"When we love the name of salvation, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and have mercy upon each other, we fulfill all the Law. Through mercy, Abraham was pleased, to host God, and His holy angels.
...When we continue to keep Him, in our inner being, He will make us rich, so we can give to others. We do not ask for, the wealth of this world, but for the salvation of our souls, by calling upon His holy name."
"I am frightened at the possibility of being condemned. Not because I have robbed, or committed adultery, or done something forbidden, but rather for having failed to care for Christ himself in the person of the poor. Servants of Christ, let us then visit Christ! Let us take care of Christ! Let us feed Christ! Let us welcome Christ...in the person of the poor."
"Orthodoxy, on the contrary, is humility. It is the confession of the fullness of the Truth, of righteousness and of love. Orthodoxy must win the victory only by its radiance, like the Lord Himself, and by no means through the use of cannon, steel or verbal (there is no difference). Orthodoxy does not shine forth in an Orthodox society that takes pride in its Orthodoxy. It shines forth in those who are humble in their Orthodoxy, who understand the purity of the faith, not only in their puny reasoning, but through the spirit through all their life."
+ Archbishop John (Shahovskoy) of San FranciscoIf any posts appear polemic or sectarian, I ask for your forgiveness and prayers. It is not the purpose of this blog to make statements of Traditions outside of Orthodoxy (ie. we know where the Church is; we do not know where it is not).
"In Orthodox apologetics a clear and strong emphasis must be placed on the explanation of the meaning of the knowledge of the faith in life."
"I believe, the future of Orthodox theology is neither Sophianism or Neo-Patristic synthesis; neither Neo-Palamism nor ressourciement, not Nouvelle théologieor even ancienne théologie for that matter; not progressivism or conservatism. The future of Orthodox theology is fidelity to the Gospel lived out in the interim as we approach the eschaton. We have always known this; and accordingly have always known that we were supposed to resist the isms and secessions, scholasticisms, denominations, and all other sorts of factions that mark off a sectarian mentality from the ecclesial spirit. Now there have been endless temptations of the Christian church in recent generations to dissect itself in ever-diminishing circles. The ecumenical movement that once shone so radiantly in the early post-war years when these Orthodox thinkers of Lossky's time were in their prime, excited and energized, is now a squeaking ghost of itself because of that spirit of divisionism that is rife. Conservative Christians can hardly speak to progressives. But when we Orthodox are being specifically conscious about our mode of discourse today, I think we should remember that the church has always used philosophical method very eclectically to exegete the Gospel; applying a purely utilitarian principle. It can never wed itself to any method or school or system except that which Gregory the Theologian calls ' a fisherman's dialectic.'
Orthodox have sometimes begun to imagine themselves as a denomination alongside other multiple churches in a pluralist world, and to speak of themselves in that way. But Orthodoxy's role is not to be a subaltern in a post-colonial ambit: to appear quaint when we speak to some putative West, as some putative East. On the contrary, we have to hold an important line: the church is not a sect. It contains within its living body, conservatives and progressives, liberal reformists and die-hard traditionalists, not to mention saints and sinners. Within Orthodoxy those who want to 'synthesize' for the future, and those who want to keep everything intact as it was in the past, both have to learn the hard reality that it is only God's eschaton that makes the correct judgement on what is right and what is wrong with the Church. The spotless Bride who contains all that is necessary for salvation in her trousseau, is ever the same (just seen in a different light) as that annoying baggage that is the Church on earth, which is comprised of an awful lot of flawed and compromised individuals trying to do their best to make their pilgrimage to the Kingdom. The Orthodox always attempt to be ever faithful to the evangelical tradition they have received and which they seek to preserve in the canons and the writings of the dogmatic and spiritual fathers, but above all they are called to live it out, live out that is the resurrectional presence of Christ, through his Spirit, in the largely unseen holiness of the ecclesial community."
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.
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.
“Every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction”
"The spirit of revolution is not about a struggle for a glorious future. Revolution is about the destruction of the present and the will to power"
"Do not let the enemy – the devil – overwhelm us with excessive hope, but alert our minds and awaken our hearts from the sleep of inattention and wasting our lifetime in vain."
"Take me not away in the midst of my days, nor while my mind is still blind."