had been for thousands of years like the lost sheep was now the sheep found, taken upon His shoulders by the Son of God become the Son of man. The unbridgeable gap that sin had created between God and man was now at least incipiently bridged; God had entered into history, God Himself had become man. God had taken flesh, and all things visible, what we perceive in our blindness as dead, inert matter, could in His body recognise itself in glory. Something absolutely new had occurred, the world was no longer the same.
Sunday, 12 January 2014
Religious nuts or devoted believers?
A humbling reminder...
Religious nuts or devoted believers?
God is Motion
God is Motion by Met. Georges Khodr
http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/01/met-georges-khodr-god-is-motion.html
I am always struck by the words of the Nazarene, "Love your neighbor as yourself." He never once said, "Strive for your neighbor to love you." Love is an act of going to the other, not of attracting an emotion. Christ never once said, "Seek to be loved." You come into being by abandoning yourself. This is the mystery of humanity, that one of us subsists in himself or for himself. You exist in and with others. Human existence is communion: Your Lord knows you if you love. You exist if you forget yourself in your act of going to the other.
Individualism is true if you mean by it the independence of each one of us from the tyranny of the group, but individualism is not withdrawal or isolation. Personhood is contemporary philosophy does not mean isolation or inward withdrawal. It is the confirmation of the self in love because the self exists in communion.
There is no contradiction between sound individualism and existing in society, because a good society does not eliminate the rational and loving self. Indeed, it can only exist in it. The group is not a herd because the herd has no love in it.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" because he is your equal, because the two of you are one before the Lord. The one whom you love is not necessarily your friend. You love because you come into existence through love insofar as it is going out from the "I" into the "we". Truth is in the "we". Egoism is exclusionary, but love is confirmed and confirms the other at the same time. It is not possible for you to love the other unless you subsist within yourself (and I did not say "subsist in yourself"). For you to subsist within yourself also means that you subsist in the other. You cannot be in yourself if you are not one with the Lord. If the Lord is not within you, you are deadly for yourself, you eat yourself.
Love is not in rejecting the self. It is in rejecting the closed-off ego. If you go out to the other by casting egoism out of yourself, you return to yourself free. The one who loves does not hate himself. He hates to monopolize himself. Loving yourself, insofar as your self is from God, is loving God. It is gaining God for yourself, since if you do not make God your own, how can He be? If you do not understand that He is motion, He will not reach you. He is fixed in His motion.
God is a movement of love. We have only known Him in His supporting His people and no one knows Him unless the Lord Himself moves towards him. God is constantly in a state of coming down. This is the true meaning of inspiration. God is revelation. Yes, the Lord is fixed. This fixedness is His love.
Love is movement. It is you believing that the other is fundamental for you, even for your breathing. If you move toward the face of the other, you find the face of God. In your isolated tower, you have no god. It is your suicide. You do not face God by Himself. You find in Him others, because God is in the group, in love. There is nothing that will be revealed to you if you do not go out of yourself to it and to others. You have no existence with your Lord if you are not with others. He is on their faces-- it is there that you read Him.
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Theosis and the Life of Prayer
"Prayer that is strong, that has purpose, that has meaning, is prayer offered from all the heart, all the mind, all the soul, all the strength. This is the prayer of love. Every prayer offered to God that lacks these four sources - heart, soul, mind, and strength - will result in monotony and dreariness..."
"...The concept of union occupies a very lofty place in Orthodox thought. Union with the Holy Trinity is, indeed, foundational to Orthodoxy. However, it is sometimes misunderstood by certain theologians (who study without spiritual understanding) that union is the end of the road. That is, they teach that after we pray a lot, and fast a lot, and spend a very long time in asceticism, then we will achieve union with God. No, beloved; union can occur from the age of three or four, if only you are taught to stand and pray before God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength."
+ Fr Matthew the Poor, "On Love" in "Words for our Time" (Chesterton: Conciliar Press, 2012) 65-67
Wednesday, 8 January 2014
Fr Alexander Schmemann on Political Crisis
On the eve of the Christmas fast, we are trying to preach to the students why the coming of God into the world in the form of a small child is not only a kenosis—a self-emptying of divinity—but the most adequate revelation of God. In that Child, there is no need for strength, glory, “rights,” self-affirmation, authority or power.
Monday, 6 January 2014
Our greatest missionary work
I told the brotherhood that it should always be a priority for it to perform the Divine Liturgy in the Monastery. The prayers of the Divine Liturgy should not be intoned for personal gratification because at that moment the priests are expressing the prayers of all those praying in Church. And for this reason the priests should not be praying with self-centered feelings. We do not celebrate as individuals."
On Baptism & Liturgical Life
Baptism and the Final Destruction of Demons
by Fr Stephen Freeman
http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/01/06/baptism-and-the-final-destruction-of-demons/
Final is not a word you often hear in Christian teaching. Most Christians leave the final things until, well, the End. But this is not the language of the fathers nor of the Church. A good illustration can be found in the Orthodox service of Holy Baptism. During the blessing of the waters the priest prays:
And grant to [this water] the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan. Make it the fountain of incorruption, the gift of sanctification, the remission of sins, the remedy of infirmities; the final destruction of demons, unassailable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might. Let those who would ensnare Your creature flee far from it. For we have called upon Your Name, O Lord, and it is wonderful, and glorious, and awesome even to adversaries.
What can it possibly mean to ask that the waters be made "the final destruction of demons"?
