Quantcast
Channel: MONKS AND MERMAIDS (A Benedictine Blog)
Viewing all 948 articles
Browse latest View live

THE HOLINESS OF THE MOTHER OF GOD IN EAST AND WEST (also NEW LINKS TO POSTS OF THE MONKS & NUNS "OF JERUSALEM" and "OF BETHLEHEM" in France.

$
0
0


The Immaculate Conception: The Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West

Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Rome as an article of the Catholic faith in the 19th century, has long been an additional point of disagreement between East and West on the subject of Mariology or the theological study of the role of Mary. In what way is this so and what are the possibilities for overcoming the difficulties here?

The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself affirms that the Mother of God, from the moment of her Conception in the womb of St Anne, was preserved free of the “stain of Original Sin.” In other words, she who was called to assume the great role in salvation history as the Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate and the Ark of the New Covenant was prevented from contracting the sin of Adam.

The foundation of this definition is and always has been the resolution of the issue of: a) the fact that all have fallen in Adam and: b) how can the Mother of Christ, from whose very flesh the Son of God fashioned a Body for Himself by which we are saved and sanctified, ever be said to have been a subject of sin?

St Augustine of Hippo himself, when commenting on Original Sin, affirmed that the Mother of God must always be excluded from any such consideration to begin with. But it was only later with the Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian, that the theological reasoning behind this view was worked out: The Virgin Mary was preserved free from Original Sin because the FUTURE merits of Christ’s passion and death were applied to her at her conception.

By the seventh century, the Byzantine East was celebrating the feast of the Conception of Saint Anne. This festival was first adopted in the West by the English Church from whence it soon spread elsewhere. It is still to be found in the calendar of the Anglican Church.

The West, however, was divided on whether the Mother of God could be said to have been conceived without Original Sin. St Thomas Aquinas and others, in fact, replied to this question in the negative and one could be a Latin Catholic in good standing while denying the Immaculate Conception.

However, even before this theological position was proclaimed as a binding dogma on all Catholics by Rome, there was strong, local devotion to it throughout the Catholic world centuries before.

Religious associations organized to honour the Immaculate Conception abounded in the Middle Ages and later. They wore a medal similar to the Miraculous Medal of more recent times, invoked the Virgin as the “Immaculate Mother” and even took the “bloody vow” or a vow to defend to the death her Immaculate Conception.

Even some Catholic empires proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogma to be held by all their faithful subjects.

We know that the Spanish Empire did so and anyone who was a subject of the Spanish king was obliged to accept the Immaculate Conception. The Church, built by the Spaniards, in New Orleans, Louisiana is a mute testimony to the local proclamation of this dogma by the Spanish Church.

The Immaculate Conception also came to be reverenced in Orthodox countries, especially during the height of the Baroque period in the Kyivan Church and also by Greeks, as Father John Meyendorff has shown.

The Ukrainian Saint Demetrius of Rostov, for example, belonged to an Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception (for which he was called before an Orthodox Synod to give account).

St Demetrius and others of his day prayed the rosary, recited the Hail Mary at the turn of each hour, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary and even the Psalter of the Mother of God composed by St Bonaventure. His “Easternized” prayer in honour of the Sorrows of the Mother of God survives in many Orthodox prayerbooks today as the “Tale of the Five Prayers!”

(The rosary known as the “rule of prayer of the Mother of God” was likewise prayed throughout by Orthodox Christians, especially by St Seraphim of Sarov whose main icon of the Mother of God was actually a Western picture of Our Lady of the Annunciation, known today as “Our Lady, Joy of all Joys” and is among the most popular icons of the Theotokos in Russia.)

The Kyivan Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception likewise took the bloody vow and produced Western-style depictions of Our Lady of Grace and their invocation was, “Most Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” This was a play on the “Panaghia” or “All-Holy” invocation to the Virgin Mary that is a refrain in so many liturgical services (“All Holy Theotokos, save us!”)

Some of the icons themselves came to be venerated as Orthodox miraculous icons as Professor Poselianin shows in his magnum opus, “Bogomater” (“The Immaculate Mother” as one example, although a copy of this icon is not included).

The website of the Orthodox Church in America likewise affirms that the icon for the feast of the Conception of St Anne in Orthodoxy depicts the Mother of God very much as the Western picture of Our Lady of Grace, with hands stretched downwards and standing on a globe etc.

Despite the acceptance of this doctrine in certain Orthodox circles, the fact remains that the doctrine itself was not acceptable to the Eastern Churches. Very often, Roman Catholic commentators have attacked Orthodoxy for refusing to accept this doctrine for, otherwise, this must mean that Orthodox Christians believe the unspeakable – that the Mother of God was conceived in and contracted Original Sin . . .

The crux of the matter here lies, however, not in a disagreement over Mary’s total sinlessness and holiness from her Conception.

In fact, the East does indeed affirm Mary’s All-holiness in its liturgical tradition. The liturgical celebration, and that from early times, of the Conception of St Anne ALREADY means that the Mother of God was a saint at her Conception and was sanctified by the Spirit as the Temple of the Most Holy Trinity – only feasts of saints may be celebrated, after all!

(The same holds true for John the Baptist, whose Conception is ALSO celebrated in the calendar of the Orthodox Church.)

So both East and West already affirm Mary to be All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate.

What is the problem then?

The problem is in the thorny issue of Original Sin and the way in which it has been understood in the West, taking its cue, as it does, from Saint Augustine.

For the Christian East, Original Sin does not totally ravage human nature. Adam’s personal sin resulted in death for all his descendants, the experience of concupiscence and the darkening of the mind that makes us subject to temptation etc.

So if Mary died, then she had indeed been subject to the effects of Original Sin i.e. she could not be said to have been conceived without it.

But by her great sanctification at her Conception and at other times in her life (Annunciation, Pentecost, Dormition/Assumption) God deemed to bestow on His Temple, the Ark of the New Covenant, the fullness of His Gifts of Grace.

And so, the effects of Original Sin, while not completely taken away from Mary, were mitigated in an exemplary way.’

Thus, she suffered no pain when she gave birth to Christ and her passing into eternal life was but a gentle falling asleep (or “Dormition”). Furthermore, she was taken in body and soul to Heaven by Her Son as her body was not to experience corruption. And she continues to grow in holiness in heaven as holiness is a dynamic, rather than static, thing.

So, for the East, when the West affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this implied that she did not die – something the East had always believed as its liturgical tradition (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) bore out.

But today the West understands the “stain of Original Sin” in a way that would be compatible with the view of the East. Perhaps this was all a misunderstanding that was artificially maintained across centuries by ill-will on both sides – who can know for sure?

And the West does not deny that the Mother of God was under the effects of Original Sin, even though her great holiness mitigated greatly her experience of these.

Ultimately, a mutual agreement on this issue would centre on the matter of a common and clear definition concerning Original Sin.

It would also have to be based on whether Rome’s definition of the Immaculate Conception, rooted in a form of Augustinianism as it is, cannot be adapted to a more ecumenical perspective that would be open to Eastern theological/patristic viewpoints.

Certainly, there could be no question that the East would ever need to adopt the IC dogma, given the fact that the matter of the All-holiness of the Mother of God was never a point of disagreement in the East and that the dogma itself is the product of a purely Western theological paradigm.

Apart from the dogmas of the Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, as defined by the Councils, the East prefers to keep all else concerning the Virgin Mary as part of its own intense, inner liturgical piety towards her.

As the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom sings of Mary:

“Having commemorated our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and Glorious Sovereign Mother of God and Every-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us give offer ourselves and one another unto Christ our God!”


NEW LINKS






THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH AND ONE OF ITS GREATEST SONS, SAINT ISAAC THE SYRIAN

$
0
0
Nestorian priests in a procession on Palm Sunday, in a 7th- or 8th-century wall painting from a Nestorian church in China, Tang Dynasty

THE HISTORY OF THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST
my source: The History of the Nestorian Church

 The Assyrian Church of the East was established in Edessa in the first century of the Christian era. It is from Edessa that the message of the Gospels spread. Edessa was a small kingdom, a buffer state between Roman and Parthean Empires. Mar Mary was sent to Persia by his fellow workers in Edessa. In the second century this church began to be organized. The church in Edessa had four Gospels in Aramaic. The teaching was spread to the Persian Empire. In the third century, the church in the Persian Empire had to take refugees from the Roman Empire where Christians were not welcomed. Streams of refugees turned toward Persia to escape persecution in the Eastern Roman Empire. A great multitude of Christians in all Roman provinces were put off by various punishments, torture professed to renounce Christianity.

From about 280 A.D. Mar Papa organized this church, thus Metropolitan seat of Seleucia became the headquarters. Now the city is in ruins, known as SalmanPark, 30 miles from Baghdad.

Mar Aprim the Assyrian, the representative of the Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., played a great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. That is the reason he is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church which declared Saint Aprim as the doctor of the Universal Church

In the fifth century, the Nestorian controversy concerning the unity of the divine and human nature in Christ had far reaching consequences. At this time, the Church of the East was not involved in this controversy. It was a theological dispute within the Roman Empire.

John Nestorius was not an Assyrian nor did he know Syriac language. He was a native of Antioch and Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431 A.D. His rival Cyril was Patriarch of Alexandria. Therefore, the members of the Church say that they do not have anything to do with the Nestorian controversy. It was several years later and even after the death of Nestorius in 451 A.D. that the Christians of the Persian Empire heard about the controversy. They decreed that the stand taken by Nestorius was in agreement with the view always maintained by the Church of the East.

As a result of the persecution of the followers of Nestorius, many Christians had to flee from the now Christian Roman Empire and found refuge among the followers of this Church.

The headquarters of the Church, Selucia-Ctesphon, was at a strategic place on both banks of the River Tigris, the center of travel between Europe and Asia. By the middle of the sixth century, the Church had spread into Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, Ceylon, China, and Mongolia.

Professor P.Y. Saeki stated that the leaven of Nestorianism has penetrated the whole of Chinese literature. This church had great missionaries. They expanded rapidly. Asia was widely covered by the missionaries. They had no fund to support their mission stations financially; there were no mission boards to direct their activities like Western missionaries of those days who followed the colonial Empires. It is time to hear from our long-forgotten past the thrilling story of our missionary enterprise during the early centuries of the Christian era. These Christians did not have great material means nor were they able to engage in planning great missionary strategies, computerized and perfected in world conferences, to win the world in our time. Yet they carried the torch of the Gospel all across the vast Asian continent, at the cost of great personal suffering and often martyrdom, for untold numbers of laymen and clergy alike were led by the Holy Spirit to push the frontiers of the Kingdom of God far and wide.

Wherever they went, it was to preach, to teach and cure. At the end of the eleventh century, this church was the single largest Christian denomination at that time. John Stewart writes:

Whole peoples with their rulers had become Christians and it seems certain that there were few places in the whole Asia that were not reached at some time or other as the outcome of the marvelous activity of that wonderful church which extended from China to Jerusalem and Cyprus, and in the eleventh century is said to have outnumbered the Greek and Roman churches combined

From the Pacific Ocean in the East to the Mediterranean in the West; from the Black Sea and Siberia to the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea, Assyrian missions were working. Asia Minor, Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, India, China, Japan, Mongolia, Manchuria, and Turkistan—all hand missions where the gospel was taught by zealous workers of the Assyrian Church of the East.   The Assyrian Church of the East is the apostolic church of Mesopotamia, Persia, India and the Far East, and is one of the modern versions of the older Church of the East, which was divided from the other apostolic churches by the Nestorian Schism during the 5th century. 


THE CHURCH OF THE EAST TODAY

In comparison with its past glories, the ancient Assyrian Church of the East is merely a "holy remnant", with churches established since apostolic times in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Kerala in South India.  Today the Assyrian Church of the East has about a half a million adherents which are scattered mostly over Iraq, India, and the United States.  Since the Iraq War many have gone to Canada, Europe and Australia as refugees.

The Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East was signed on November 11, 1994, by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dinkha IV. In this document the Assyrian and Catholic churches confessed the same doctrine concerning Christology (the divinity and humanity of Christ):

The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration. Christ therefore is not an "ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity.

This common declaration between Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dinkha IV brings to an end a thousand years of misunderstanding.

The Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession.(Guidelines - document of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity)

The Chaldean Catholic Church (ܥܕܬܐ ܟܠܕܝܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܝܬܐ‎; ʿītha kaldetha qāthuliqetha), is an Eastern Syriac particular church of the Catholic Church, maintaining full communion with the Bishop of Rome and the rest of the Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholic Church presently comprises an estimated 500,000 who are ethnic Assyrian.

The two Iraq wars had the effect of bringing these two halves, Assyrian and Chaldean, of the same tradition together.   Each side preferred to attend Mass in  a church of the other side than go to another tradition or cease to go to Mass altogther.   The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity put it this way:
Given the great distress of many Chaldean and Assyrian faithful, in their motherland and in the diaspora, impeding for many of them a normal sacramental life according to their own tradition, and in the ecumenical context of the bilateral dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, the request has been made to provide for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. This request has first been studied by the Joint Committee for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The present guidelines subsequently have been elaborated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.
1. Pastoral necessity
The request for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is connected with the particular geographical and social situation in which their faithful are actually living. Due to various and sometimes dramatic circumstances, many Assyrian and Chaldean faithful left their motherlands and moved to the Middle East, Scandinavia, Western Europe, Australia and Northern America. As there cannot be a priest for every local community in such a widespread diaspora, numerous Chaldean and Assyrian faithful are confronted with a situation of pastoral necessity with regard to the administration of sacraments. Official documents of the Catholic Church provide special regulations for such situations, namely the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 671, §2-§3 and the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, n. 123.
2. Ecumenical rapprochement
The request is also connected with the ongoing process of ecumenical rapprochement between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.
 Catholic and Assyrian bishops welcoming the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch to Australia
Thus, the Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with Rome but is in de facto communion with the Chaldean Catholic Church.  This is not without precedent.   The Russian Orthodox Church was in communion with both Constantinople and Rome for centruries after ties between Constantinople and Rome had been broken.   As the Assyrian Church is in communion with other Oriental Orthodox churches, a friend of mine, a Benedictine, took part, quite legally, in an Assyrian Mass, together with Chaldean and Coptic priests.

We are now ready to  become acquainted with Saint Isaac the Syrian.   He was neither Orthodox nor Catholic; but, like J.S. Bach and Handel in music, like C.S. Lewis in his writing and Taize as a community, his profound treatment of the basics of the Faith lift him above the schisms that separate us and is appreciated more and more by Orthodox and Catholics alike. 



 





SAINT ISAAC THE SYRIAN

"Saint Isaac was and still is commonly called 'Nestorian Bishop of Nineveh' and the Church of Persia of his day, 'Nestorian'. The [first edition] Epilogue endeavored to demonstrate that the teachings of Nestorius did not inform the theology of the Church of Persia; that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia known to her were partial and imperfect translations, and that the controversy his writings caused in the Greek-speaking world were mostly unknown to the Church of Persia, cut off by linguistic differences and political boundaries; that in some cases it was extremism on the part of the Monophysites that led the Church of Persia to take a stance that might seem to lend itself to a Nestorian interpretation, such as the cautious avoidance of the term Theotokos to avoid Monophysite Theopaschism, though she professed the Virgin's Son to be perfect God and perfect man; that the fraternal relations with Byzantium remained open: no general and hardened opposition to the Fourth [Ecumenical] Council created a final division between the Church of Persia of Saint Isaac's day and the 'Chalcedonian' Church, as it did with the Monophysites, for whom the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon became a defining element of their identity. Its aim, in a word, was to show that the Church of Persia to which Saint Isaac belonged was neither heretical in theology nor schismatic in confession." (pages 74-75, "Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian", Revised Second Edition, translated and published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Brookline, MA, 2011)


He was born in the region of Bahrain.[1] When still quite young, he and his brother entered a monastery, where he gained considerable renown as a teacher and came to the attention of the Catholicos George, who ordained him Bishop of Nineveh far to the north. The administrative duties did not suit his retiring and ascetic bent: he requested to abdicate after only five months, and went south to the wilderness of Mount Matout, a refuge for anchorites. There he lived in solitude for many years, eating only three loaves a week with some uncooked vegetables, a detail that never failed to astonish his hagiographers. Eventually blindness and old age forced him to retire to the monastery of Shabar, where he died and was buried. At the time of his death he was nearly blind, a fact that some attribute to his devotion to study.

Isaac is remembered for his spiritual homilies on the inner life, which have a human breadth and theological depth that transcends the Nestorian Christianity of the Church to which he belonged. They survive in Syriac manuscripts and in Greek and Arabic translations. From Greek they were translated into Russian.

Isaac stands in the tradition of the eastern mystical saints and placed a considerable emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac's writings offer a rare example of a large corpus of ascetical texts written by an experienced hermit and is thus an important writer when it comes to understanding early Christian asceticism.

QUOTATIONS


St. Isaac stretches love and mercy to it’s farthest limits, occasionally beyond the bounds of canonical understanding. He remains a saint of the Church and his words are very important to hear.

Let yourself be persecuted, but do not persecute others.

Be crucified, but do not crucify others.

Be slandered, but do not slander others.

Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep: such is the sign of purity.

Suffer with the sick.

Be afflicted with sinners.

Exult with those who repent.

Be the friend of all, but in your spirit remain alone.

Be a partaker of the sufferings of all, but keep your body distant from all.

Rebuke no one, revile no one, not even those who live very wickedly.

Spread your cloak over those who fall into sin, each and every one, and shield them.

And if you cannot take the fault on yourself and accept punishment in their place, do not destroy their character.

What is a merciful heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for demons, and for all that exists. By the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful person pour forth tears in abundance. By the strong and vehement mercy that grips such a person’s heart, and by such great compassion, the heart is humbled and one cannot bear to hear or to see any injury or slight sorrow in any in creation. For this reason, such a person offers up tearful prayer continually even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth, and for those who harm her or him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner such a person prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns without measure in a heart that is in the likeness of God.

The person who is genuinely charitable not only gives charity out of his own possessions, but gladly tolerates injustice from others and forgives them. Whoever lays down his soul for his brother acts generously, rather than the person who demonstrates his generosity by his gifts.

God is not One who requites evil, but who sets evil right.

Paradise is the love of God, wherein is the enjoyment of all blessedness.

The person who lives in love reaps the fruit of life from God, and while yet in this world, even now breathes the air of the resurrection.

In love did God bring the world into existence; in love is God going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of the One who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised.

Question: When is a person sure of having arrived at purity?

Answer: When that person considers all human beings are good, and no created thing appears impure or defiled. Then a person is truly pure in heart.

Love is sweeter than life.

Sweeter still, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb is the awareness of God whence love is born.

Love is not loath to accept the hardest of deaths for those it loves.

Love is the child of knowledge.

Lord, fill my heart with eternal life.

As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful.

That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion: remorse. But love inebriates the souls of the sons and daughters of heaven by its delectability.

If zeal had been appropriate for putting humanity right, why did God the Word clothe himself in the body, using gentleness and humility in order to bring the world back to his Father?

Sin is the fruit of free will. There was a time when sin did not exist, and there will be a time when it will not exist.

God’s recompense to sinners is that, instead of a just recompense, God rewards them with resurrection.

O wonder! The Creator clothed in a human being enters the house of tax collectors and prostitutes. Thus the entire universe, through the beauty of the sight of him, was drawn by his love to the single confession of God, the Lord of all.

“Will God, if I ask, forgive me these things by which I am pained and by whose memory I am tormented, things by which, though I abhor them, I go on backsliding? Yet after they have taken place the pain they give me is even greater than that of a scorpion’s sting. Though I abhor them, I am still in the middle of them, and when I repent of them with suffering I wretchedly return to them again.”

This is how many God-fearing people think, people who foster virtue and are pricked with the suffering of compunction, who mourn over their sin; They live between sin and repentance all the time. Let us not be in doubt, O fellow humanity, concerning the hope of our salvation, seeing that the One who bore sufferings for our sakes is very concerned about our salvation; God’s mercifulness is far more extensive than we can conceive, God’s grace is greater than what we ask for.

When we find love, we partake of heavenly bread and are made strong without labor and toil. The heavenly bread is Christ, who came down from heaven and gave life to the world. This is the nourishment of angels. The person who has found love eats and drinks Christ every day and every hour and is thereby made immortal. …When we hear Jesus say, “Ye shall eat and drink at the table of my kingdom,” what do we suppose we shall eat, if not love? Love, rather than food and drink, is sufficient to nourish a person. This is the wine “which maketh glad the heart.” Blessed is the one who partakes of this wine! Licentious people have drunk this wine and become chaste; sinners have drunk it and have forgotten the pathways of stumbling; drunkards have drunk this wine and become fasters; the rich have drunk it and desired poverty, the poor have drunk it and been enriched with hope; the sick have drunk it and become strong; the unlearned have taken it and become wise.

Repentance is given us as grace after grace, for repentance is a second regeneration by God. That of which we have received an earnest by baptism, we receive as a gift by means of repentance. Repentance is the door of mercy, opened to those who seek it. By this door we enter into the mercy of God, and apart from this entrance we shall not find mercy.

Blessed is God who uses corporeal objects continually to draw us close in a symbolic way to a knowledge of God’s invisible nature. O name of Jesus, key to all gifts, open up for me the great door to your treasure-house, that I may enter and praise you with the praise that comes from the heart.

O my Hope, pour into my heart the inebriation that consists in the hope of you. O Jesus Christ, the resurrection and light of all worlds, place upon my soul’s head the crown of knowledge of you; open before me all of a sudden the door of mercies, cause the rays of your grace to shine out in my heart.

O Christ, who are covered with light as though with a garment, who for my sake stood naked in front of Pilate, clothe me with that might which you caused to overshadow the saints, whereby they conquered this world of struggle. May your Divinity, Lord, take pleasure in me, and lead me above the world to be with you.

I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity.

Adapted from Bp. Hilarion Alfeyev’s The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (Cistercian Studies 175), Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2000.



What the bodily eyes are to sensory objects,the same is faith to the eyes of the understanding that gaze at hidden treasures.Even as we have two bodily eyes,we possess two eyes of the soul,as the Fathers say;yet both have not the same operation with respect to divine vision.With one we see the hidden Glory of God which is concealed in the natures of things;that is to say,we behold His power,His wisdom, and His eternal providence for us,which we understand from the magnitude of His governance on our behalf.With this same eye we also behold the heavenly orders of our fellow servants.With the other,we behold the glory of His Holy nature.When God is pleased to admit us to spiritual mysteries,He opens wide the sea of faith in our minds.

Fear is the paternal rod that guides our way until we reach the spiritual paradise of good things;and when we have attained thereto,it leaves us and turns back.
Paradise is the love of God,wherein is the enjoyment of all blessedness,and there the blessed Paul partook of supernatural nourishment.When he tasted there of the tree of life,he cried out, saying,'eye that hath not seen,nor ear heard,neither have entered into the heart of man,the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him'. Adam was barred from this tree through the devil's counsel.

The tree of life is the love of God from which Adam fell away,and thereafter he saw joy no longer,and he toiled and labored in the land of thorns.Even though they make their way in righteousness,those who are bereft of the love of God eat in their work the bread of sweat,which the first-created man was commanded to eat after his
fall.Until we find love,our labor is in the land of thorns,and in the midst of thorns we both sow and reap,even if our seed is the seed of righteousness, and in every hour we are pricked by the thorns,and
however much we render ourselves righteous,we live by the sweat of our brow.
But when we find love,we partake of heavenly bread and are made strong without labor and toil.The heavenly bread is Christ, Who came down from Heaven and gave life to the world.This is the
nourishment of the angels.The man who has found love eats and drinks Christ every day and hour and hereby is made immortal.;He that eateth of this bread,;He says,;which i will give him,shall not see death unto eternity.'Blessed is he who eats the bread of love,which is Jesus!He who eats of love eats Christ,the God over all,as John bears witness, saying,'God is love.'

Wherefore,the man who lives in love reaps life from God,and while yet in this world,he even now breathes the air of the resurrection;in this air the righteous will delight in the resurrection.Love is
the kingdom,whereof the Lord mystically promised His disciples to eat in his Kingdom.For when we hear Him say,'Ye shall eat and drink at the table of My Kingdom,;what do we suppose we shall eat,if not love?Love is sufficient to nourish a man instead of food and drink.
This is the wine that 'maketh glad the heart of man.'Blessed is he who drinks of this wine! Profligates have drunk this wine and felt shame; sinners have drunk it and have forgotten the pathways of stumbling;drunkards have drunk this wine and become fasters,the rich have drunk it and desired poverty;the poor have drunk it and been made rich with hope;the sick have drunk it and become strong;the unlearned have taken it and been made wise.

As it is not possible to cross over the great ocean without a ship,so no one can attain to love without fear.This fetid sea,which lies between us and the noetic paradise,we can cross with the boat of
repentance, whose oarsmen are those of fear.But if the oarsmen of fear do not pilot this barque of repentance wherewith we cross over the sea of this world to God,we shall be drowned in the fetid sea.Repentance is the ship,and fear is the pilot; love is the divine haven.
Thus fear sets us in the ship of repentance, transports us over the foul sea of this life(that is,of the world),and guides us to the divine port, which is love.Hither proceed all that labor and are afflicted and heavy laden in repentance.When we attain love,we attain to God.
Our way is ended and we have passed unto the isle that lies beyond the world,where is the Father,and the Son,and the Holy Spirit,to Whom be glory and dominion,and may He make us worthy of His
glory and His love through the fear of Him.

Amen.

 Mar Isaac of Nineveh and his Devotion to the empty cross.

Isaac of Nineveh (died c. 700) also remembered as Isaac the Syrian was a Seventh century bishop and theologian of church of the east best remembered for his written work. He was born in the region of Qatar or Bahrain, on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. When still quite young, he and his brother entered a monastery, where he gained considerable renown as a teacher and came to the attention of the Catholicos George, who ordained him Bishop of Nineveh far to the north. The administrative duties did not suit his retiring and ascetic bent: he requested to abdicate after only five months, and went south to the wilderness of Mount Matout, a refuge for anchorites. There he lived in solitude for many years, eating only three loaves a week with some uncooked vegetables, a detail that never failed to astonish his hagiographers. Eventually blindness and old age forced him to retire to the monastery of Shabar, where he died and was buried. At the time of his death he was nearly blind, a fact that some attribute to his devotion to study.

Mar Isaac stands in the tradition of the eastern mystical saints and placed a considerable emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit.

Prayer before the Cross by Mar Isaac . (600~700 AD)


In many places Isaac mentions prayer and prostrations before the Cross, kissing the Cross, and other signs of special reverence which must be shown by a Christian to the Cross.These frequent references to the Cross in Isaac’s writings are connected with the exceptional place that the Holy Cross occupies in East Syriac Christianity. The East Syrian Church has never had its own tradition of icon-painting.





At the same time , since very early on, the East Syrian Church has surrounded the Holy Cross with devotional and liturgical veneration, as a symbol of human salvation and of God’s invisible presence. In this respect Isaac’s teaching on prayer before the Cross is of special interest as it allows us to come into contact with the ancient tradition of theSyrian Orient and to see what the importance was of the Cross in the spiritual life of Isaac’s compatriots and contemporaries.In Chapter XI of Part II Isaac expounds the teaching on the Holy Cross as a symbol of divine dispensation and an object of religious veneration. He presents a very elaborated theology of the Cross, which is based on the idea of the power of God being constantly present in the Cross.According to Isaac, this power is nothing else but the invisible Shekina (Presence) of God, which dwelt in the Ark of Covenant. This power was venerated by Moses and the people of Israel, who lay prostrate before the Ark because of divine revelations and wonders manifested in it. The very same Shekina is now residing in the Holy Cross.

it has departed from the Old Testament Ark and entered the New Testament Cross. This is why the miracles of the Apostles, which are described in the New Testament, were more powerful than those performed in Old Testament antiquity.In fact, the whole of the Old Testament cult, with all its signs and wonders, was primarily a symbol pointing forward to the New Testament realities: this cult was unable to eradicate sin, whereas the Cross destroyed the power of sin and death.

Speaking of the Old Testament images, Isaac asks why was it that before the wooden construction of the Ark, which was built by the hands of craftsmen, adoration filled with awe was offered up continuously, in spite of the prohibition of the Law to worship the work of human hands or any image or likeness.Because in the Ark, he answers, unlike in the pagan idols, the power of God was manifested openly and the name of God was set upon it. Isaac therefore sweeps aside the accusation of idolatry, the very same accusation that was brought up against the Iconodules in Byzantium in the seventh and eighth centuries.Though the context of Byzantine polemic with Iconoclasm was different, and the main argument for the veneration of icons was the Incarnation of God the Word, which made possible the depiction of God in material colours (a theme not touched upon by Isaac), in more general terms Isaac’s idea of the presence of the Godhead in material objects has much in common with what Byzantine polemicists of his time wrote on the presence of God in icons. In particular, Isaac says that if the Cross was made not in the name of that Man in whom the Divinity dwells, that is, the Incarnate God the Word, the accusation of idolatry would have been just.

He also alludes to the interpretation of the church Fathers, according to which the metal leaf, which was placed on the Ark,was a type of the human nature of Christ. Old Testament symbols, according to Isaac, were only a type and shadow of New Testament realities: he emphasizes the superiority of the Cross over Old Testament symbols.The material Cross, whose type was the Ark of the Covenant, is, in turn, the type of the eschatological Kingdom of Christ. The Cross, as it were, links the Old Testament with the New, and the New Testament, with the age to come, where all material symbols and types will be abolished.

The whole economy of Christ, which began in Old Testament times and continues until the end of the world, is encompassed in the symbol of the Cross: For the Cross is Christ’s garment just as the humanity of Christ is the garment of the Divinity.Thus the Cross today serves as a type, awaiting the time when the true prototype will be revealed: then those things will not be required any longer. For the Divinity dwells inseparably in the humanity... For this reason we look on the Cross as the place belonging to the Shekina of the Most High, the Lord’s sanctuary, the ocean of the symbols of God’s economy. This form of the Cross manifests to us, by means of the eye of faith, the symbol belonging to the two estaments... Moreover, it is the final seal of the economy of our Saviour. Whenever we gaze on the Cross.., the recollection of our Lord’s entire economy gathers together and stands before our interior eyes.We see that in the Syriac tradition in general and in St Isaac in particular, the Cross is in fact the main and the only sacred picture which becomes an object of liturgical veneration.

In the Syriac tradition prayer is, as it were, focused on one point, and this point is the Cross of Christ..

Isaac describes different forms of prayer before the Cross.

1)One of them is lying prostrate before the Cross for a long time in silence. Thus, lying down before the Cross is, according to Isaac, higher than all other forms of prayer as it encompasses them in itself, being an experience of extreme concentration and collectedness, which is accompanied by an intensive feeling of God’s presence.



2)Another form of prayer before the Cross is the prayer with the raising of the eyes and continual gazing upon the Cross: this prayer can be accomplished while standing or sitting, as well as kneeling with the hands stretched out. In one passage Isaac speaks of insight into the Crucified One during prayer before the Cross.
The question here is not of the Crucifixion, the Cross with the image of the crucified Christ, but of the simple Cross without any image, which is a symbol of the invisible presence of the Crucified One.The images of the crucified Christ, which were so popular in Byzantine East and Latin West, did not spread to the Syrian tradition Isaac also speaks of prostrations before the Cross and kissing it many times.






METROPOLITAN HILARION ALFEYEV OF VOLOKOLAMSK ON THE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS, ESPECIALLY IN SYRIA

$
0
0

Speech by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk at the OSCE high- level meeting ‘Preventing and Responding to Hate Incidents and Crimes against Christians’(Rome, Italy, 12 September 2011)

Mr. Chairman, dear participants in the meeting:

The Russian Orthodox Church considers it to be an important and timely initiative of Lithuania, the current chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), to hold a special meeting dedicated to the position of Christians in the OSCE region. We value highly also the endeavours of the Holy See, which has taken an active part in organizing the event.
We believe that the time has come to discuss openly the violation of the rights of Christians and respond to this challenge through our common efforts. For decades now the encroachment upon of the rights of religious minorities has been widely discussed on the European continent. Yet, practice shows that the position of the majority, which is comprised of traditional Christians in almost all the OSCE participating states, is far from being the best guarantee of their rights. The most convincing example of this was the way the European Court of Human Rights conducted the Lautsi v. Italy case on the question of the presence of crucifixes in Italy’s schools. The resolution of this problem in favour of Christians was possible thanks only to the united efforts of a whole number of countries that spoke out against the Court’s original decision. Among the countries united in support of Christian identity in Europe were Russia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, and others. This was an unprecedented for our times fact of multilateral cooperation on the grounds of common Christian values.
If in Europe and the OSCE region voices can be heard against the presence of Christian symbols in public life, and there are signs of other forms of an intolerant attitude towards Christians, then this is a good occasion to think upon the reasons for such things. There is a simple axiom, understandable to every educated European. European civilization is a culture that has developed on a Christian foundation. Today Europe, and indeed the entire OSCE region, has acquired a clearly expressed multicultural nature, having become a place of contact between peoples and religions from all over the world. Yet, does this mean that the cultural and religious diversity of Europe definitely threatens her Christian roots? Not at all. The real threat is not in offering to the continent’s new religious and national communities the chance to make use of Christian hospitality. The basic danger is in attempting to use religious diversity as an excuse to exclude signs of Christian civilization from the public and political realities of the continent, as though this would make our continent friendlier towards non-Christians. I am convinced that society, which has renounced its spiritual heritage under the pretext of the radical separation of religious life from public life, becomes vulnerable to the spirit of enmity in relation to representatives of any religion. This indeed does create an atmosphere of intolerance in relation to Christians, as well as to representatives of other traditional religions. This statement can be proved by many examples.
Spain, as well as a number of other countries, has recently introduced a course on ‘Education in Citizenship’ in school syllabuses for primary school pupils which include sex education. Within this course pupils are indoctrinated with views on sexual relations which are totally inconsistent with the religious beliefs of their parents. This practice of the course has already resulted in mass appeals to the courts, locally and internationally, but the problem remains unsolved at the European level. I stress that although such educational experiments are opposed by Catholic parents, this is not a Catholic issue, but one which is shared by representatives of all traditional European religions. No religious community can remain indifferent to the destruction of the sanctity of family life. And in addition there is the internationally recognized right of parents to bring up children “in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions”. I should draw to your attention that in Russia, Orthodox civil society organizations in cooperation with Muslim and Jewish organizations, have effectively opposed such initiatives. In our own country, Russia, we have followed a quite different direction: we have launched a very effective experiment to introduce the teaching of religious culture in a way which gives parents the possibility of choosing the information about religion that a child will receive in school.
Organizations in the OSCE countries responsible for notifying the public about cases of Christianophobia regularly report cases of persecution of Christians who criticize social evils, albeit that they are legally recognized. For example, clergy and lay believers who criticize homosexuality as sinful often face public ostracism or severe discrimination. Statutory guarantees of freedom of speech laid down in international law are always ignored in such cases.
Christians in the OSCE region are consistently attacked because of their position on abortion and euthanasia. Opponents not only fail to see that behind their false justifications lie the deprivation of human life, but they also question Christians’ right to present their views and their democratic efforts to have them reflected in European legislation. It has been an encouragement and inspiration to see the recent recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe upholding the right to conscientious objection for medical workers who refuse to take part in such operations. I hope that refusal on grounds of conscientious objection will be an accepted approach in the educational and in public service spheres .
We are also concerned about the acts of vandalism aimed against Christian shrines that have become a sad social reality in contemporary OSCE region.
Nowadays, Russian Orthodox Church speaks openly about the necessity of protecting the rights of Christians outside Europe where their lives and health are under threat. These issues are at the top of the agenda when representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church visit the Middle East and North Africa and are discussed in numerous political contexts. In May this year the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a special statement on Christianophobia internationally, in which it expressed concern about the growth of persecution against Christians worldwide. The statement calls for the development of a comprehensive and effective mechanism for protecting Christians and Christian communities subjected to persecution or to restrictions in their religious life and work. We believe that these efforts will improve the conditions of life of our brothers in faith. However, our voice calling for protection of Christians outside Europe will sound more confident and authoritative if it is backed by our co-operation in making OSCE states an example of the upholding of Christian rights and freedoms.
The analysis of research of cases of an intolerant attitude towards Christians demonstrates that the cases, as a rule, bear an anti-religious motive. People who ignore or infringe on the rights and legitimate interests of Christians are often guided by secular maximalism, that is, they proceed from the notion that religion is no more than the personal affair of the individual and does not have a social dimension. In recent years, the OSCE has come to realize that the dominant factor of radical secularism is as dangerous to religious freedom as religious extremism in all its manifestations. This change in position has become possible thanks only to the efforts of Christian non-governmental organizations which monitor Christianophobia in Europe.
So that the rights of Christians and representatives of other traditional religions in the OSCE region can be effectively defended, the Organization is called upon not only to react to crimes but also to act in consolidating peace between all of the region’s religions. To propose a model of a peaceful inter-civilizational coexistence is a difficult theoretical and practical task, and the search for its solution is impossible without the creation of interactive mechanisms of dialogue among traditional religious communities. This model is needed not only in the OSCE region but also throughout the world, including those places where Christians feel themselves to be especially vulnerable.
The building up of social relations which exclude or minimize the appearance of inter-religious enmity, is unthinkable without paying attention to religious and inter-cultural education, without setting up conditions for the embodiment of ideals of virtue, justice, and mercy in public life, common to the majority of traditional religions. I hope that the work of the OSCE in the sphere of guaranteeing freedom of conscience will be realized in the spirit of sincere partnership of national governments, international structures, experts, and religious leaders who are determined to contribute to inter-religious peace in the OSCE region.

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX BISHOP: SYRIAN CHRISTIANS FACING EXTERMINATION
by JOHN COURETAS on FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2012

In an interview for Acton’s Religion & Liberty quarterly, the Russian Orthodox bishop in charge of external affairs for the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk, warned that that the situation for the Christian population of Syria has deteriorated to an alarming degree. Hilarion compared the situation today, after almost two years of fighting in Syria, as analogous to Iraq, which saw a virtual depopulation of Christians following the U.S. invasion in 2003.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been among the most active witnesses against Christian persecution around the world, particularly in the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East. In November 2011, Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, visited Syria and Lebanon. In a meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Kirill said that he shared a concern with Assad about the “spread of religious radicalism that threatens the integrity of the Arab world.”

That sentiment has been expressed widely in Christian communities in Syria — some of them dating to apostolic times — as civil war has progressively taken a heavy toll. Now almost two years on, as many as 30,000 people may have perished. Despite having few illusions about the nature of Assad’s autocratic rule, many Christians feared that the Islamist groups, involved in what the West initially viewed as another “Arab Spring” uprising, would eventually turn on them. Indeed this is what has happened. Entire Christian villages have been depopulated, churches desecrated, and many brutal killings have taken place at the hands of the “Arab Spring” insurgents. Most recently, Fr. Fadi Haddad, an Orthodox priest, was found murdered with brutal marks of torture on his remains. Car bomb attacks are now being waged against Christian neighborhoods. (See these backgrounders on the Syrian crisis from the Congressional Research Service and the Council on Foreign Relations).

In February, Hilarion delivered a lecture in Moscow titled “An Era of New Martyrdom. Discrimination of Christians in Various Parts of the World” in which he cited the work of groups such as Barnabas Fund and International Christian Concern. In his talk, he detailed the dire situation of the Coptic Christians in Egypt and in Syria, and various other nations. He noted that Muslims and Christians of various confessions – Orthodox, Roman and Syro Catholics, Maronites and Armenians – co-existed in Syria through centuries and that, until recently, “Syria was a model of wellbeing as far as interreligious co-existence was concerned.” What’s more, Syria has accepted 2 million refugees from Iraq, with several thousand of them being Christians, as they fled persecution in their homeland.

“It is possible already now to speak of an external military interference in [Syria] as thousands of extremist militants in the guise of opposition forces have unleashed a civil war in the country,” Hilarion said in the Moscow lecture. “Extremist groups, the so-called jamaates consisting of militant Wahhabites armed and trained at the expense of foreign powers are purposefully killing Christians.”