The nature of the waters of Baptism reveals the Orthodox understanding of the world. These waters, now in a font, are none other than the waters of the Jordan. They are an incorruptible fountain and all the things we ask for. They are the final destruction of demons because they are nothing other than Christ's Pascha. The waters of the font are Christ's death on the Cross and His destruction of Hades. They are the resurrection of the dead.
For this reason St. Paul can say:
Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).
The realism of St. Paul's teaching on Baptism is mystical realism (to coin a phrase). These waters become those waters. This event becomes that event. This time is now that time. Christ's death now becomes my death. Christ's resurrection now becomes my resurrection.
How utterly and uselessly weak is the thought that Baptism is merely an obedience to a command given by Christ! The idea that nothing happens in Baptism is both contrary to Scripture and a denial of the very nature of our salvation.
The anti-sacramentalism (and non-sacramentalism) of some Christian groups is among the most unwittingly pernicious of all modern errors. Thought to be an argument about a minor point of doctrine, it is, instead, the collapse of the world into the empty literalism of secularity. In the literalism of the modern world (where a thing is a thing is a thing), nothing is ever more than what is seen. Thus every spiritual reality, every mystery, must be referred elsewhere - generally to the mind of God and the believer. Christianity becomes an ideology and a fantasy. It turns religious believing into a two-storey universe.
The reality of in the Incarnate God was not obvious to those around Him: no surgery would have revealed His Godhood. The proclamation of the Gospel, from its most primitive beginnings ("the Kingdom of God is at hand"), announces the in-breaking of a mystical reality. Many modern theologians misunderstand Christ's (and St. John the Baptist's) preaching on the Kingdom to refer to an imminent end of the age. They hear, "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand," to mean, "the End of the world is near." Thus we have protestant theologians creating an "interim ethic" to cover Christian activity in the "in-between" period - between Christ's first coming and His second. If the coming of the incarnate God into the world did not fundamentally alter something, then the preaching of Jesus was in vain and radically misunderstood by His disciples.
The Gospels presume and proclaim at every turn that in Christ, the Kingdom of God is present. Christ says, "But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Lk 11:20). There is a mystery at work in the presence of the Kingdom. Christ makes statements such as that just quoted, but also frequently says that the Kingdom of God has come near. The Kingdom is a reality and a presence that has both come near us, and come upon us. But in neither case does it simply refer to a later "someday." The urgency of the proclamation of the Kingdom is not caused by the soon approach of an expected apocalypse. Its preaching is urgent because its coming has already begun!
The sacraments of the Church (indeed the Church itself) should never be reduced to "holy moments" or "instances of miracles" in the life of an otherwise spiritually inert world. If bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, then the Kingdom of God has come upon us! And nothing less.
The sacramental life of the Church is not an aspect of the Church's life - it is a manifestation of the whole life of the Church. It is, indeed, the very character and nature of the Church's life. The Church does not have sacraments - the Church is a sacrament. We do not eat sacraments or just participate in the sacraments - we are sacraments. The sacraments reveal the true character of our life in Christ. This is why St. Paul can say:
I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me, etc. (Galatians 2:20)
I am...nevertheless I...yet not I...but Christ.... This is the language of the mystical reality birthed into the world in the Incarnation of Christ. Thus we can say: This is the Blood of Christ...nevertheless you see bread...but it is not bread...but Christ's Body sacrificed for you. This is the Hades of Christ's death and the Paradise of His resurrection...nevertheless it is the water of Baptism...but it is not water...but Christ's death and resurrection into which you are baptized.
And so we see the whole world - for the "whole world is sacrament" - in the words of Patriarch Bartholomew. We struggle with language to find a way to say "is...nevertheless...yet not...but is." This is always the difficulty in expressing the mystery. It is difficult, not because it is less than real, but because of the character and nature of its reality. Modern Christian thought and language that simply dismiss the mystery and postpone its coming, or deny the character of its reality, change the most essential elements of the Christian faith and inadvertently create a new religion.
But we have been taught something different. We have been given the Final Destruction of Demons, the Mystical Supper, the Kingdom of God. Why should we look for something less?
Happy Feast of the Nativity of our Lord
"The body of the Word, then, being a real human body, in spite of its having been uniquely formed from a virgin, was of itself mortal and, like other bodies, liable to death. But the indwelling of the Word loosed it from this natural liability, so that corruption could not touch it. Thus is happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord's body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished."
+ St Athanasius of Alexandria
Sunday, 5 January 2014
Is “Write” Wrong?: A Discussion of Iconology Lingo
http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/is-write-wrong-a-discussion-of-iconology-lingo-2/
Professor John Yiannias, Ph.D., expert in Early Christian and Byzantine Art, University of Pittsburgh, has a bold opinion on the issue of why “write” is the wrong verb to use for making an icon.
Friday, 3 January 2014
The Icon Redefined
From the little I've read or heard from Orthodox writers or speakers concerning Iconography, there's a popular sentiment that the 'carnal' 'realism' of 'Western' art is either spiritually deficient or reflective of 'Western' rationalism and scholasticism. "Redefining the Icon" by Evan Freeman challenges these presuppositions and suggests that reading icons or any sacred art in this way is subtly docetist.
But does style affect theology or is content the defining factor? How does this apply to the maxim of lex orandi est lex credendi? What about musical styles if we look at hymnography and hymnology? Does this redefining of the icon impact other aspects of our liturgical life?
Still, it is good to see this kind of historical reflection and critical research coming from within the Orthodox world, which challenges us not to package our theology or to claim an unequivocal 'perspective' when there's still so much to encounter and live in the depth and width and height of the Holy Church...the Life in Christ.
Forgive me and pray for me a sinner.
Here is the post included for reference:
+++