The Russian bishop also addressed the crisis on Oct. 23 in a speech at the United Nations. He detailed “various outrageous facts of discrimination and violence against Christians” for UN delegates:

Last year, Christians made up ten percent of the population of Syria. Today in this country, affected by civil war, tens of thousands of Christians have fallen victim to religious intolerance. Their churches and shrines are being destroyed, they are leaving cities and villages where they lived for centuries, their homes are ruined or captured by the radically-minded representatives of the dominant religion. No less than fifty thousand Christians have had to flee from the Syrian city of Homs.

The distinguished representative of Egypt stated a few minutes ago “that the Arab countries respect freedom of expression. One that is not used to incite hatred against anyone. One that is not directed towards one specific religion or culture. A freedom of expression that tackles extremism and violence.” We see, however, that Egypt, with a total population of eighty million people and with a Christian population of about eight million, is facing mass exodus of Coptic Christians because of the systematic persecutions on religious grounds. We call on the Egyptian government to make every effort to stop this persecution and to protect Christians from hatred and violence.

Over half of the sixty thousand Christians have left Libya during the civil war.

The extended Acton Institute interview with Hilarion, conducted Oct. 26 at the Nashotah House Theological Seminary in Nashotah, Wis., will be published in the Fall 2012 issue of Religion & Liberty. What follows is an excerpt in which he talks about the situation in Syria and what he sees as parallels to other situations:

R&L: What, in your mind, needs to happen in Syria to bring an end to the violence and to begin the process of reconciliation in that part of the world?

Hilarion: If we look at events which have been unfolding in the Middle East for the last 10 years, we can see a tendency, which is noticeable in many countries. And this has to do with the gradual extermination of Christianity in the Middle East due to various political reasons, due to great political instability, which is peculiar to many countries of this region. I think if we look at the example of Iraq, for example, we’ll see that 10 years ago there were 1.5 million Christians living in that country. Now, there are only 150,000 left. So nine-tenths of the Christian population of Iraq was either exterminated or had to flee.

R&L: The situation is also dire for the Copts.

Hilarion: We see a very grave situation of Christians in Egypt where thousands of Coptic Christians have had to leave the country because they can no longer live there. We see a very difficult situation in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and now in even Syria. I was recently in Rome addressing the Synod of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and two senior Catholic prelates from the Middle East region approached me. One was a Maronite and the other one was a Melkite. And both of them thanked me for the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and also for the position of the Russian Federation on the international scene with regards to Syria, because the Russian Federation does not take position in favor of one or another party of the country. But we believe that all parties of the conflict should be partners of the dialogue. If you simply ignore one party, then it doesn’t lead anywhere.

R&L: Are there any areas in Syria now where religious minorities are secure?

Hilarion: What we see now is that the inter-religious situation in the regions which are still controlled by the government is stable. It is as stable as it used to be for many decades, if not centuries. In the places where rebels take power, for example in the city of Homs, we see that immediately the Iraqi scenario is being put in practice. We see that Christians are in grave danger. They have to flee; they have to leave their homes. And people from Syria, the religious leaders with whom I spoke, they fear that if the regime is overthrown, then they will have to leave their country. This is what was happening in Iraq. This is what is happening in Egypt. And this is what is likely to happen in Syria. So I think the foreign powers, which try to work for democracy in these countries — in order to achieve it they intervene. They should always think about the Christian minority because it seems to me that these people are simply ignored. Nobody takes into account their existence, their sufferings, and the fact that they become the first victims of the unrest when the political situation changes of these countries.

I spoke about this at the Synod of Bishops in Rome. And most recently I spoke about this at the session of the Third Committee of the United Nations in New York. And I cited examples of several countries where the rights of Christians are violated. And I called on the international community to create a mechanism of defense of Christians in the Middle East, in particular, and in other countries as well. And this mechanism should involve the granting of political support or economic aide only in exchange for guarantees for Christian minorities.

R&L: Some people are looking at Syria and drawing parallels to Kosovo or Northern Cyprus, places where Christianity is in danger of being destroyed or has disappeared altogether.

Yes. Kosovo is another example of the negligence of the Christian population because politicians had their own political goals, which they achieved with the separation of Kosovo from Serbia. But the result for the Christian population was disastrous. I visited Kosovo twice, and I must say that Christians simply left this region. And those who remain, they live in very difficult conditions. For example, I visited one Orthodox Church in Kosovo where four ladies live under the protection of the guards. One lady has her house across the street. For the last four years she could not visit her house even once, because as soon as she leaves the compound, she will lose the protection and she is likely to be killed.

Polish MPs highlight plight of Syrian Christians
27.09.2013 08:30
Members of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Polish Parliament have unanimously approved a draft resolution expressing solidarity with the Christian communities in Syria and Egypt.


In the document, MPs call on the government and Polish diplomatic services to lobby at the forum of the European Union and elsewhere for the defence of Christians.
Deputy foreign minister Artur Nowar-Far recalled during the meeting of the commission that Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski discussed the urgent need to protect Christians in his talks with many foreign politicians, including, most recently, with US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Artur Nowar-Far welcomed the parliamentary initiative, saying that its importance cannot be overestimated.
“Now is the time for the Polish Parliament to make its voice heard on this serious matter,” he said.
The draft resolution speaks of solidarity with the Christian communities which are the victims of murders and persecution all over the world, particularly in Syria and Egypt, the countries which are engulfed by wars and social disturbances.
In the document, Polish MPs appeal to the international community to undertake bold actions in the defence of Christians against extermination.
“The contemporary world cannot stand idly by when people are being killed solely because they want to remain faithful to their religious beliefs,” the draft resolution says.
Christians make up about nine percent of the Syrian population, including a large community of Syrians of Armenian heritage.
Since clashes broke out in Syria in the spring of 2011, Islamic extremist elements within the rebel forces have been widely blamed for attacks on Christians.
It has been estimated that 15 -25 percent of the rebel forces are tied to groups of Islamic extremists. A large proportion of these fighters, including many of those serving in the Al-Nusra front hail from foreign countries including Saudi Arabia and Libya.

More about Syria:
AN EXCELLENT BLOG (click)

It looks as though we Catholics in the UK must look to Russia to represent us on the world stage. Obama, David Cameron and company make Christian noises now and then; but it is clear that our Christian brothers and sisters in Syria and Egypt are going to receive no help from them.   The British Parliament showed more sense by staying out of Syria.   Let us hope that they also show concern for the victims of the conflict, including the Christians who have been there since Apostolic times.   At the moment, I am proud of our parliament and ashamed of our government.

50 000 Syrian Christians ask for Russian citizenship

Moscow, October 16, Interfax - A group of Syrian Christians have applied for Russian citizenship, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

"Since Syrian law allows dual citizenship, we have decided to seek citizenship of the Russian Federation if this is possible. Russian citizenship would be an honor for any Syrian Christian who wished to acquire it," the group said in a letter to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

A Russian translation of the Arabic text of letter is posted on the ministry's website.

"Our appeal does not mean that we have any mistrust in the Syrian army or government. However, we are scared of the conspiracy of the West and hateful fanatics who are waging a brutal war against our country," the letter says.

"It is for the first time since the Nativity of Christ that we Christians of Qalamoun living in the villages of Saidnaya, Maara Saidnaya, Maaloula and Maaroun are under threat of banishment from our land. We prefer death to exile and life in refugee camps, and so we will defend our land, honor and faith, and will not leave the land on which Christ walked," it says.

"The Christians of Qalamoun believe that the purpose of the Western-backed terrorists is to eliminate our presence in what is our native land, and with some of the most revolting methods as well, including savage murders of ordinary people," the letter says.

"We see the Russian Federation as a powerful factor of global peace and stability. Russia pursues a firm line in the defense of Syria, its people and its territorial integrity," it says.


"None of the about 50,000 people - physicians, engineers, lawyers, entrepreneurs, - who are willing to sign this application want to leave their homes. We possess all that we need, we are not asking for money," the letter says.

FROM WANTAGE TO OLD OSCOTT: THE ANGLICAN COMMUNITY AND ITS NEW CATHOLIC OFFSHOOT.

$
0
0
The Community of St Mary the Virgin was founded in 1848 by William John Butler, then Vicar of Wantage in Oxfordshire. It remains one of the oldest surviving Religious Communities in the Church of England. The main Convent is located at Wantage and there is a Community house at Smethwick in the West Midlands. 

CSMV Sisters are called to respond to their vocation in the spirit of Mary, Mother of Jesus: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word". The common life is centred in the worship of God through the Eucharist, the Daily Office and in personal prayer. From these all else flows. 

The Community also concentrates on engaging in spiritual direction and in leading retreats and day groups, who are welcome to visit and stay at Wantage and to have quiet days at Smethwick .

Through "Wantage Overseas" the Community maintains links with projects in Botswana, India and South Africa, these being periodically reported in the "Wantage Overseas Review". 

There is an active network of CSMV Oblates and Associates in the UK and overseas, who adhere to a Rule of Life and who endeavour to live out the charism of the Community wherever they are in the world.

The Community Prayer: 

Almighty God, by your angel Gabriel you chose Mary to be the Mother of your only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, filling her with grace and calling her blessed. Give to us who are gathered into one Community under her name grace to walk in her footsteps, to be lowly, obedient, faithful and to say in all things and at all times "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word". Through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen

News from CSMV - update: August 2013

The Convent, Wantage:

The Sisters have settled into the rhythm of worship in St. Mary Magdalene’s Chapel and value its gifts of homeliness and holiness. It is a joy to have sisters from St. Raphael’s Wing and visitors sharing with us in the daily corporate prayer of the Divine Office and in the celebration of the Eucharist. On Sundays and Principal feast days, one of the Sisters from St. Raphael’s Wing plays a voluntary and accompanies hymns on the keyboard.

St. Mary’s Chapel, with the reserved Sacrament present, is always open for prayer and has been used for worship on big occasions with everyone sitting in the choir stalls: Sister.Francis Honor’s funeral, for Candlemas, for the Associates’ Day and later for the Oblates’ Gathering. Candles continue to be lit in front of the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir and by Mother Maribel’s sculpture of Mary holding her son Jesus on her lap.

Recently, a priest brought a parish group to experience something of the Convent’s life of “work-with-prayer”. They came to each of the five daily Offices, swiftly grasped the liturgy and rhythm and were pleased to be taking part. Some also weeded the garden for a while each day. The Community also hosted a large ecumenical group of the Anglo-Catholic Historical Society who came to see our two chapels. The converting power of Mother Maribel’s carvings of the Stations of the Cross moved some of them to tears. Afterwards, our caterers provided a wonderful tea which was thoroughly enjoyed. Please consider visiting our chapels and spending some time with the Stations of the Cross.

On Ascension Day it was a delight to have our Visitor, the Rt Revd John Pritchard, Lord Bishop of Oxford, to preside and preach. In September, the Community will be saying thank you to the Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Chelmsford, for his time alongside CSMV as his tenure as Warden expires. The Ven Caroline Baston, has been elected as the Community's new Warden. She is Priest-in-Charge of St Andrew, North Swindon, a Benefice which includes an estate much in need of community resources and a caring ministry. The Sisters would value prayers for Bishop Stephen as they say goodbye to him and for Caroline as she and the Community get to know the other.

Community House, Smethwick:

The three Sisters in Smethwick continue to be a vital presence in this multi-cultural, multi-faith area spanning three Anglican parishes and make informal contacts with their many Sikh and Muslim neighbours and local shop assistants. On 15 September, the Sisters will be part of 175th anniversary celebrations at Holy Trinity church.

One Sister has been helping in her priestly and teaching capacity at the church of St. Matthew, Smethwick where three adults with very limited Christian backgrounds were recently confirmed. They are continuing to learn about the faith and one of them is bringing friends with her to the Sunday Eucharist. Another Sister is helping in the ecumenically run Food bank started at Holy Trinity and is a Visitors’ Chaplain at Birmingham Cathedral. The third Sister is involved in giving spiritual direction and is active in two of the local parishes.

On 4 August, the Sisters held a Thanksgiving Service at Smethwick Old Church as part of Evening Prayer for Sister Anna CSMV, who died on 19 June. Sister Anna was a founder member of the Smethwick House and lived there for nearly seven years in the 1990s and then again for just over four years until 2012, when she moved to St. Raphael’s Wing in Wantage. She was greatly valued for her Spiritual Direction and her individual Retreat giving. Latterly, as she aged, she was much appreciated for her quiet, gracious friendliness. Several members of the congregation offered suggestions for hymns and readings and expressed much delight in the way the service unfolded through remembering and giving thanks for Sister's life. The intercessions for her Requiem held at Wantage can be found here.


"This, then is our desert: to live facing despair, but not to consent. To trample it down under hope in the Cross. To wage war against despair unceasingly. That war is our wilderness. If we wage it courageously, we will find Christ at our side. If we cannot face it, we will never find him."

THURSDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2012
The Community of St Mary the Virgin, Wantage
For the Church of England, indeed for the Anglican Communion, at what point does crisis become catastrophe? And for those intent on peddling the myth of 'business as usual,' at what point does the present become unrecognisable from the perspective of the past? 
At what point does it become clear , in C.S. Lewis' words, that we have "embarked on a different religion?"
Eleven sisters from the historic Anglican community will join the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, the structure established by Pope Benedict XVI to enable groups of Anglicans to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church whilst retaining elements of their liturgical, spiritual, and pastoral heritage. The group includes the Superior of the community, Mother Winsome CSMV
This is the letter on the Community's website from the Reverend Mother, CSMV

"Saturday 8 December 2012

Dear Associates and Friends,

I am writing to share with you some developments within the Community. Since 2009, when Pope Benedict issued an invitation for groups of Anglicans to come into full communion with the Catholic Church, sisters have come to speak to me privately and in strictest confidence as Mother, about their individual sense of call to take this route into full communion; to become Catholics as part of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (‘the Ordinariate') whilst also remaining members of the Community. I allowed each sister time to explore her growing and deepening sense of calling. When it became clear that there was a critical mass of sisters across the board, in more than one house, who were experiencing the same call, I sought the permission of each to share this with the whole Community.

CSMV was born in the Oxford Movement and has always been an Anglican community within that tradition. Some sisters were experiencing a call to remain Anglicans within this tradition, whilst others were experiencing a call to come into full communion with the Catholic Church whilst also continuing this tradition.

What is important is that sisters were experiencing this call as part of a Community - a family - sisters were not simply responding as individuals. There is inherent within this sense of call to full communion, the call to remain together. This is the reason that a number of us, me included, are being drawn into the Catholic Church by this particular route. The Ordinariate has opened the possibility for groups of Anglicans to remain together, and the structures have been specifically created to welcome Religious, Priests, and laity in groups. As a group, we believe that this is the way we are being called to live out our vocation to the Religious Life, that is within the Anglican tradition and united to the Catholic Church.

Naturally, this is broader than the Church of England's decision to ordain women either to the priesthood or the episcopate, and indeed one sister who has received ordination in the Church of England is part of this group. It will be possible to retain much of our Anglican heritage and traditions within the Ordinariate and the Sisters' Anglican roots have been welcomed in this provision. In fact some of what CSMV traditionally do best, our Divine Office and our English Plainchant, is precisely what is being welcomed by Pope Benedict as - in his words - ‘a treasure to be shared' with the whole of the Catholic Church.

The Community as a whole discerned a movement of the Holy Spirit and so decided that it wanted each sister to respond to her calling, but for sisters to stay together as a Christian family sharing a common heritage and, in effect, living together as one Community, helping to set all ‘our sights on the ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion' (cf. Pope Benedict, Oscott College, 19 September 2010). At this point the Community involved the ecclesiastical authorities of both the Church of England and the Personal Ordinariate to explore how this might be made possible. This has involved a combination of canon and civil law, and necessitated the intervention of specialist ecclesiastical lawyers.

The whole Community had hoped that the two communities - Church of England and Catholic - would be able to worship together in the Divine Office as at present but that there might be appropriate Eucharistic provision for both communities: for all sisters, and all guests. In all other respects, that all sisters would live and serve together as a truly ecumenical community here at Wantage. But after considerable discussion with the authorities of the Church of England and the Ordinariate, it has become clear that this would not be possible. Certainly, those who wish to become part of the Ordinariate always wanted to remain at Wantage, chiefly in order to be able to care for our elderly and frail sisters.

However, it has become clear that two self-governing communities will be required and it has been agreed the Ordinariate Community will eventually relocate from Wantage; a painful decision for the whole of CSMV.

 Of the twenty two sisters who currently live at the Convent at Wantage, eleven of us believe that we are being called into the full communion of the Catholic Church as part of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. This discernment has been reached after constant prayer and in discussion with spiritual advisers. These eleven sisters are in the main, but not exclusively, the able bodied members who provide the work and management to keep the Community going, so, since the Ordinariate Community do have to relocate, considerable time has been spent and will continue to be devoted to ensure that the remaining members of CSMV will be well cared for: spiritually, physically, emotionally as well as financially.

 The sisters who are seeking to enter the Catholic Church, including myself, will be received into full communion on 1 January 2013 by Monsignor Keith Newton, the Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and will form a new Religious Community under the auspices of the Ordinariate. This new Community will be known as the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Following reception into the Catholic Church, we will temporarily leave Wantage to stay for six weeks with a Catholic Convent for the opportunity for formation together as this newly formed Community. It is planned that after this we would return to Wantage, temporarily and as guests, whilst we seek out a new permanent home. Even whilst away we will continue to provide support of every kind for those sisters who remain.

Those of us who will now enter into the Ordinariate have always had the care of our elderly and frail sisters uppermost in our minds. It has never been our desire or intention that our fellow sisters who choose to remain in the Church of England should be neglected in any way; quite the contrary. We have been working ceaselessly to ensure that in our absence there will be continuing care for those sisters who remain and who need it and that suitable trustees of the CSMV's charity will be appointed in place of myself and my co-trustees. This has now been put in place. When we return temporarily, we will be able to help provide support and assistance for the remaining CSMV sisters as they make decisions about their longer term future. 

 Until all the legal complexities were complete  in this matter, CSMV did not know exactly how the Community would move forward and what implications there might be which is why we have not been able to say anything to you before now.

I was concerned for our Associates and Friends to hear what is happening direct from the Community which is why I am writing to you now. There simply is no other information at this point but I wanted to share with you where things have reached. None of us know quite where God is leading us all but as St Paul puts it, "we walk by faith, not by sight". (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the help which the Bishop of Oxford and Visitor to the Community, the Right Reverend John Pritchard, and the Diocesan Registrar, Canon John Rees have given us in reaching a settlement which will allow the new Ordinariate community, the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to continue the founding work of the Community of St Mary the Virgin within the Catholic Church, whilst continuing to support those sisters who remain within the Church of England.

Please continue to pray for all of us as we pray for you, as together we all seek to love and serve the Lord.

Yours in Christ,

Mother Winsome

Reverend Mother CSMV "


At the 10 o'clock Mass in the Oxford Oratory church on 1st January 2013 a group of Anglican nuns from the Community of St Mary the Virgin (CSMV) in Wantage, Oxfordshire were received into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

AFTER THEIR RECEPTION INTO FULL COMMUNION
the two communities: SVBM and Ryde
On the 1st January eleven sisters were received into the Catholic Church and with one of the Walsingham sisters formed the new community of the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They immediately went off to Ryde on the Isle of Wight as guests of the Benedictine sisters there, to get to know the Benedictine way of life and find their feet in the Catholic Church, until such time as they could move to a new home and begin their life as an independent Benedictine community.

Today, in May, they are still in Ryde, a new home has not yet been found. Since we have not heard from the sisters since the beginning of the year, unless we visit their website regularly to read the daily reflections posted there, I have decided to publish here some excerpts from those regular reflections, all taken from the recollections written down in this month of May:

“The ferry docked and the coach rolled down. The drive along the coastal road to Ryde was a gentle approach to our refuge. We passed Quarr Abbey with its ruin, and began to sense the historical ambience of Solesmes on the Island. We turned into Appley Rise and looked for the gate to the Abbey, but one glance told us that we were going to struggle to get through it. A beaming sister came out onto the sidewalk to direct us, and the first word we heard was “Welcome home!” For the next fifteen minutes the driver wrestled with the dimensions of the coach and the confined spaces of the entrance. It seemed symbolic. It was just such a wrestling in spiritual terms which we had endured in order to move forward with spiritual freedom in obedience to our conscience. It is one thing for an individual to make such a spiritual transition. It is quite another for a community to do so. Therefore we had had to wrestle with legislation, with hard losses, with tight negotiations in relation to the context from which we had to depart. But the far sighted and open Pope Benedict had made provision for such corporate transition. Once the confines of institutional establishment had been wrestled with, the path forward was unimpeded as far as the ancient Latin Church of the West was concerned. The losses, of course, were integral to the sad prejudices integral to English history. There is so much we simply cannot place in the public domain about this side of the pilgrimage. But let us return to the Abbey entrance. ‘Yesterday’ the Community was erected in the Holy Roman Church, ‘today’ we were being admitted to our monastic sanctuary.”


“We rose on that first morning in the Abbey. It was deep winter, January 3rd. It was dark. It was warm also, for the Cellarer had put the heating up for us. Looking at our cells, it was clear that they had been prepared for the twelve of us with the utmost care. The floors had been polished, the beds made up. A vase of flowers and a card graced each table. They were simple, monastic cells, clean and eloquent. Their eloquence told of a tradition of monasticism for which Solesmes is well known. It was a return to source. It was both ancient and always new. But more, our cells, and specific things around us in the Abbey spoke of a ‘welcome’ which had attention to every detail at its heart. I was deeply moved by what I knew had been especially put in place for us. One such detail was the ‘line’ which had been installed alongside the monastery computer so that we might work on our Office during these weeks. I was even more aware that there were things I might never know which had been done for us and which we found ready and waiting. I thought thankfully of the key which had turned in the enclosure door, and the stretch of water which separated us from the mainland. Here we could put down roots, could feel the gravity of our Ecclesial belonging, and take our first steps as a new community… behind locked doors, out of the public eye, but under the gaze of God and those to whom He had entrusted us.

Mother Ninian, Ryde, and Mother Winsome, SBVM
Mother Ninian, Ryde, and Mother Winsome, SBVM

In those early, first days, we all found it difficult to recognize each other in the sea of black habits. Both communities wore the same Benedictine habit. But we had the habit rosary to mark our Marian Patron, and the sound of it, as we walked, became a mark of difference. That, and the inevitable sight of familiar ankles from behind… until, of course, we came to know our Ryde sisters from behind also, and everything was becoming more simple.”


“I walked up and down the cell corridor. It was 4 am on our first night. Something was wrong. I paused again by a certain door, then went back to bed. Then I arose again and went to the door and knocked. No answer. I entered. An elderly sister had fallen out of bed and as she was deaf, had not heard my knock. She had pulled a blanket down to cover herself on the floor and decided to wait till morning. “Hello!” she said as she saw me enter. “Stay there…” I said, and went to wake the Infirmarian. As I entered her cell, she woke with a start, and the first thing she said was “I fell out of bed!” We went to lift our sister off the floor and put her back into bed, and there she remained for the following day, recovering. On our first night in our sanctuary two sisters had fallen out of bed. Surely this was going to be one of many signs of the stress we had weathered and which we needed to gradually leave behind. We were meant to be in this sanctuary for six weeks. On the very day on which the six weeks expired we received a message that no progress had been made in securing us a new home… We cannot give details about this situation, but you can imagine the effect. Once more, the remarkable love and generosity of the Benedictines of Ryde rose to the occasion. We were assured that we could simply remain until something emerged for our own home. This was, though, also, a great and deep joy to us, for we simply loved being in the Abbey with our Ryde sisters. We are still here! And we receive each moment as a gift from God.”


“This is like a baptism of immersion! We emerged from the Sarum Use of the Divine Office in the vernacular. We were instantly steeped in the Solesmes Latin Office. To be in this experience was something akin to two great oceanic currents coming alongside each other. I remember standing on Cape Point, looking down the steep mountain which dropped into the sea. At the base two such oceanic currents, the Benguela and the Aghulas current approach each other. The colours are pure and deep, the flow and temperature different. Here Solesmes flowed around our Sarum consciousness of Plainchant in the first days like something wondrous, something which flew and touched where we were used to settle or push. Instead of English it was Latin. It felt like being in a soft snowstorm, the Liturgical language of the Latin Church of the West coming to greet us insistently, demanding recognition and respect. Both Sarum and Solesme rise in the same liturgical source. Both were once Latin. But Sarum embraced the vernacular and that is what we knew. Our tired minds creaked open to receive this enormous and frequent newness. Our thirsty souls opened more readily and drank from the sister stream of Plainchant eagerly. Soon we began to orientate ourselves, to expect the differences and to understand them. With this came a deeper appreciation of what it means to ‘come home’. In the weeks which followed we would have opportunities to discuss these things with our new sisters.”


“Old wineskins… When one thinks of making a new foundation, perhaps what comes to mind is a fired up young group. Perhaps… But I can think of several such attempts in history which have been a bright and brief ‘fizzle out’, if you would excuse the light touch. Also, Our Lord Himself did not choose such a group on which to build His Church. Matthew was elderly, and so was Peter. They were mature men who had lived their lives with responsibilities and families. What they brought to the foundation was of inestimable value. So it is with us. We are old wineskins into which some new wine is being poured, but it is not all new wine, for we are within a living tradition of ancient received praxis. Much of the wine being poured into us is ancient vintage! In fact the Benedictine expression on the Isle of Wight is remarkably close to what Benedict laid down in the Sixth Century. Therefore why should one not rejoice that the wineskins are mature. If they were not mature surely they would burst… We have both energy and wisdom among us but we have immense challenges. I woke one morning in the first weeks with the voice of Benedict ringing in my ears. He felt so close. The centuries had simply rolled away because the Abbey is faithful to many details of the Rule in their practical applications, and something also about the ‘presence’ of the sea, so close, just a few meters from the door, gives a sense of timelessness. This is not the sea as a play ground, with beach and bucket. This is the sea as symbol, as an element which connects shores… connects moments of history, which aids contemplation. It was in this kind of environment that the Gospel had first travelled around the Levant. In fact, Our Blessed Mother, who herself was in the mature phase of her life, lived those years close to the sea, not in Nazareth, or Jerusalem, but in Ephesus. In her beauty and her grief, she brought the Infant Church from being a babe in arms, to a child on its feet, taking its first steps. She is doing the same with us.”


The Ascension of the Lord, Thursday 9th May 2013. “It was still dark. Although we had such profound joy and peace in our souls, because of being within the Catholic Church, we were having nightmares. Sisters came to tell each other of the disturbing dreams which emerged from the unconscious. This is not at all surprising given that the primitive need of all human beings is to have shelter and provision. As a community we had had to leave the Convent in which we had lived since 1848. We still have no home and no settlement. Therefore the nightmares of our human anxieties emerged through the layers of joy and peace which our Ecclesial choice and home had given us. In this understandable condition of mixture, we remained within the spiritual embrace of our Ryde sisters. Without them, what would have happened to us? It was still dark. We were at Vigils. Echoing round the silent Church was the strong voice of the Hebdom. It was like warm metal. She was intoning the Pericope of the Gospel. Her voice rode on the acoustics, rinsed round the walls, dipped into the receptive silence. The strength and beauty of her intonation was prophetic. It ordered our consciousness with faith. It contradicted our nightmares. It spoke of the faithfulness of God, who calls and will not fail. Further it was an invitation to our souls to trust the beauty of God, for truth and beauty are sisters, they belong in the same family. The sun was just rising as we came to the end of the Pericope.”



The Precentrix of Saint Cecilia’s Abbey was intoning the Respond for Vespers. This was, and is, Solesmes. Her voice rose in absolute purity towards the vault of the Church. As the cadence descended the tone remained pure and the final note pulsed into silence. Since being here, we have discovered how plainchant has been developed by Solesmes from the study of the ancient manuscripts. Sometimes it has felt as if we have come out of the frozen past and are still singing what the palaeontologists of Solesmes had long left behind. When we had worked with Solesmes some decades back on our English Plainchant Graduals, things had been different and we were in step with development. But as the Anglican Church took its direction in the late Twentieth Century, it was left behind by the Solesmes work on the tradition. So, now, for us, we have to talk, to work with the Precentrix of Ryde to understand what has changed and why. These discussions range from precise detail to our shared study of trends, where intuition is important. I mean by this … the kind of discussion we had on the development of Liturgy in terms of its Jewish sources. This, and the use of Latin, the kinds of Latin, the choice of particular words above others, has taken its place alongside our work on the Office and the understanding of the changes Solesmes has made. The question for us, coming out of Sarum Use, is: how far do we remain with the interpretation associated with Sarum, and how much do we adapt to the change. This might sound too technical for you, but we have to use our time here with conscious choice… our discussions are vital for how we proceed in our singing of Sarum. Here you will see the two communities mixed together. The image is of a recreation in which we sang together to celebrate the Abbatial blessing of Mother Ninian. For that, we used a five line piece

Wonderful news! The Ordinariate Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary have a new home!!
Posted on August 23, 2013 by Ordinariate Support Group for Expats in Europe
(from a press release of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham:)
my source: Ordinariate Expats


THE PERSONAL ORDINARIATE OF OUR LADY OF WALSINGHAM


The new religious community of the Personal Ordinariate, the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary, have a permanent home for the first time since they were received into the full communion of the Catholic Church on New Year’s Day. They are to move on Tuesday (August 27) into a convent at 99 Old Oscott Hill in Birmingham, which is the former home of the Little Sisters of the Assumption. It is only a stone’s throw from Maryvale Institute.
SBVM 99 Old Oscott Hill Birmingham 

 Mother Winsome, the Superior of the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary, said: “We are absolutely overjoyed to have been given the opportunity to live in tMother Winsomehis convent. We have prayed long and hard and the Lord has opened up this way for us. It is a gift from God.”

The community, established as part of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and adopting the Benedictine Rule, includes eleven sisters who had been part of the Anglican Community of St. Mary the Virgin in Wantage, Oxfordshire, and one, Sister Carolyne Joseph, who had been the mother superior of the Anglican Society of St. Margaret in Walsingham.

With no endowments to keep them afloat financially, the sisters have been living for the last eight months as guests of the Benedictine sisters at St. Cecilia’s Abbey in Ryde, Isle of Wight. “The abbess and the community there shared their Benedictine life with us and welcomed us into their hearts in the most wonderfully generous way”, Mother Winsome said. “It has been a life of complete harmony and joy ant it will be a wrench to leave. But we are pleased beyond measure that our journey of faith has taken this new direction”.
SBVM 99 Old Oscott Hill Birmingham from air

The provision of Benedictine hospitality through retreats is central to the community’s charism. Their intention is to earn a living at their new home (seen here from the air) by offering retreats and the ministry of spiritual direction.

In the day-to-day journal on their website, the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary have written for yesterday and today the following:

The Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Thursday 22 August 2013. As has been announced, we are soon to move to our new home, our new monastery. Our hearts are full of gratitude for all that has been given to us in this wonderful Community of Pax Cordis Jesu and for the bond of love that has derose - kleinveloped over the months. We will be discontinuing these postings until we have settled in and ask you to pray for us. On Monday, Mother Abbess Ninian Eaglesham celebrates her feast day and we greet her, with huge respect and love. She has given us a real home in these months and words cannot express our gratitude to her. The photo of one of the Abbey roses is for her. Please pray for this monastery, for us, and we will hold you in our prayer wherever you are. God bless you.


STOP PRESS. The Community is now ready to move. We will be moving in two stages from Friday morning till Tuesday evening. Therefore this page will not be updated until we have our broadband connection in place and we can find time to resume the postings. As you will expect, moving a whole community off an island is a challenge, so please be patient with us as we sort ourselves out. It is with great sadness that we are leaving our beloved Saint Cecilia’s Sisters behind. We have shared with you how close our two communities have been drawn by Our Lord in these eight months. These Sisters have been the most loving and generous one could ever imagine. The bonds will remain forever. In particular we wish to thank Mother Abbess Ninian for her extraordinary generosity and the love with which she has surrounded each of us in SBVM. Nothing has been too much trouble for her. Each Sister from the Abbey has given us of herself in the most amazing way. We will be united in prayer. But please would you also pray for us and for the Sisters of Saint Cecilia’s Abbey at this moment.

MY COMMENT

I am very happy that we now have another Benedictine family within the Catholic Church in England, especially one that is part of the Ordinariate.   Anglicanism at its most wholesome has many affinities with Benedictine spirituality because the Benedictine spirit is deep down in its spiritual genes.   It is early days yet and, with only a thousand faithful, we will have to practise patience; but the Ordinariate will not be a complete entity until it has monks as well.   It needs centres of spirituality as well as outreach; otherwise it will simply be absorbed into a general mediocrity.   With a strong monastic base, its parish life may become an example to the rest of the Catholic Church of the kind of Catholicism that was dear to the heart of John Henry Newman, the faith of the Fathers of the Church that is not afraid to address modern.

However, my joy is tempered by the knowledge that, if eleven members of the Wantage Community became Catholics, eleven chose to remain behind.   This ensures the continuing existence of the Wantage Community; and, for all we know, God may well have something special in reserve for that community.   We are all subject to God's Providence without knowing in detail all that God has in store for us; and we can only follow his will as he reveals it to us.  Nevertheless, to lose half their members, including the Mother Superior, to the Catholic Church must have been a terrible blow for those who have remained.   For those who became Catholics, they were at least leaving for a positive reason and were gaining something.   However, those who were left behind gained nothing and lost half their community.   This must have caused great pain, a pain that could not have been avoided; and the circumstances challenged them to put their trust in God.   However, we monks and nuns are only weak human beings and need all the support we can get.  Those of us who are Catholics have great reason to rejoice; but charity urges us to make a special effort to support those who were left behind with our prayers, because they too are our brethren.   

We Catholics claim to belong in a special way to the one, true Church; but this must be matched by the quality of our love, because it is this quality that makes visible the truth of that claim to others; but it must be a true, self-forgetful love, not one that is trying to prove something.   It is not true love if it is really polemic in disguise.   On the contrary, in this case we must recognise that God is asking of the Wantage sisters a heroic act of trust, one that, if it were asked of us, we could very well fail.   Let mutual prayer jump over the barriers and, at least in part, contribute to the healing of wounds.

Finally, we see in the next section on the Ordinariate  how a an Ordinariate parish is working.   We are all subject to God's Providence without knowing how things are going to turn out, trust in God replacing clear knowledge.   We do not yet know what role the Ordinariate will play in post-Vatican II Catholicism; however, I hope that more such parishes will be formed to give the Ordinariate a chance to do whatever God wants it to do.

THE ORDINARIATE OF OUR LADY OF WALSINGHAM
The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, has today announced that the church of Our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, Warwick Street, is being dedicated to the life of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

In London, the Ordinariate Begins to Bear Fruit
October 30, 2013
As former Anglicans accept the invitation of Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham grows with permanent facilities and thriving communities.
Joanna Bogle

The children from the Sunday School fill up the first couple of benches, and when the rector leads the singing of the Angelus, their young voices pipe up eagerly in the response: “The angel of the Lord brought tidings to Mary/And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.”  As things finish, there is the usual crowded gathering in the big Parish Room for coffee and tea. There is lots of talk. The Harvest Thanksgiving produced a groaning table of gifts, with bulging bags stacked under and around it, too – all will go to the local project for the homeless. Somebody is asking about the confirmation class. And is the parish ladies’ group meeting as usual this Monday?

If all this has a faintly Anglican sound to it, that’s fine. Anglican patrimony: that’s what Pope Benedict XVI said could be brought along when he made the offer to clergy and laity within the Church of England in 2011: come into full Communion—come and be made welcome in the Catholic Church, and bring with you all that you can of your traditions, your heritage, your patrimony.

So far, some 80 clergy and about 1,000 laity in Britain have responded to the invitation made by Pope Benedict in Anglicanorum Coetibus. The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham came into being in 2011 with three former Anglican bishops forming its leadership. The following year two other ordinariates were established—the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in the United States and Canada, and the Ordinariate of the Southern Cross in Australia.

The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham has groups in various parts of Britain. In London, two churches have been given over to the ordinariate by the Catholic bishops: one in Warwick Street—a building with an extraordinary history going back to the days when Catholics could only worship in chapels linked to foreign embassies—and one on the south bank of the river Thames, near London Bridge.

It is this Church of the Most Precious Blood, a late 19th-century building next to the railway viaduct, not far from Borough Market, that is now the spiritual home of a thriving ordinariate parish community. Father Christopher Pearson was formerly the vicar of the Anglican church of St Agnes, at Kennington. He and a number of parishioners responded to the Holy Father’s call, and after due process—a time of reflection, decision, and instruction—were formally received into full communion with the Catholic Church and confirmed. A while later, Father Christopher was ordained deacon and then priest in St. George’s Cathedral, Southwark. They all worshipped for a while at St. Wilfrid’s Catholic Church in Kennington, not far from their old home at St. Agnes. And then the Church of the Most Precious Blood becoming vacant with the planned departure of the Salvatorean Order, which had been running the parish, and it was given into ordinariate care.

But that does not tell the whole story. There have been so many adventures along the way. Media coverage of the ordinariate has been, to put it mildly, mixed. The Times ran a headline announcing that the Pope had “parked his tanks” on the Anglican lawn. There had been hopes that Anglican clergy seeking full communion with large groups of parishioners might be able to continue using their churches—perhaps under a sharing arrangement. No such possibilities were allowed. Nor did the Catholic bishops of England and Wales seem enthusiastic: while there was official goodwill, and ordinations were celebrated at Westminster Cathedral and elsewhere with glorious music and a packed congregations, there was an apparent reluctance to help get things moving. Ordinariate groups found that they were, at best, offered a time-slot for Mass in a local Catholic parish. Ordinariate clergy were generally absorbed into the mainstream of Catholic life, working as chaplains in hospitals and parishes, and caring for their ordinariate groups, but without buildings of their own.

The offer of two churches in London brought a new chapter. Precious Blood Church is effectively modeling what an ordinariate parish can be. And it is working. This corner of South London is rich in history: the Saxons fought a crucial battle on London Bridge, Catherine of Aragon stayed in a house nearby when she first arrived in England (a plaque marks the fact, and also that Sir Christopher Wren later stayed in the same house while supervising the building of the new St. Paul’s), and Catholics and Protestants both endured ghastly conditions in the nearby Clink Prison at various stages during the Reformation. The parish of Precious Blood was created at the end of the 19th century for the growing Catholic population, many of whom worked on the nearby railway (London Bridge station is a major terminus for Kent and the southern London suburbs). Two great war memorials in the church list the names of large numbers of young men of the parish killed in the First World War.

Today, the area is changing: housing here can command exorbitant prices, and the nearby Shard is London’s tallest-ever building, owned by a Gulf state and exuding an air of opulent supremacy. The old working-class way of life of corners of South London such as this has changed. Television, fast food, immigration, computers, family break-up have all combined so that this is not the community that existed when Precious Blood Church was first built, not when it withstood bombing in World War II, nor in the London of the 1960s and 70s.

But there is still a community here, and enough of a community feeling to offer a sense of faint wariness when the ordinariate arrival was announced. Not for long, though. Within a very short while the whole thing had morphed together into something greater; today, whether it’s coffee-after-Mass or the new heating system being installed along the church floor, or the big Corpus Christi Procession that wound its way through the local streets, or the recently-restored sacristy with its splendid Victorian ceiling (rediscovered during renovations, with a fine lantern window), it is working, and working well.

Americans might be interested to know that among parish events this year was a talk by Raymond Arroyo of EWTN—far too many people for the Parish Room, so it was held in the church, and it was a great success. A regular Sunday School now attracts good numbers of children. A new organ has been installed. A new shrine honoring Bl. John Henry Newman—patron of the ordinariate—was blessed by the archbishop recently. An illustrated lecture on Newman by Dr. Andrew Nash packed the church out again.

The most recent celebration was another ordination, of two more former Anglicans, which was followed by a reception in a nearby art gallery, the Parish Room being again inadequate. As I write this, Precious Blood will be hosting a gathering of young people who are doing a Pilgrimage Walk through London, a reunion of walkers who took part in a summer Walk to Walsingham.

What of the future? The success of Precious Blood Parish ought to encourage other bishops in other dioceses to offer churches to the ordinariate as the opportunity arises. It is tragic to hear of churches being closed; this happened recently in another part of England, where an ordinariate priest and group were ready and willing to take on a building, but it was sold instead to local Muslims. Bishops perhaps need courage to recognize the huge new possibilities following Pope Benedict’s courageous invitation: somehow the idea that things can’t be that good, that decline must be inevitable, that God wouldn’t usher in new ideas and new hopes, seems to die hard.

Two small stories on which to end, although they both indicate not an end, but a beginning. When Father Christopher Pearson was exploring the choir-loft at Precious Blood Church, among the clutter of years inevitably stacked there, he found a statue, faced turned to the wall in a dusty corner. It was a statue of a woman, and, assuming it to be Our Lady, he swilled it round. But it wasn’t Our Lady; it was St. Agnes—a much less usual figure to find in a corner of a church, and patroness of his former, Anglican parish. It seemed symbolic. And then some weeks later, when the basement of the rectory was finally being tackled, and stacks of old books and magazines and papers were being sorted, a set of beautifully-bound works of John Henry Newman was revealed on a shelf. On the flyleaf of the first book was a hand-written dedication: “To the Revd C. Pearson, from JHN.” And a Reverend C. Pearson, at the start of the 21st century, is now again a pastor at the church, with JHN as patron.

I think Pope Benedict would be happy to know about all this: I hope he is aware that the ordinariate is working, and that the future looks bright.







THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE 21st CENTURY: AN ORTHODOX BISHOP'S PERSPECTIVE by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

$
0
0


Thursday, 15 January 2009 19:00
 I am presenting excerpts of a lecture delivered by Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev at the Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, October 21, 2008. This work was made known to me by a friend, Paulist Father Ron Roberson heads the Orthodox desk for the US Bishops ecumenical office in Washington, DC. The emphasis I added to the lecture are the ideas that are striking deserve greater attention by us. The keys are “personal encounter,”  and the lex orandi tradition and being conscious of the great divorce of faith and reason. Thanks for your patience.


According to a classical definition by Evagrius, ‘If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian’. In traditional Orthodox understanding, theology is not a science, or a scholarship, or an academic exercise. To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship.

Theology ought to be inspired by God: it ought not to be the word of a human person, but the word of the Spirit pronounced by human lips. A true Christian theologian is one who is able to be silent until the Holy Spirit touches the strings of his soul. And it is only when the human word falls silent and the word of the Spirit emerges from his soul, that true theology is born. From this moment ‘a lover of words’ is transformed into ‘a lover of wisdom’, a rhetorician into a theologian.

According to St Gregory Nazianzen, not everyone can be a theologian, but only the one who purifies himself for God. Not all can participate in theological discussions, but only those who are able to do it properly. Finally, not every theological concern can be discussed openly.

Discussion of theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for everyone – it is not such inexpensive and effortless pursuit… It must be reserved for certain occasions, for certain audiences, and certain limits must be observed. It is not for all men, but only for those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in study, and, more importantly, have undergone, or at the very least are undergoing, purification of body and soul.


Theology, according to St Gregory, is nothing other than the ascent to God. Gregory uses the traditional image of Moses on Mount Sinai to emphasize that the true theologian is only someone who is able to enter the cloud and encounter God face to face. In this multi-dimensional, allegorical picture Moses symbolizes the person whose theology emerges from the experience of an encounter with God. Aaron represents someone whose theology is based on what he heard from others; Nadab and Abihu typify those who claim to be theologians because of their high position in the church hierarchy. But neither acquaintance with the experience of others nor an ecclesiastical rank gives one the right to declare oneself a theologian. Those Christians who purify themselves according to God’s commandments may take part in a theological discussion; the non-purified ought not.

Thus, purification of soul is a necessary precondition for practicing theology. Its central point is summed up in the following dictum: ‘Is speaking about God a great thing? But greater still is to purify oneself for God’. Here, purification (katharsis) is not opposed to theology: rather, theology is that ascent to the peak of Mount Sinai which is impossible without purification. What is required for practicing theology is not so much intellectual effort, neither external erudition, nor wide reading, but first of all humility and modesty. According to Gregory, humility is not to be found in someone’s external appearance, which may often be deceitful, and perhaps not even in how someone is related to other people, but in his attitude to God. The humble, in Gregory’s judgment, is not he who speaks but little about himself, or who speaks in the presence of a few but rarely; not he who ‘speaks about God with moderation, who knows what to say and what to pass over in silence’.

In other words, everyone can be a good Christian, but not everyone is able to investigate the depths of doctrine, where many things should be covered by an apophatic silence. Everyone can contemplate on matters of theology, but not everyone can be initiated into its mysteries.

All Christians must purify themselves for God: the more a person is purified, the more discernible are the words of the Spirit in his mouth. True theology is born out of a silent and humble standing before God rather than out of speculations on theological matters. We can see that this understanding is radically different from what we normally mean by ‘theology’. One of the tragic consequences of the divorce between Christian theory and praxis, between faith and knowledge, is that nowadays knowledge about theological subjects does not necessarily presuppose faith. You can be a theologian and not belong to any church community; in principle, you do not need to believe in God to receive a theological degree. Theology is reduced to one of the subjects of human knowledge alongside with chemistry, mathematics or biology.

Another divorce which needs to be mentioned is that between theology and liturgy.


For an Orthodox theologian, liturgical texts are not simply the works of outstanding theologians and poets, but also the fruits of the prayerful experience of those who have attained sanctity and theosis. The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church. Liturgical texts, on the contrary, have been accepted by the whole Church as a ‘rule of faith’ (kanon pisteos), for they have been read and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries.

Throughout this time, any erroneous ideas foreign to Orthodoxy that might have crept in either through misunderstanding or oversight were eliminated by church Tradition itself, leaving only pure and authoritative doctrine clothed by the poetic forms of the Church’s hymns.


Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those detained in hell from its service books, since these prayers ‘contradict Orthodox teaching.’ Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. When such opportunity occurred, I raised this question before one Coptic metropolitan, who replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according to their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those detained in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.

During this conversation with the metropolitan I expressed my thoughts on how one could go very far and even lose important doctrinal teachings in the pursuit of correcting liturgical texts. Orthodox liturgical texts are important because of their ability to give exact criteria of theological truth, and one must always confirm theology using liturgical texts as a guideline, and not the other way round. The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are divergences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction. Even more inadmissible, from my point of view, is the correction of liturgical texts in line with contemporary norms. Relatively recently the Roman Catholic Church decided to remove the so-called ‘antisemitic’ texts from the service of Holy Friday. Several members of the Orthodox Church have begun to propagate the idea of revising Orthodox services in order to bring them closer to contemporary standards of political correctness. For example, the late Archpriest Serge Hackel from England, an active participant in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, proposed the removal of all texts from the Holy Week services that speak of the guilt of the Jews in the death of Christ (cf. his article “How Western Theology after Auschwitz Corresponds to the Consciousness and Services of the Russian Orthodox Church,” in Theology after Auschwitz and its Relation to Theology after the Gulag: Consequences and Conclusions, Saint Petersburg, 1999; in Russian). He also maintains that only a ‘superficial and selective’ reading of the New Testament brings the reader to the conclusion that the Jews crucified Christ.

In reality, he argues, it was Pontius Pilate and the Roman administration who are chiefly responsible for Jesus’ condemnation and crucifixion. This is just one of innumerable examples of how a distortion of the lex credendi inevitably leads to ‘corrections’ in the lex orandi, and vice versa. This is not only a question of revising liturgical tradition, but also a re-examination of Christian history and doctrine. The main theme of all four Gospels is the conflict between Christ and the Jews, who in the end demanded the death penalty for Jesus. There was no conflict between Christ and the Roman administration, the latter being involved only because the Jews did not have the right to carry out a death penalty. It seems that all of this is so obvious that it does not need any explanation. This is exactly how the ancient Church understood the Gospel story, and this is the understanding that is reflected in liturgical texts. However, contemporary rules of ‘political correctness’ demand another interpretation in order to bring not only the Church’s services, but also the Christian faith itself in line with modern trends.


The Orthodox Tradition possesses a sufficient number of ‘defense mechanisms’ that prevent foreign elements from penetrating into its liturgical practice. I have in mind those mechanisms that were set in motion when erroneous or heretical opinions were introduced into the liturgical texts under the pretext of revision. One may recall how Nestorianism began with the suggestion to replace the widely-used term Theotokos (Mother of God) with Christotokos (Mother of Christ), the latter was seen as more appropriate by Nestorius. When this suggestion was made, one of the defense mechanisms was activated: the Orthodox people were indignant and protested. Later, another mechanism was put into operation when theologians met to discuss the problem. Finally, an Ecumenical Council was convened. Thus, it turned out that a dangerous Christological heresy, lurking under the guise of a seemingly harmless liturgical introduction, was later condemned by a Council.

To rediscover the link between theology, liturgy and praxis, between lex orandi, lex credendi and lex Vivendi would be one of the urgent tasks of theological education in the 21st century. The whole notion of a ‘theology’ as exclusively bookish knowledge must be put into question. The whole idea of a ‘theological faculty’ as one of many other faculties of a secular university needs to be re-examined. The notions of ‘nonconfessional’, ‘unbiased’, ‘objective’ or ‘inclusive’ theology as opposed to ‘confessional’ or ‘exclusive’ must be reconsidered.





ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: BRITISH CHRISTIANITY

THE SPIRITUAL FATHER IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

$
0
0


One who climbs a mountain for the first time needs to follow a known route; and he needs to have with him, as companion and guide, someone who has been up before and is familiar with the way. To serve as such a companion and guide is precisely the role of the “Abba” or spiritual father—whom the Greeks call “Geron” and the Russians “Starets”, a title which in both languages means “old man” or “elder”. [1]

The importance of obedience to a Geron is underlined from the first emergence of monasticism in the Christian East. St. Antony of Egypt said: “I know of monks who fell after much toil and lapsed into madness, because they trusted in their own work ... So far as possible, for every step that a monk takes, for every drop of water that he drinks in his cell, he should entrust the decision to the Old Men, to avoid making some mistake in what he does.” [2]

This is a theme constantly emphasized in the Apophthegmata or Sayings of the Desert Fathers: “The old Men used to say: ‘if you see a young monk climbing up to heaven by his own will, grasp him by the feet and throw him down, for this is to his profit ... if a man has faith in another and renders himself up to him in full submission, he has no need to attend to the commandment of God, but he needs only to entrust his entire will into the hands of his father. Then he will be blameless before God, for God requires nothing from beginners so much as self-stripping through obedience.’” [3]

This figure of the Starets, so prominent in the first generations of Egyptian monasticism, has retained its full significance up to the present day in Orthodox Christendom. “There is one thing more important than all possible books and ideas”, states a Russian layman of the 19th Century, the Slavophile Kireyevsky, “and that is the example of an Orthodox Starets, before whom you can lay each of your thoughts and from whom you can hear, not a more or less valuable private opinion, but the judgement of the Holy Fathers. God be praised, such Startsi have not yet disappeared from our Russia.” And a Priest of the Russian emigration in our own century, Fr. Alexander Elchaninov (+ 1934), writes: “Their held of action is unlimited... they are undoubtedly saints, recognized as such by the people. I feel that in our tragic days it is precisely through this means that faith will survive and be strengthened in our country.” [4]

The Spiritual Father as a ‘Charismatic’ Figure
What entitles a man to act as a starets? How and by whom is he appointed?

To this there is a simple answer. The spiritual father or starets is essentially a ‘charismatic’ and prophetic figure, accredited for his task by the direct action of the Holy Spirit. He is ordained, not by the hand of man, but by the hand of God. He is an expression of the Church as “event” or “happening”, rather than of the Church as institution. [5]

There is, of course, no sharp line of demarcation between the prophetic and the institutional in the life of the Church; each grows out of the other and is intertwined with it. The ministry of the starets, itself charismatic, is related to a clearly-defined function within the institutional framework of the Church, the office of priest-confessor. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the right to hear confessions is not granted automatically at ordination. Before acting as confessor, a priest requires authorization from his bishop; in the Greek Church, only a minority of the clergy are so authorized.

Although the sacrament of confession is certainly an appropriate occasion for spiritual direction, the ministry of the starets is not identical with that of a confessor. The starets gives advice, not only at confession, but on many other occasions; indeed, while the confessor must always be a priest, the starets may be a simple monk, not in holy orders, or a nun, a layman or laywoman. The ministry of the starets is deeper, because only a very few confessor priests would claim to speak with the former’s insight and authority.

But if the starets is not ordained or appointed by an act of the official hierarchy, how does he come to embark on his ministry? Sometimes an existing starets will designate his own successor. In this way, at certain monastic centers such as Optina in 19th-century Russia, there was established an “apostolic succession” of spiritual masters. In other cases, the starets simply emerges spontaneously, without any act of external authorization. As Elchaninov said, they are “recognized as such by the people”. Within the continuing life of the Christian community, it becomes plain to the believing people of God (the true guardian of Holy Tradition) that this or that person has the gift of spiritual fatherhood. Then, in a free and informal fashion, others begin to come to him or her for advice and direction.

It will be noted that the initiative comes, as a rule, not from the master but from the disciples. It would be perilously presumptuous for someone to say in his own heart or to others, “Come and submit yourselves to me; I am a starets, I have the grace of the Spirit.” What happens, rather, is that—without any claims being made by the starets himself—others approach him, seeking his advice or asking to live permanently under his care. At first, he will probably send them away, telling them to consult someone else. Finally the moment comes when he no longer sends them away but accepts their coming to him as a disclosure of the will of God. Thus it is his spiritual children who reveal the starets to himself.

The figure of the starets illustrates the two interpenetrating levels on which the earthly Church exists and functions. On the one hand, there is the external, official, and hierarchial level, with its geographical organization into dioceses and parishes, its great centers (Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, and Canterbury), and its “apostolic succession” of bishops. On the other hand, there is the inward, spiritual and “charismatic” level, to which the startsi primarily belong. Here the chief centçrs are, for the most part, not the great primatial and metropolitan sees, but certain remote hermitages, in which there shine forth a few personalities richly endowed with spiritual gifts. Most startsi have possessed no exalted status in the formal hierarchy of the Church; yet the influence of a simple priest-monk such as St. Seraphim of Sarov has exceeded that of any patriarch or bishop in 19th-century Orthodoxy. In this fashion, alongside the apostolic succession of the episcopate, there exists that of the saints and spiritual men. Both types of succession are essential for the true functioning of the Body of Christ, and it is through their interaction that the life of the Church on earth is accomplished.

Flight and Return: the Preparation of the Starets
Although the starets is not ordained or appointed for his task, it is certainly necessary that he should be prepared.The classic pattern for this preparation, which consists in a movement of flight and return, may be clearly discerned in the liyes of St. Antony of Egypt (+356) and St. Seraphim of Sarov (+1833).

St. Antony’s life falls sharply into two halves, with his fifty-fifth year as the watershed. The years from, early manhood to the age of fifty-five were his time of preparation, spent in an ever-increasing seclusion from the world as he withdrew further and further into the desert. He eventually passed twenty years in an abandoned fort, meeting no one whatsoever. When he had reached the age of fifty-five, his friends could contain their curiosity no longer, and broke down the entrance. St. Antony came out and, ‘for the remaining half century of his long life, without abandoning the life of a hermit, he made himself freely available to others, acting as “a physician given by God to Egypt.” He was beloved by all, adds his biographer, St. Athanasius, “and all desired to ‘have him as their father.” [6] Observe that the transition from enclosed anchorite to Spiritual father came about, not through any initiative on St. Antony’s part, but through the action of others. Antony was a lay monk, never ordained to the priesthood.

St. Seraphim followed a comparable path. After fifteen years spent in the ordinary life of the monastic community, as novice, professed monk, deacon, and priest, he withdrew for thirty years of solitude and almost total silence. During the first part of this period he, lived in a forest hut; at one point he passed a thousand days on the stump of a tree and a thousand nights of those days on a rock, devoting himself to unceasing prayer. Recalled by his abbot to the monastery, he obeyed the order without the slightest delay; and during the latter part of his time of solitude he lived rigidly enclosed in his cell, which he did not leave even to attend services in church; on Sundays the priest brought communion to him at the door of his room. Though he was a priest he didn’t celebrate the liturgy. Finally, in the last eight years of his life, he ended his enclosure, opening the door of his cell and receiving all who came. He did nothing to advertise himself or to summon people; it was the others who took the initiative in approaching him, but when they came—sometimes hundreds or even thousands in a single day—he did not send them empty away.

Without this intense ascetic preparation, without this radical flight into solitude, could St. Antony or St. Seraphim have acted in the same ‘degree as guide to those of their generation? Not that they withdrew in order to become masters and guides of others. ‘They fled, not, in order to prepare themselves for some other task, but out of a consuming desire to be alone with God. God accepted their love, but then sent them back” as instruments of healing in the world from which they had withdrawn. Even had He never sent them back, their flight would still have been supremely creative and valuable to society; for the monk helps the world not primarily by anything that he does and says but by what he is, by the state of unceasing prayer which has become identical with his innermost being. Had St. Antony and St. Seraphim done nothing but pray in solitude they would still have been serving their fellow men to the highest degree. As things turned out, however, God ordained that they should also serve others in a more direct fashion. But this direct and visible service was essentially a consequence of the invisible service which they rendered through their prayer.

“Acquire inward peace”, said St. Seraphim, “and a multitude of men around you will find their salvation.” Such is the role of spiritual fatherhood. Establish yourself in God; then you can bring others to His presence. A man must learn to be alone, he must listen in the stillness of his own heart to the wordless speech of the Spirit, and so discover the truth about himself and God. Then his work to others will be a word of power, because it is a word out of silence.

What Nikos Kazantzakis said of the almond tree is true also of the starets: “I said to the almond tree, ‘Sister, speak to me of God,’ And the almond tree blossomed.”

Shaped by the encounter with God in solitude, the starets is able to heal by his very presence. He guides and forms others, not primarily by words of advice, but by his companionship, by the living and specific example which he sets—in a word, by blossoming like the almond tree. He teaches as much by his silence as by his speech. “Abba Theophilus the Archbishop once visited Scetis, and when the brethren had assembled they said to Abba Pambo, ‘Speak a word to the Pope that he may be edified.’ The Old Man said to them, ‘If he is not edified by my silence, neither will be he edified by my speech.’” [8] A story with the same moral is told of St. Antony. “It was the custom of three Fathers to visit the Blessed Antony once each year, and two of them used to ask him questions about their thoughts (logismoi) and the salvation of their soul; but the third remained completely silent, without putting any questions. After a long while, Abba Antony said to him, ‘See, you have been in the habit of coming to me all this time, and yet you do not ask me any questions’. And the other replied, ‘Father, it is enough for me just to look at you.’” [9]

The real journey of the starets is not spatially into the desert, but spiritually into the heart. External solitude, while helpful, is not indispensable, and a man may learn to stand alone before God, while yet continuing to pursue a life of active service in the midst of society. St. Antony of Egypt was told that a doctor in, Alexandria was his equal in spiritual achievement: “In the city there is someone like you, a doctor by profession, who gives all his money to the needy, and the whole day long he sings the Thrice-Holy Hymn with the angels.” [10] We are not told how this revelation came to Antony, nor what was the name of the doctor, but one thing is clear. Unceasing: prayer of the heart is no monopoly of the solitaries; the mystical and “angelic” life is possible in the city as well as the desert. The Alexandrian doctor accomplished the inward journey without severing his outward links with the community.

There are also many instances in which flight and return are not sharply distinguished in temporal sequence. Take, for example, the case of St. Seraphim’s younger contemporary, Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov (t1867). Trained originally as an army officer, he was appointed at the early age of twenty-six to take charge of a busy and influential monastery close to St. Petersburg. His own monastic training had lasted little more than four years before he was placed in a position of authority. After twetity-four years as Abbot, he was consecrated Bishop. Four years later he resigned, to spend the remaining six years of his life as a hermit. Here a period of active pastoral work preceded the period of anachoretic seclusion. When he was made abbot, he must surely have felt gravely ill-prepared. His secret withdrawal into the heart was undertaken continuously during the many years in which he administered a monastery and a diocese; but it did not receive an exterior, expression until the very end of his life.

Bishop Ignaty’s career [11] may serve as a paradigm to many of us at the present time, although (needless to say) we fall far short of his level of spiritual achievement. Under the pressure of outward circumstances and probably without clearly realizing what is happening to us, we become launched on a career of teaching, preaching, and pastoral counselling, while lacking any deep knowledge of the desert and its creative silence. But through teaching others we ourselves begin to learn. Slowly we recognize our powerlessness to heal the wounds of humanity solely through philanthropic programs, common sense, and psychiatry. Our complacency is broken down, we appreciate our own inadequacy, and start to understand what Christ meant by the “one thing that is necessary” (Luke 10:42). That is the moment when we enter upon the path of the starets. Through our pastoral experience, through our anguish over the pain of others,’ we are brought to undertake the journey inwards, to ascend the secret ladder of the Kingdom, where alone a genuine solution to the world’s problems can be found. No doubt few if any among us would think of ourselves as a starets in the full sense, but provided we seek with humble sincerity to enter into the “secret chamber” of our heart, we can all share to some degree in the grace of the spiritual fatherhood. Perhaps we shall never outwardly lead the life of a monastic recluse or a hermit—that rests with God—but what is supremely important is that each should see the need to be a hermit of the heart.

The Three Gifts of the Spiritual Father
Three gifts in particular distinguish the spiritual father. The first is insight and discernment (diakrisis), the ability to perceive intuitively the secrets of another’s heart, to understand the hidden depths of which the other is unaware. The spiritual father penetrates beneath the conventional gestures and attitudes whereby we conceal our true personality from others and from ourselves; and beyond all these trivialities, he comes to grips with the unique person made in the image and likeness of God. This power is spiritual rather than psychic; it is not simply a kind of extra-sensory perception or a sanctified clairvoyance but the fruit of grace, presupposing concentrated prayer and an unremitting ascetic struggle.

With this gift of insight there goes the ability to use words with power. As each person comes before him, the starets knows—immediately and specifically—what it is that the individual needs to hear. Today, we are inundated with words, but for the most part these are conspicuously not words uttered with power. [12] The starets uses few words, and sometimes none at all; but by these few words or by his silence, he is able to alter the whole direction of a man’s life. At Bethany, Christ used three words only: “Lazarus, come out” (John 11:43) and these three words, spoken with power, were sufficient to bring the dead back to life. In an age when language has been disgracefully trivialized, it is vital to rediscover the power of the word; and this means rediscovering the nature of silence, not just as a pause between words but as one of the primary realities of existence. Most teachers and preachers talk far too much; the starets is distinguished by an austere economy of language.

But for a word to possess power, it is necessary that there should be not only one who speaks with the genuine authority of personal experience, but also one who listens with attention and eagerness. If someone questions a starets out of idle curiosity, it is likely that he will receive little benefit; but if he approaches the starets with ardent faith and deep hunger, the word that he hears may transfigure his being. The words of the startsi are for the most part simple in verbal expression and devoid of literary artifice; to those who read them in a superficial way, they will seem jejune and banal.

The spiritual father’s gift of insight is exercised primarily through the practice known as “disclosure of thoughts” (logismoi). In early Eastern monasticism the young monk used to go daily to his father and lay before him all the thoughts which had come to him during the day. This disclosure of thoughts includes far more than a confession of sins, since the novice also speaks of those ideas and impulses which may seem innocent to him, but in which the spiritual father may discern secret dangers or significant signs. Confession is retrospective, dealing with sins that have already occurred; the disclosure of thoughts, on the other hand, is prophylactic, for it lays bare our logismoi before they have led to sin and so deprives them of their, power to harm. The purpose of the disclosure is not juridical, to secure absolution from guilt, but self-knowledge, that each may see himself as he truly is. [13]

Endowed with discernment, the spiritual father does not merely wait for a person to reveal himself, but shows to the other thoughts hidden from him. When people came to St. Seraphim of Sarov, he often
answered their difficulties before they had time to put their thoughts before him. On many occasions the answer at first seemed quite irrelevant, and even absurd and irresponsible; for what St. Seraphim answered was not, the question his visitor had consciously in mind, but the one he ought to have been asking. In all this St. Seraphim relied on the inward light of the Holy Spirit. He found it important, he explained, not to work out in advance hat he was going to say; in that case, his words would represent merely his own human judgment which might well be in error, and not the judgment of God.

In St. Seraphim’s eyes, the relationship between starets and spiritual child is stronger than death, and he therefore urged his children to continue their disclosure of thoughts to him even after his departure to the next life. These are the words which, by his on command, were written on his tomb: “When I am dead, come to me at my grave, and the more often, the better. Whatever is on your soul, whatever may have happened to you, come to me as when I was alive and, kneeling on the ground, cast all your bitterness upon my grave. Tell me everything and I shall listen to you, and all the bitterness will fly away from you. And as you spoke to me when I was alive, do so now. For I am living, and I shall be forever.”

The second gift of the spiritual father is the ability to love others and to make others’ sufferings his own. Of Abba Poemen, one of the greatest of the Egyptian gerontes, it is briefly and simply recorded: “He possessed love, and many came to him.” [14] He possessed love—this is indispensable in all spiritual fatherhood. Unlimited insight into the secrets of men’s hearts, if devoid of loving compassion, would not be creative but destructive; he who cannot love others will have little power to heal them.

Loving others involves suffering with and for them; such is the literal sense of compassion. “Bear one anothers burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). The spiritual father is ‘the one who par excellence bears the burdens of others. “A starets”, writes Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, “is one who takes your soul, your will, unto his soul and his will.... ” It is not enough for him to offer advice. He is also required to take up the soul of his spiritual children into his own soul, their life into his life. It is his task to pray for them, and his constant intercession on their behalf is more important to them than any words of counsel. [15] It is his task likewise to assume their sorrows and their sins, to take their guilt upon himself, and to answer for them at the Last Judgment.

All this is manifest in a primary document of Eastern spiritual direction, the Books of Varsanuphius and John, embodying some 850 questions addressed to two elders of 6th-century Palestine, together with their written answers. “As God Himself knows,” Varsanuphius insists to his spiritual children, “there is not a second or an hour when I do not have you in my mind and in my prayers ... I care for you more than you care for yourself ... I would gladly lay down my life for you.” This is his prayer to God: “O Master, either bring my children with me into Your Kingdom, or else wipe me also out of Your book.” Taking up the theme of bearing others’ burdens, Varsanuphius affirms: “I am bearing your burdens and your offences ... You have become like a man sitting under a shady tree ... I take upon myself the sentence of condemnation against you, and by the grace of Christ, I will not abandon you, either in this age or in the Age to Come.” [16]

Readers of Charles Williams will be reminded of the principle of ‘substituted love,’ which plays a central part in Descent into Hell. The same line of thought is expressed by Dostoevsky’s starets Zosima: “There is only one way of salvation, and that is to make yourself responsible for all men’s sins... To make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and for everyone.” The ability of the starets to support and strengthen others is measured by his willingness to adopt this way of salvation.

Yet the relation between the spiritual father and his children is not one-sided. Though he takes the burden of their guilt upon himself and answers for them before God, he cannot do this effectively unless they themselves are struggling wholeheartedly for their own salvation. Once a brother came to St. Antony of Egypt and said: “Pray for me.” But the Old Man replied: “Neither will I take pity on you nor will God, unless you make some effort of your own.” [17]

When considering the love of a starets for those under his care, it is important to give full meaning to the word “father” in the title “spiritual father”. As father and offspring in an ordinary family should be joined in mutual love, so it must also be within the “charismatic” family of the starets. It is primarily a relationship in the Holy Spirit, and while the wellspring of human affection is not to be unfeelingly suppressed, it must be contained within bounds. It is recounted how a young monk looked after his elder, who was gravely ill, for twelve years without interruption. Never once in that period did his elder thank him or so much as speak one word of kindness to him. Only on his death-bed did the Old Man remark to the assembled brethren, “He is an angel and not a man.” [18] The story is valuable as an indication of the need for spiritual detachment, but such an uncompromising suppression of all outward tokens of affection is not typical of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, still less of Varsanuphius and John.

A third gift of the spiritual father is the power to transform the human environment, both the material and the non-material. The gift of healing, possessed by so many of the startsi, is one aspect of this power: More generally, the starets helps his disciples to perceive the world as God created it and as God desires it once more to be. “Can you take too much joy in your Father’s works?” asks Thomas Traherne. “He is Himself in everything.” The true starets is one who discerns this universal presence of the Creator throughout creation, and assists others to discern it. In the words of William Blake, “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything will appear to man as it is, infinite.” For the man who dwells in God, there is nothing mean and trivial: he sees everything in the light of Mount Tabor. “What is a merciful heart?” inquires St. Isaac the Syrian. “It is a heart that burns with love for ‘the whole of creation—for men, for the birds, for the beasts, for the demons, for every, creature. When a man with such a heart as this thinks of the creatures or looks at them, his eyes are filled with tears; An overwhelming compassion makes his heart grow! small and weak, and he cannot endure to hear or see any suffering, even the smallest pain, inflicted upon any creature. Therefore he never ceases to pray, with tears even for the irrational animals, for the enemies of truth, and for those who do him evil, asking that they may be guarded and receive God’s mercy. And for the reptiles also he prays with a great compassion, which rises up endlessly in his heart until he shines again and is glorious like God.”’ [19]

An all-embracing love, like that of Dostoevsky’s starets Zosima, transfigures its object, making the human environment transparent, so that the uncreated energies of God shine through it. A momentary glimpse of what this transfiguration involves is provided by the celebrated conversation between St. Seraphim of Sarov and Nicholas Motovilov, his spiritual child. They were walking in the forest one winter’s day and St. Seraphim spoke of the need to acquire the Holy Spirit. This led Motovilov to ask how a man can know with certainty that he is “in the Spirit of God':

Then Fr. Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: “My son, we are both, at this moment in the Spirit of God. Why don’t you look at me?”

“I cannot look, Father,” I replied, “because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and it hurts my eyes to look, at you.”

“Don’t be afraid,” he said. “At this very moment you have yourself become as bright as I am. You are yourself in the fullness of the Spirit of God at this moment; otherwise you would not be able to see me as you do... but why, my son, do you not look me iii the eyes? Just look, and don’t be afraid; the Lord is with us.”

After these words I glanced at his face, and there came over me an even greater reverent awe. Imagine in the center of the sun, in the dazzling light of its mid-day rays, the face of a man talking to you. You see the movement of his lips and the changing expression of his eyes and you hear his voice, you feel someone holding your shoulders, yet you do not see his hands, you do not even see yourself or his body, but only a blinding light spreading far around for several yards and lighting up with its brilliance the snow-blanket which covers the forest glade and the snowflakes which continue to fall unceasingly [20].

Obedience and Freedom
Such are by God’s grace, the gifts of the starets. But what of the spiritual child? How does he contribute to the mutual relationship between father and son in God?

Briefly, what he offers is his full and unquestioning obedience. As a classic example, there is the story in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers about the monk who was told to plant a dry stick iii the sand and to water it daily. So distant was the spring from his cell that he had to leave in the evening to fetch the water and he only returned in the following morning. For three years he patiently fulfilled his Abba’s command. At the end of this period, the stick suddenly put forth leaves and bore fruit. The Abba picked the fruit, took it to the church, and invited the monks to eat, saying, “Come and taste the fruit of obedience.” [21]

Another example of obedience is the monk Mark who was summoned by his Abba, while copying a manuscript, and so immediate was his response that he did not even complete the circle of the letter that he was writing. On another occasion, as they walked together, his Abba saw a small pig; testing Mark, he said, “Do you see that buffalo, my child?” “Yes, Father,” replied Mark. “And you see how powerful its horns are?” “Yes, Father”, he answered once more without demur. [22] Abba Joseph of Panepho, following a similar policy, tested the obedience of his disciples by assigning ridiculous tasks to them, and only if they complied would he then give them sensible commands. [23] Another geron instructed his disciple to steal things from the cells of the brethren; [24] yet another told his disciple (who had not been entirely truthful with him) to throw his son into the furnace. [25]
Father John of Kronstadt and his spiritual daughter
Such stories are likely to make a somewhat ambivalent impression on the modern reader. They seem to reduce the disciple to an infantile or sub-human level, depriving him of all power of judgment and moral choice. With indignation we ask: “Is this the ‘glorious liberty of the children of God’?” (Rom. 8:21)

Three points must here be made. In the first place, the obedience offered by the spiritual son to his Abba is not forced but willing and voluntary. It is the task of the starets to take up our will into his will, but he can only do this if by our own free choice we place it in his hands. He does not break our will, but accepts it from us as a gift. A submission that is forced and involuntary is obviously devoid of moral value; the starets asks of each one that he offer to God his heart, not his external actions.

The voluntary nature of obedience is vividly emphasized in the ceremony of the tonsure at the Orthodox rite of monastic profession. The scissors are placed upon the Book of the Gospels, and the novice must himself pick them up and give them to the abbot. The abbot immediately replaces them on the Book of the Gospels. Again the novice take the scissors, and again they are replaced. Only when the novice him the scissors for the third time does the abbot proceed to cut hair. Never thereafter will the monk have the right to say to the abbot or the brethren: “My personality is constricted and suppressed here in the monastery; you have deprived me of my freedom”. No one has taken away his freedom, for it was he himself who took up the scissors and placed them three times in the abbot’s hand.

But this voluntary offering of our freedom is obviously something that cannot be made once and for all, by a single gesture; There must be a continual offering, extending over our whole life; our growth in Christ is, measured precisely by the increasing degree of our self-giving. Our freedom must be offered anew each day and each hour, in constantly varying ways; and this means that the relation between starets and disciple is not static but dynamic, not unchanging but infinitely diverse. Each day and each hour, under the guidance of his Abba, the disciple will face new situations, calling for a different response, a new kind of self-giving.

In the second place, the relation between starets and spiritual child is not one- but two-sided. Just as the starets enables the disciples to see themselves as they truly are, so it is the disciples who reveal the starets to himself. In most instances, a man does not realize that he is called to be a starets until others come to him and insist on placing themselves under his guidance. This reciprocity continues throughout the relationship between the two. The spiritual father does not possess an exhaustive program, neatly worked out in advance and imposed in the same manner upon everyone. On the contrary, if he is a true starets, he will have a different word for each; and since the word which he gives is on the deepest level, not his own but the Holy Spirit’s, he does not know in advance what that word will be. The starets proceeds on the basis, not of abstract rules but of concrete human situations. He and his disciple enter each situation together; neither of them knowing beforehand exactly what the outcome will be, but each waiting for the enlightenment of the Spirit. Each of them, the spiritual father as well as the disciple, must learn as he goes.

The mutuality of their relationship is indicated by certain stories in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, where an unworthy Abba has a spiritual son far better than himself. The disciple, for example, detects his Abba in the sin of fornication, but pretends to have noticed nothing and remains under his charge; and so, through the patient humility of his new disciple, the spiritual father is brought eventually to repentance and a new life. In such a case, it is not the spiritual father who helps the disciple, but the reverse. Obviously such a situation is far from the norm, but it indicates that the disciple is called to give as well as to receive.

In reality, the relationship is not two-sided but triangular, for in addition to the starets and his disciple there is also a third partner, God. Our Lord insisted that we should call no man “father,” for we have only one father, who is in Heaven (Matthew 13:8-10). The starets is not an infallible judge or a final court of appeal, but a fellow-servant of the living God; not a dictator, but a guide and companion on the way. The only true “spiritual director,” in the fullest sense of the word, is the Holy Spirit.

This brings us to the third point. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition at its best, the spiritual father has always sought to avoid any kind of constraint and spiritual violence in his relations with his disciple. If, under the guidance of the Spirit, he speaks and acts with authority, it is with the authority of humble love. The words of starets Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov express an essential aspect of spiritual fatherhood: “At some ideas you stand perplexed, especially at the sight of men’s sin, uncertain whether to combat it by force or by humble love. Always decide, ‘I will combat it by humble love.’ If you make up your mind about that once and for all, you can conquer the whole world. Loving humility is a terrible force; it is the strongest of all things and there is nothing like it.”

Anxious to avoid all mechanical constraint, many spiritual fathers in the Christian East refused to provide their disciples with a rule of life, a set of external commands to be applied automatically. In the words of a contemporary Romanian monk, the starets is “not a legislator but a mystagogue.” [26] He guides others, not by imposing rules, but by sharing his life with them. A monk told Abba Poemen, “Some brethren have come to live with me; do you want me to give them orders?” “No,” said the Old Man. “But, Father,” the monk persisted, “they themselves want me to give them orders.” “No”, repeated Poemen, “be an example to them but not a lawgiver.” [27] The same moral emerges from the story of Isaac the Priest. As a young man, he remained first with Abba Kronios and then with Abba Theodore of Pherme; but neither of them told him what to do. Isaac complained to the other monks and they came and remonstrated with Theodore. “If he wishes”, Theodore replied eventually, “let him do what he sees me doing.” [28] When Varsanuphius was asked to supply a detailed rule of life, he refused, saying: “I do not want you to be under the law, but under grace.” And in other letters he wrote: “You know that we have never imposed chains upon anyone... Do not force men’s free will, but sow in hope, for our Lord did not compel anyone, but He preached the good news, and those who wished hearkened to Him.” [29]

Do not force men’s free will. The task of the spiritual father is not to destroy a man’s freedom, but to assist him to see the truth for himself; not to suppress a man’s personality, but to enable him to discover himself, to grow to full maturity and to become what he really is. If on occasion the spiritual father requires an implicit and seemingly “blind” obedience from his disciple, this is never done as an end in itself, nor with a view to enslaving him. The purpose of this kind of shock treatment is simply to deliver the disciple from his false and illusory “self”, so that he may enter into true freedom. The spiritual father does not impose his own ideas and devotions, but he helps the disciple to find his own special vocation. In the words of a 17th-century Benedictine, Dom Augustine Baker: “The director is not to teach his own way, nor indeed any determinate way of prayer, but to instruct his disciples how they may themselves find out the way proper for them ... In a word, he is only God’s usher, and must lead souls in God’s way, and not his own.” [30]

In the last resort, what the spiritual father gives to his disciple is not a code of written or oral regulations, not a set of techniques for meditation, but a personal relationship. Within this personal relationship the Abba grows and changes as well as the disciple, for God is constantly guiding them both. He may on occasion provide his disciple with detailed verbal instructions, with precise answers to specific questions. On other occasions he may fail to give any answer at all; either because he does not think that the question needs an answer, or because he himself does not yet know what the answer should be. But these answers—or this failure to answer—are always given the framework of a personal relationship. Many things cannot be said in words, but can be conveyed through a direct personal encounter.

In the Absence of a Starets
And what is one to do, if he cannot find a spiritual father?

He may turn, in the first place, to books. Writing in 5th-century Russia, St. Nil Sorsky laments the extreme scarcity of qualified spiritual directors; yet how much more frequent they must have been in his day than in ours! Search diligently, he urges, for a sure and trustworthy guide. “However, if such a teacher cannot be found, then the Holy Fathers order us to turn to the Scriptures and listen to Our Lord Himself speaking.” [31] Since the testimony of Scripture should not be isolated from the continuing witness of the Spirit in the life of the Church, the inquirer will also read the works of the Fathers, and above all the Philokalia. But there is an evident danger here. The starets adapts his guidance to the inward state of each; books offer the same advice to everyone. How is the beginner to discern whether or not a particular text is applicable to his own situation? Even if he cannot find a spiritual father in the full sense, he should at least try to find someone more experienced than himself, able to guide him in his reading.

It is possible to learn also from visiting places where divine grace has been exceptionally manifested and where prayer has been especially concentrated. Before taking a major decision, and in the absence of other guidance, many Orthodox Christians will goon pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Mount Athos, to some monastery or the tomb of a saint, where they will pray for enlightenment. This is the way in which I have reached the more difficult decisions in my life.

Thirdly, we can learn from religious communities with an established tradition of the spiritual life. In the absence of a personal teacher, the monastic environment can serve as guru; we can receive our formation from the ordered sequence of the daily program, with its periods of liturgical and silent prayer, with its balance of manual labor, study, and recreation. [32] This seems to have be en the chief way in which St. Seraphim of Sarov gained his spiritual training. A well-organized monastery embodies, in an accessible and living form, the inherited wisdom of many starets. Not only monks, but those who come as visitors for a longer or shorter period, can be formed and guided by the experience of community life.

It is indeed no coincidence that the kind of spiritual fatherhood that we have been describing emerged initially in 4th-century Egypt, not within the fully organized communities under St. Pachomius, but among the hermits and in the semi-eremitic milieu of Nitria and Scetis. In the former, spiritual direction was provided by Pachomius himself, by the superiors of each monastery, and by the heads of individual “houses” within the monastery. The Rule of St. Benedict also envisages the abbot as spiritual father, and there is no provision for further development of a more “charismatic” type. In time, of course, the coenobitic communities incorporated many of the traditions of spiritual fatherhood as developed among the hermits, but the need for those traditions has always been less intensely felt in the coenobia, precisely because direction is provided by the corporate life pursued under the guidance of the Rule.

Finally, before we leave the subject of the absence of the starets, it is important to recognize the extreme flexibility in the relationship between starets and disciple. Some may see their spiritual father daily or even hourly, praying, eating, and working with him, perhaps sharing the same cell, as often happened in the Egyptian Desert. Others may see him only once a month or once a year; others, again, may visit a starets on but a single occasion in their entire life, yet this will be sufficient to set them on the right path. There are, furthermore, many different types of spiritual father; few will be wonder-workers like St. Seraphim of Sarov. There are numerous priests and laymen who, while lacking the more spectacular endowments of the startsi, are certainly able to provide others with the guidance that they require.

Many people imagine that they cannot find a spiritual father, because they expect him to be of a particular type: they want a St. Seraphim, and so they close their eyes to the guides whom God is actually sending to them. Often their supposed problems are not so very complicated, and in reality they already know in their own heart what the answer is. But they do not like the answer, because it involves patient and sustained effort on their part: and so they look for a deus ex machina who, by a single miraculous word, will suddenly make everything easy. Such people need to be helped to an understanding of the true nature of spiritual direction.

Contemporary Examples
In conclusion, I wish briefly to recall two startsi of our own day, whom I have had the happiness of knowing personally. The first is Father Amphilochios (+1970), abbot of the Monastery of St. John on the Island of Patmos, and spiritual father to a community of nuns which he had founded not far from the Monastery. What most distinguished his character was his gentleness, the warmth of his affection, and his sense of tranquil yet triumphant joy. Life in Christ, as he understood it, is not a heavy yoke, a burden to be carried’ with resignation, but a personal relationship to be pursued with eagerness of heart. He was firmly opposed to all spiritual violence and cruelty. It was typical that, as he lay dying and took leave of the nuns under his care, he should urge the abbess not to be too severe on them: “They have left everything to come here, they must not be unhappy.” [33] When I was to return from Patmos to England as a newly-ordained priest, he insisted that there was no need to be afraid of anything.

My second example is Archbishop John (Maximovich), Russian bishop in Shanghai, in Western Europe, and finally in San Francisco (+1966). Little more than a dwarf in height, with tangled hair and beard, and with an impediment in his speech, he possessed more than a touch of the “Fool in Christ.” From the time of his profession as a monk, he did not lie down on a bed to sleep at night; he went on working and praying, snatching his sleep at odd moments in the 24 hours. He wandered barefoot through the streets of Paris, and once he celebrated a memorial, service among the tram lines close to the port of Marseilles. Punctuality had little meaning for him. Baffled by his unpredictable behavior, the more conventional among his flock sometimes judged him to be unsuited for the administrative work of a bishop. But with his total disregard of normal formalities he succeeded where others, relying on worldly influence and expertise, had failed entirely—as when, against all hope and in the teeth of the “quota” system, he secured the admission of thousands of homeless Russian refugees to the U.S.A.

In private conversation he was very gentle, and he quickly won the confidence of small children. Particularly striking was the intensity of his intercessory prayer. When possible, he liked to celebrate the Divine Liturgy daily, and the service often took twice or three times the normal space of time, such was the multitude of those whom he commemorated individually by name. As he prayed for them, they were never mere names on a lengthy list, but always persons. One story that I was told is typical. It was his custom each year to visit Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville, N.Y. As he left, after one such visit, a monk gave him a slip of paper with four names of those who were gravely ill. Archbishop John received thousands upon thousands of such requests for prayer in the course of each year. On his return to the monastery some twelve months later, at once he beckoned to the monk, and much to the latter’s surprise, from the depths of his cassock Archbishop John produced the identical slip of paper, now crumpled and tattered. “I have been praying for your friends,” he said, “but two of them”—he pointed to their names—'are now dead and the other two have recovered.” And so indeed it was.

Even at a distance he shared in the concerns of his spiritual children. One of them, superior of a small Orthodox monastery in Holland, was sitting one night in his room, unable to sleep from anxiety over the problems which faced him. About three o’dock in the morning, the telephone rang; it was Archbishop John, speaking from several hundred miles away. He had rung to say that it was time for the monk to go to bed.

Such is the role of the spiritual father. As Varsanuphius expressed it, “I care for you more than you care for yourself.”

Endnotes
1. On spiritual fatherhood in the Christian East, see the well-documented study by I. Hausherr, S. L., Direction Spintuelle en Orient d’Autrefois (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 144: Rome 1955). An excellent portrait of a great starets in 19th-century Russia is provided by J. B. Dunlop, Staretz Amvrosy: Model for Dostoevsky’s Staretz Zossima (Belmont, Mass. 1972); compare also I. de Beausobre, Macanus, Starets of Optina: Russian Letters of Direction 1834-1860 (London, 1944). For the life and writings of a Russian starets in the present century, see Archimandrite Sofrony, The Undistorted Image. Staretz Silouan: 1866-1938 (London, 1958).

2. Apophthegmata Patrum, alphabetical collection (Migne, P.G., 65, pp. 37-8).

3. Les Apophtegemes des Pères du Desert, by J. C. Guy, S.jj. (Textes de Spiritualité Orientale, No. 1: Etiolles, 1968), pp. 112, 158.

4. A. Elchaninov, The Diary of a Russian Priest, (London, 1967, p. 54).

5. I use “charismatic” in the restricted sense customarily given to it by contemporary writers. But if that word indicates one who has received the gifts or charismata of the Holy Spirit, then the ministerial priest, ordained through the episcopal laying on of hands, is as genuinely a “charismatic” as one who speaks with tongues.

6. The Life of St. Antony, chapters 87 and 81 (P.G. 26, 965A, and 957A.)

7. Quoted in Igumen Chariton, The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology (London, 1966), p. 164. [Webmaster Note: I could not determine where this footnote appeared in the original article.]

8. Apophthegmata Patrum, alphabetical collection, Theophilus the Archbishop, p. 2. In the Christian East, the Patriarch of Alexandria bears the title “Pope.”

9. Ibid., Antony p. 27.

10. Ibid., Antony, p. 24.

11. Compare Ignaty’s contemporary, Bishop Theophan the Recluse (+l894) and St. Tikhon of Zadonsk (+l753).

12. Three of the great banes of the 20th century are shorthand, duplicators and photocopying machines. If chairmen of committees and those in seats of authority were forced to write out personally in longhand everything they wanted to communicate to others, no doubt they would choose their words with greater care.

13. Evergetinos, Synagoge, 1, 20 (ed. Victor Matthaiou, I, Athens, 1957, pp. 168-9).

14. Apophthegmata Patrum, alphabetical collection, Poemen, p. 8.

15. For the importance of a spiritual father’s prayers, see for example Les Apophtegmes des Peres du Désert, tr. Guy, “série des dits anonymes”, P. 160.

16. The Book of Varsanuphius and John, edited by Sotirios Schoinas (Volos, 1960), pp. 208, 39, 353, 110 and 23g. A critical edition of part of the Greek text, accompanied by an English translation, has been prepared by D. J. Chitty: Varsanuphius and John, Questions and Answers, (Patrologia Orientalis, XXXI, 3, Paris, 1966). [This and many other fine books on spiritual direction are available from St. Herman Press.—OCIC Ed.

17. Apophthegmata Patrurn, alphabetical collection, Antony, p. 16.

18. Ibid., John the Theban, p. 1.

19. Mystic Treatises of Isaac of Nineveh, tr. by A. J. Wensinck, (Amsterdam, 1923), p. 341.

20. “Conversation of St. Seraphim on the Aim of the Christian Life,” in A Wonderful Revelation to the World (Jordanville, N.Y., 1953), pp. 23-24.

21. Apophthegmata Patrum, alphabetical collection, John Colobos, p. 1.

22. Ibid., Mark the Disciple of Silvanus, pp. 1, 2.

23. Ibid., Joseph of Panepho, p. 5.

24. Ibid., Saio, p. 1. The geron subsequently returned the things to their rightful owners.

25. Les Apophtegmes des Peres du Desert, tr. Guy, “serie des dits anonymes,” p. 162. There is a parallel story in the alphabetical collection, Sisoes, p. 10; cf. Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 22).

26. Fr. André Scrima, “La Tradition du Père Spirituel dan l’Eglise d’Orient.” Hermes, 1967, No. 4, p. 83.

27. Apophthegmata Patrurn, alphabetical collection, Poemen, p. 174.

28. Ibid., Isaac the Priest, p. 2.

29. The Book of Varsanuphius and John, pp. 23, 51, 35.

30. Quoted by Thomas Merton, Spiritual Direction and Meditation. (1960), p. 12.

31. “The Monastic Rule,” in G. P. Fedotov, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, (London, 1950) p.96.

32. See Thomas Merton, op. cit., pp. 14-16, on the dangers of rigid monastic discipline without proper spiritual direction.

33. See I. Gorainoff, “Holy Men of Patmos”, Sobornost (The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius), Series 6, No. 5 (1972) pp. 341-4.

From Cross Currents (Summer/Fall 1974), pp. 296-313.

THE THIRD BENEDICTINE (& CISTERCIAN etc) VOW; CONVERSATIO MORUM

$
0
0

The term conversatio morum is an ancient Benedictine term.  Its exact meaning is subject to some shades of interpretation, but its general meaning is clear -- it is continuing fidelity to the monastic life.

The term conversatio morum is found in chapter 58 of the Rule of St. Benedict.

Although the following material applies to people who want to make a vow as part of becoming a monk or sister (something Benedictine oblates do not do), oblates can, in their own lives "in the world" strive to apply the monastic principles  in the Rule of St. Benedict to their life. 

Verse 58.17 of the Rule quoted below is about how a monk or sister should be admitted into a monastery community.  Monks and nuns make a vow of stability, conversatio morum (fidelity to monastic life) and obedience (again, these are not what an oblate promises, but this single constellation of characteristics (as distinguished from three separate vows) can be applied in a general way to all who wish to live a more monastic life.)

[Note, the English translation of the Rule quoted here has been written for females and that is why the quoted section reads "17 When she is to be received....."]


Rule of St. Benedict verse 58.17 (On the Manner of Receiving Sisters) states: 

17 When she is to be received she promises before all in the oratory stability, fidelity to monastic life and obedience. 

The Latin for this part of the Rule is: 

17 Suscipiendus autem in oratorio coram omnibus promittat de stabilitate sua et conversatione morum suorum et oboedientia,



What Does Conversatio Morum Mean?



The following is a random selection of what various people or institutions have written about Conversatio Morum.  All of the following are quotes from the web sites referenced at the end of each series of paragraphs.  For a brief quote on how the promise of “Conversatio Morum” fits or should be viewed along with “Stability” and “Obedience” see the End Note taken from RB 1980.

Begin Quotes:

The vows according to which a person becomes a consecrated Religious are poverty, chastity and obedience. All these are implied in the Benedictine vow of "Conversion of Life". Or is that really the Benedictine vow? 20th century scholars discovered, with some consternation, that what St. Benedict actually wrote was not "conversio morum", but "conversatio morum".

Copyists in the 8th century found that difficult to understand, assumed it must be a mistake, and changed it.

[Inserted Note by Oblate Spring.com: --- It was Cuthbert Butler in his 1912 edition of the Rule, Sancti Benedicti Regula Monachorum who first noticed the error and brought St. Benedict’s now famous phrase back from its 1,000 years being misquoted.]

The original is indeed a grammatical tangle which defies literal translation. Broadly it means "to live the monastic way of life with fidelity". But the Latin emendation was not so far off. The root word lying behind "conversatio" is "to change", or "be converted", so our English expression "conversion of life" remains valid, and we continue to use it.

Linked to Conversion of Life are the other two Benedictine vows of Stability and Obedience. These also simply make explicit some key aspects of monastic life. Today any sort of lifelong commitment is profoundly counter-cultural: how much more so these vows! Yet they exist to enable true freedom: freedom from the passing things of this world that can weigh us down: freedom to devote ourselves to the one thing necessary, that is never to be taken away (cf. Lk 10:42). Above Pasted from  http://www.pluscardenabbey.org/oblate-letter-archive-july-2004.asp



3. At the heart of St Benedict's monastic experience is a Simple, typically Christian principle, which the monk adopts in all its radicalness: to unify one's life around the primacy of God. This "tenere in unum", the first, fundamental condition for entering monastic life, must be the commitment unifying the life of the individual and the community, and be expressed in the "conversatio morum" which is fidelity to a life-style lived concretely in daily obedience. The search for Gospel simplicity requires continual examination, that is, the effort "to do the truth", by constantly returning to the initial gift of the divine call which is at the root of one's own religious experience.  Above Pasted from  http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2sub.htm



What we are about in our lives "in the world" is allowing our hearts to be converted (the monastic metanoia, conversatio morum) to be open to the indwelling of the Godhead within our selves, and allowing that to transform our lives so that eventually we run in the sweetness of God's commands (i.e. being about good works and service) and in so doing, grow in communion with God, and with our brothers and sisters. Above Pasted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MonasticLife/message/51969



Conversatio is another commitment that is closely allied with stability and unique to Benedictine monastics. This Latin word means a commitment to all practices oriented toward the search for God. By practices we do not mean a rote, rigid adherence to regimen. Conversatio includes disciplines such as commitment to a regular daily schedule of prayer and work, to silence, to lectio divina, community meals, and community of goods. Everything is oriented toward a faithful living of the Gospel. Above Pasted from http://www.osb.org/acad/benval2.html



Of even more significance is the word conversatio, a term that is difficult to translate. Conversatio connotes a commitment to live faithfully in unsettled times and to keep one's life open. Such a paradox: remain settled; stay open to change! For the monks of the Middle Ages, living faithfully meant listening to an inner voice and responding to the call. Above Pasted from  



I surmise that the best way conversatio happens on a daily basis is when we are open to being mentors and being mentored by another. Change in our own behavior happens when the words or example of another calls into question whether we are living the monastic life fully. Sister Joan Chittister, in her book Wisdom Distilled from the Daily, says: "To live community life well is to have all the edges rubbed off, all the rough parts made smooth. There is no need then for disciplines to practice. Life itself is the discipline."2 I believe that a community life that is filled with opportunities for mutual mentoring is a life that will truly smooth out our rough edges and bring us closer to Christ. Above Pasted from http://www.osb.org/aba/2002/proceedings/html/RexingConversatio.html



The commitment to conversatio morum leads us to welcome Christ to turn us in His direction in every situation and to know that His direction for us is the best. Above Pasted from http://www.osb.org/sva/obl/pdf/may2004.pdf



Conversatio morum suorum is that strange, untranslatable vow so central to Benedictine life that we simply take it to mean, "living as a Benedictine." Above all, conversatio is about the paschal mystery of death and life as it is lived out daily for a lifetime. Conversatio is about being broken and renewed, being overwhelmed and being raised up. It is willingness to suffer and be utterly confused, because we have learned that is one way God leads us into the encounter with brand new life. Conversatio is about being in the hands of the living God, the God who always surprises us, always shatters our expectations, the God who surpasses our imaginations. Above Pasted from 



[T]he postulant aspires to the monastic way of life: conversatio. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/swissam/ritual/commentary.html



To be received as a full member of the community, a formal promise of obedience is required. To gain admittance to the novitiate, persistence and determination must be demonstrated. Viewed from the postulant's [page 7 ends] original aspiration, namely, undertaking monastic conversatio, the novitiate appears to be a deferment. But by accepting it, he learns to practice the perseverance, stability, and obedience which lie at the heart of monastic conversatio. In other words, in the novitiate he already begins to live the very "way of life" which apparently had been denied him! When at last he is allowed to make profession, he knows what he is entering (see RB 58: 12), and so his original desire as well as the Rule's prescriptions are simultaneously fulfilled.  Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/swissam/ritual/commentary.html



D 24 Conversatio in the Rule of Benedict indicates the progressive nature of the monastic profession, a continuing effort to seek God truly and grow into the likeness of Christ. It commits the monk to the pattern of observances adopted by his community. The monk promises to walk the path of return to the Father with his brothers, always listening with them to the Spirit's call for internal and external renewal. Conversatio is not a conversion once and for all; it can mean "conversion of life" as a constantly renewed, persevering quest for holy monastic observance. The monk is not alone in this lifelong dynamic process of conformation to Christ. The brothers build up, support and encourage one another as they climb the ladder of humility that will bring them to the love that casts out fear. This way of humility is fundamentally a commitment to living in the truth revealed in Christ. It frees the monk to be and give himself in love. The monk benefits from knowing that his brothers are with him, that they too are struggling to imitate Jesus who humbled himself and became obedient to death--even to death on a cross. Stability and conversatio together express an aspect of the mystery of redemption: the kingdom of Christ is already in our midst, the source of grace and hope, but it is still being built in us gradually until the final hour. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/swissam/declaration/IIA.html



Just as a monk’s vow of conversatio morum commits him to “grow in perfect charity through a monastic manner of life” (formula for the monk’s vows), the Oblate promises to keep trying to seek Christ in the midst of ordinary events so that every moment becomes an opportunity for deeper trust in God, firmer rejection of self-will, and more generous surrender to Christ as He stretches us in His self-sacrificing, all-generous love.  A helpful analysis of the term conversatio morum appears in The Benedictines, pp. 94-98. There Fr. Terrence Kardong shows how it implies a “dynamic process.” The term “morum” probably does not at all refer to “morals” but simply reinforces conversatio. The two words together may be taken to mean the whole “monastic way of life,” but in its traditional usage the term refers mainly to the external, tangible elements of that life. Therefore, commitment to conversatio morum encourages the monk or Oblate to put the Gospel into practice in the very concrete details of everyday life and also to be open continually to new concrete practices that radical discipleship may demand. Above Pasted from http://www.osb.org/sva/obl/pdf/OblateFormation.pdf



Conversatio

This life to which we are professed is, itself an expression of the paschal mystery. We enter into the dying of Jesus that we may rise with him by embracing a life of monastic conversatio. We live out our promise of fidelity to the monastic way of life through daily acceptance of our human condition and steadfast dedication to community life. Experience of God's healing prompts us again and again to turn to our Creator. Relying on faithful love, we are gradually transformed. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/fedben/html



One can only be a monk of a particular community.  Our community is our monastic home in which we are united to a particular Benedictine Family, as Brother Benet Tvedten put it in his book ‘How to be a Monastic and not Leave your Day Job’.  It is all summed up in the three fold promise of the monastic profession, made by us all in one form or another, based on the Latin original: 

‘Stabilitate sua, Conversatione morum suorum, et Obœdientia.’ RB, 57.7. 

The RB 80 discussion on these promises, or rather this one tripartite promise, is invaluable. The Latin can be and is translated variously, but I would defend my own translation: 

1.      A life-long commitment to this particular community [with Salvation specifically guaranteed in the rite of profession as the reward for perseverance for life] 

2.      A commitment to enter fully into this Conversation which is the daily relational life of this particular monastic community, to the very best of [my] abilities and circumstances.

3.      To accept the guidance of the Community in the context of the Rule – and in particular the Abbot - as the normative principle of the life of the Community, or Conversation. 

The fact the English wording may be different in the religious and lay professions can be misleading.  The single threefold promise - to join in the conversation - however expressed or translated, can only have one meaning in practice.  Above several paragraphs are Pasted from a paper by Christopher K Rance OSB (Obl Pk) Prinknash Abby, Gloucester, written July 2006. The paper is titled "The Conversation that is Monasticism8.doc" and is available in the Files section of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MonasticLife/files/


This is monastic profession in the cenobitic tradition. It is conversatio morum which is the profession of the life as a monastic and is common to all expressions of monastic life from anchorite to cenobite. It is the profession of the "Battle of the Heart" as Abba Antony calls it, the profession of seeking purity of heart as Cassian teaches or, more simply, through monastic practices, the discovery of the God within whom pulsates the life-giving blood of love. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/aba/news/3003/danw.html



St. Benedict reminds us of the “always-and-everywhere” dimension of our commitment to conversation morum, to ongoing conversion. Above Pasted from http://www.osb.org/sva/obl/pdf/may2005.pdf



A Benedictine monk takes vows of obedience, stability, and conversatio morum, or ongoing conversion of life according to the monastic way (RB 58:17). Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/sva/obl/inquire.html



By conversatio morum Oblates make use of all means at their disposal to welcome God's grace to purify and transform them. Just as the monk's corresponding vow commits him "to grow in perfect charity through a monastic manner of life," so the Oblate promises to surrender more and more of his or her life to Christ amidst daily vicissitudes; thus every moment becomes an opportunity for firmer rejection of self-will and deeper abiding in the love of Christ. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/sva/obl/inquire.html



What has been described thus far is true of every Christian. What is distinctive about the monastic is the way in which this transformation of the person is to take place. The end is the same, but the means to the end is unique. The means are the traditional, time-honored monastic practices: lectio and liturgy, silence and solitude, community living, study and work. These elements are designed to help the monastic move toward the goal of inner transformation. Thus, the first part of the "primary" work of the monastic consists in being faithful to these monastic practices. Benedictines promise obedience, stability and conversatio morum which is commonly now translated as "fidelity to the monastic life." Some monastic scholars are saying that, as a matter of fact, there is only one vow, which is conversatio morum and all the others are simply aspects of it. Thus, the monastic life becomes a life project all by itself. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/gen/topics/work/kulzer.html



It was early in 1988. Sister Katherine Howard, our prioress at the time, was giving monthly conferences on the monastic life. This particular conference was entitled, "The Monastic Life: Its Goal and Its Way of Life." At the time, we were studying conversatio morum as the monastic way of life. She told us that John Cassian defined the ultimate aim of monastic life as the kingdom of God, but that the immediate goal was purity of heart. She spent most of her time that Sunday exploring the concept of purity of heart. She saw it was a "turning to and a turning from." Inspired by John Cassian, she invited us to "turn to" a loving God in unceasing prayer and out of that strength to "turn from" material goods as a goal; our compulsions and false self as a goal (eight logismoi or passions); the visible and present world as a goal. That introduction to the concept of purity of heart was very significant for me. It made me especially alert to the term. Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/aba/news/992902/purity.html



Monastic poverty is meant to free the monastic for conversatio: a life of listening. 



[W]ith monastic profession, a person promises to be on a constant journey of seeking God (conversatio morum). Above Pasted from  http://www.osb.org/aba/law/mll08.html



To assure monastic vitality and to accelerate its momentum, the monk specifically dedicates himself to conversatio morum, which is here interpreted as a growth in readiness for, and openness to, the inbreaking of the kingdom.  



Look at the way we have come to understand conversatio and change our translation from "conversion" to some notion of fidelity to the monastic way. I think we are all happy for the more integrated approach.  



C 54. By his profession of conversion through a monastic way of life (conversatio morum), the monk commits himself to the persevering exercise of monastic discipline and self-denial that school him for growth towards the fullness of love (cf. RB Prol 45-49; 7:67).  
Above Pasted from 



Conversatio Morum – monks take a vow of conversion of life.  This vow does not have a direct English equivalent, because the Latin can take the meaning of both a conversion of one’s behavior and/or conversion to monastic living. In practice, this vow means both, with an emphasis on the latter. Above Pasted from  http://www.stlouisabbey.org/becomingamonk/conversatio.php



‘Conversatio morum’ is often left untranslated since it is hard to find English words that are adequate. It is a vow to a continual change of heart, a daily reshaping of the mind and heart according to God’s plan for us. 



The word conversatio seems to come from the Latin versatio con, that is to say, a turning with. The idea behind conversatio is that we discover that we have failed God in some way, and we acknowledge that we have sinned, but we do not stop there and become discouraged or make excuses for ourselves that would lead to hardness of heart. Above Pasted from  http://geneseeabbey.org/Homilies



This is where we turn to the second kind of conversion which, in the monastic tradition, is called 'conversatio morum,' sometimes translated as 'ongoing conversion.' This kind of conversion is the ongoing struggle to allow the Gospel to touch every part of our lives. In the words of Esther de Waal, 'conversatio means to respond totally and integrally to the word of Christ sent to all of us: 'Come, follow me!' 



By the vow of fidelity to the monastic way of life, or conversatio morum, to use the original, untranslatable Latin phrase of the Rule of St. Benedict, we commit ourselves to a lifelong pilgrimage toward that perfect love of God and neighbor which Christ urges on us in the gospel.  
Above Pasted from  



This ordinary and particular obedience grows out of a daily experience of “conversatio morum.” The monk’s whole life is a constant process of conversion. Each day we take up our cross and follow Christ. Above Pasted from




Conversion of Life

Although we do not profess the evangelical counsels of poverty and chastity explicitly, they are, nonetheless, an intrinsic part of our self-giving to God in the vow of Conversatio Morum and in our Constitutions. Through the training of his heart and the marshalling of his thoughts in the experience of monastic living, the young monk learns how to focus on Christ and how to turn and constantly return his heart to God.  Above Pasted from  http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/vocation/profession.php



By his temporary profession of the three monastic vows—obedience, stability, and conversatio morum (the pursuit of perfect charity according to a monastic manner of life)—the candidate formally embraces the life envisioned by Saint Benedict.  Above Pasted from  http://www.anselm.edu/administration/the+abbey/BecomingaMonk/



With the vow of conversion of manners ("conversatio morum") we promise to live a life following the Gospel. God's call to every Christian to be ready on an ongoing basis, to rethink and to change one's ways is meant here. Above Pasted from 




What is this ‘conversion of life’, in latin conversatio morum, mentioned in the monk’s formula of profession (see June 18, below), which Br. Isaac just committed himself to for the rest of his life? The meaning of the phrase can be intuited from the words themselves, this is obvious. On it’s face it means what it says, to turn from one way of living to another way of living. But what does that mean?  ‘Conversion of life’ is a twofold act of turning from sin and towards Christ. But isn’t this what every Christian does through his Baptism and the working out of its implications in his life? Yes, absolutely! There is no difference fundamentally between what the Christian takes on as his goal in life and what the monk does in his life. Above Pasted from  http://monasticism.org/monk/category/monastic-profession/



"Conversatio Morum" (ongoing conversion of life).
 Above Pasted from 



The third Benedictine vow is usually given in Latin, conversatio morum. That is because it is hard to translate, but roughly translated it means conversion of life. 



A Benedictine monk takes vows of obedience, stability, and conversatio morum, or ongoing

conversion of life according to the monastic way (RB 58:17). 
Above Pasted from 



OBLATES COMMIT THEMSELVES to a never-ending process of integration - a deepening of their awareness of and responsiveness to God through the practice of contemplative prayer. This ongoing process of integration is referred to in the Rule as conversatio morum, "reformation of life". It is the oblates' continuous consecration to God of the deepest parts of their selves and their lives. 
Above Pasted from 




The Riasaphor is fully monastic, and is expected to engage daily in the central monastic work of conversatio morum, of the conversion of life: that is to say, to enter more and more into the mystery of monastic life.
 Above Pasted from 




Benedict did not demand of his followers great feats of prayer and mysticism based on an asceticism of perfection. He asked monastics to set out on a path to change their hearts. This conversatio morum, which is the profession we have made, relies on valuing community and connectedness in a world that prizes individualism and independence. We have the opportunity to demonstrate to the postmodern world that happiness is found in God and God is found in relationship with others—community.  Above Pasted from




The means to this step is neither to go overboard hunting for things we hate to afflict ourselves with nor to insist on our own way at all costs. The real meaning here is found in the statement that Christ came not to do His own will, but the will of His Father. We don't see Jesus going out His way to find things distasteful to Him, nor do we see Him stoically and resolutely refusing to enjoy things His Father wills that please Him. His will is one with the Father's. He also has a human nature that wars against that Divine will, but, in Jesus, it never wins.

Alas, in us, that human will often DOES win: why else would we be struggling along the monastic way all our lives? Unlike Jesus, we are not sinless, we are able to sin and often do so all too gladly! We must daily- even minute to minute- turn from the bad in our own wills. It is an ongoing fight, but that is what conversatio morum means! As Benedictines we will- indeed, must- always be straining against the negative goad, always be seeking the place of greater light and good. 
Above Pasted from




The search to understand and to practise the faith corresponds to our second monastic vow, Conversatio morum. For the monk this means a day-by-day adherence to the pattern of life described in the Gospels and in the Rule. Above Pasted from  http://www.ampleforthcollege.york.sch.uk/benedictine/benedictine_context.html



One of the three Benedictine vows is Conversatio Morum, a vow to be always striving for change in one’s life, always seeking for God, always striving for perfection. Above Pasted from  http://www.douaiabbey.org.uk/obnews6.html



6. Conversatio morum can be defined as a fidelity to the monastic way of life as given in the Rule of Saint Benedict and the constitutions of the order.  Above Pasted from  http://www.trappist.net/news/talks/Basil/enews_08_29_06.html



St. Benedict takes all this so much for granted that he scarcely feels the need to mention it. He doesn't even require an explicit vow of chastity: simply including that in the vow "conversatio morum", (best translated as "fidelity to monastic life"; HR 58:17). Above Pasted from  http://www.pluscardenabbey.org/oblate-letter-archive-august-2002.asp



6. Conversion. Aware that internal weakness and external temptation pose constant challenges to spiritual growth, monks dedicates themselves to what St. Benedict calls "conversatio morum." This is the monk's commitment to reject complacency and ever to be open to the voice of God, so that the crust of self might be shattered and the kingdom of God might be established within. Above Pasted from  http://www.the-abbey.org/ask-a-catholic/how-does-a-benedictine-monk-or-oblate-develop-spiritually



A Benedictine echo of this is the vow of "conversatio morum", loosely translated "conversion of life," which commits the monastic continually to recommit to and seek to live in a fuller way the monastic way. Above Pasted from  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MonasticLife/message/43468



Our monastic vows translate so well to life in the world: stability (which can be translated as well to faithfulness in good and bad times as well as fidelity); obedience (and I don't know about you, but my relationships are always calling me to die to myself [in a healthly way]) and conversatio morum - openness to daily (if not more frequently) conversion of heart mind and spirit. Part and parcel of that is simplicity of life and chastity - which are a challenge to anyone living in a first world country these days.  
Above Pasted from 


  

END NOTE FROM RB 1980, page 458

 “We do not know precisely what St. Benedict's monks stated in their promissio and wrote in their petitio. Later the three-member phrase was often incorporated into the profession formula, though we sometimes find versions containing only two members, stability and obedience.35 The three-member formula is still used today. In the Rule, however, it is not a profession formula, but rather a rubric that is intended to describe the content of the promissio in terms of the monastic realities it encompasses. It is not a list of distinct obligations and is not exhaustive, but is simply a statement singling out some of the principal features of the monk's promise.36 The profession consisted of a promise to live the entire life prescribed by the Rule. That life is specified, but not exclusively, by the three elements mentioned. Their content is not necessarily mutually exclusive, since they are not perceived as distinct obligations.



“Much discussion has been devoted by recent Benedictine writers to the precise meaning of stabilitas, conversatio morum suorum, and oboedientia. Often the discussion has been colored by the assumption that the three elements represent three distinct "Benedictine vows." Once this supposition is dismissed, the question becomes at once clearer and less urgent, for there is no real doubt about what the monk promised: the full observance of monastic life as defined by the Rule.” RB 1980: The Rule of St. Benedict,  Timothy Fry, O.S.B., Translator ISBN:978-0-8146-1220-0  


ABBOT PAUL'S HOMILY FOR ALL SAINTS & AN ORTHODOX SERMON ON THE SAME THEME

$
0
0

All Saints 2013
            “I saw a huge number, impossible to count, of people from every nation, race, tribe and language; they were standing in front of the throne of the Lamb, dressed in white robes and with palms in their hands.” This vision of heaven lies at the very heart of the Feast of All Saints, which began life as a celebration of all Christian martyrs, many of whom were unknown by name. The only way to be sure was to have a feast in honour of them all. It is St Ephrem the Syrian, in the middle of the 4th Century, who mentions in his writings a feast dedicated to the saints, all of them martyrs. It was St John Chrysostom, who, towards the end of that same Century, assigned the feast to a particular day, the Sunday after Pentecost. Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Christians still celebrate All Saints on that day.
The feast only came into the Western Church when Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon in Rome for Christian use on May 13th 609. A pagan temple dedicated to the worship of the entire pantheon, all the Roman deities, was transformed into a Christian church in honour of all the saints.  The feast was observed annually on this date until Pope Gregory III dedicated a chapel in St. Peter's Basilica to "All the Saints" on 1st November some time towards the middle of the 8th Century. It was Pope Gregory IV, who in 835 ordered the Feast of All Saints to be observed on 1st November throughout the Western Church. So it was that All Saints came to be celebrated in England in the middle of the 9th Century.
Today, then, we give honour to all the Saints, those who are famous and universally loved, those who are local and known only to a specific community or particular Church, those who have gone out of fashion and have been replaced by more modern saints and those who are almost completely unknown, known only to God and to the their fellow saints in heaven. Among these, surely, are members of our own families and community, people we have known and loved and who have had a great influence on our lives and still do through their intercession and example.
St John reminds us in today’s second reading that, because of the “love the Father has lavished on us,” we can be “called God’s children, and that is what we are.” We are already children of God, which is why St Paul calls all faithful Christians saints, even in this life. God has poured out his Spirit on us, thus we are temples of the Holy Spirit, living stones that make up the Body of Christ. We are far from perfect, we are still sinners, and yet we are, like the wheat grain that falls to the ground, in embryonic form, the saints we are called and destined to be. “We are already children of God, but what we are to be in the future has not yet been revealed; all we know is, that when it is revealed, we shall be like him because we shall see him as he really is.”
This then is the exiting dynamic of the Christian faith, that tension between what we are and what we shall be, the future hidden in the present and the present revealed in the future. Just as in the account of the Transfiguration, where the disciples catch a glimpse of the future glory of the Lord Jesus and for a moment know him as he really is, we too, from time to time, in Christ and through the Holy Spirit, get a fleeting glance, “we see in a glass darkly”, of our own true identity as the image and likeness of God.
The celebration of the Feast of All Saints reminds us most eloquently that we, like the saints in glory, are called by God to be saints, to become fully, through grace, what he created us to be. Let us take heart from the words of Scripture and from the lives of the saints. It is so easy to fall into despair and give up hope, to think that all is lost, that we are so sinful that we will never make it to heaven. But God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world but to redeem it. Jesus is our Saviour: he came to heal the sick, forgive sinners and reconcile us with the Father. Together they have given us the only pledge of eternal life there is, the gift of the Holy Spirit. What, then, can possibly separate us from the love of God made manifest in Christ Jesus our Lord?
 So we join in that glorious hymn of the saints in heaven, “Praise and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honour and power and strength to our God for ever and ever. Amen.”

my source: Pravmir.com
Who’s Got Your Back?
Priest Thaddaeus Hardenbrook   Feb 2nd, 2013 //  
“Surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”
Fr Thaddeus Hardenbrook
Having created the context for human activity (the Garden, tending and keeping it, eating and not eating of specific trees), God reveals the primary condition of man’s being and meaning, saying, “It is not good that man should be alone.” We are reminded of this need for companionship most often in the service of the Mystery of Marriage. But the nature of companionship, which is an image of the Holy Trinity’s essence as Persons in perfect union, manifests itself in many ways.
God was pleased to present animals to Adam, and though none were per­fectly right for him, that bond between animals and man remains. A little below our companionship with animals is our bond to all of Creation, for which we were given the primary task to “tend and to keep.” That’s why we are happiest (undiscovered by many) with our hands in or near the soil. Hence we are also not environmentalists; we are simply Christians. Supremely above our bond to God’s holy Creation, we have marriage, family, and friends—those relation­ships of person to person that have the greatest potential to likeness of the Holy Trinity. “Not being alone” is the absolute truth at the root of such virtues as hospi­tality, trust, loyalty, repentance, forgiveness, and sacrificial love. It is the con­fidence of him “who has his quiver full, who shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies at the gate” (Psalm 127), and the joy of those who “subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, and turned to flight the armies of the enemy” (Heb. 11:33). True companionship produces young men and women “in whom there is no blemish, but good-looking, gifted in all wisdom, possessing knowledge and quick to understand, [to whom] God gives knowledge and skill in all literature and wisdom” (Daniel 1).
This is the kind of companionship all long for and suffer from the lack of. We are in fact at war, and, in today’s language, we need to know “who has our back.” For the Orthodox Christian, fulfilling this need to know begins with faith and trust in Christ, who “calls us friends” (John 15:15), and reception of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter (in Greek Parakletos: one who consoles, comforts, encour­ages, and uplifts; an advocate in court). Only through the compassion of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit do we begin to experience that longed-for com­panionship and acquire the ability to offer it to others. And we make sure it is real companionship we offer by observing the lives of the saints. We are masters at disguising ego, fear, and self-interest as friendship; but the saints are the real deal. And, in imitation of them, we open ourselves up to the genuine experience of life in Christ. If we are uncomfortable with the saints, we have yet to actually know Christ, the Holy Spirit, and true companionship.

All saints icon
This week alone we celebrate the memory of Maximos the Confessor, the Apostle Timothy, Clement of Ancyra, Xenia of St. Petersburg, Gregory the Theologian, Xenophon and his family, John Chrysostom (lesser feast), Ephrem and Isaac of Syria, and the list goes on. Each one, every one, is a profound and inspiring example of being “in the world but not of it” (John 17:15–16). The saints are those who have cut the path to Paradise ahead of us, cleared it, and made it easier to follow. They are our mentors, our spiritual companions, and our friends. The grace-filled saints journey with us, encourage us, comfort us, embolden us, and advocate for our salvation. They “have our back,”  and they teach us how to be true friends, how to support and encourage those around us in a God-pleasing manner.
Along with our morning and evening prayers, we read the lives of the saints because it works. Like going to church, keeping the fast, and resisting sin, it is the exercise that makes us spiritually strong. We don’t have to do these things. But if we don’t, we can’t complain of our spiritual failure. Like a person with unused exercise equipment in the garage, our familiarity with spiritual tools will not compensate for our failure to use them.
So read the lives of the saints. Every day. All year. Every year. They are the actual “cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1) that surrounds us. When we ask them to, they pray for us. When we strive spiritually, they cheer. Like our guardian angel, they are ever present if we nurture our relationship with them; thereby we are never, ever alone. Christ stands at the door of our heart and knocks, the Holy Spirit is in all places and fills all things, and the saints, in likeness to God, accompany us also if we so desire.



THE CHRISTIAN WITNESS OF THE MONASTERY OF ST JAMES THE MUTILATED, MAR YAKUB

$
0
0
Mar Yakub- Situated at the foot of Anti-Lebanon, on a plateau of 1350 m. is the monastery of Mar Yakub (St. James the Mutilated) in Qâra. This monasterydates from the 6th century and is perhaps the oldest monastery in the region. 
The Melkite monastery of Mar Yakub in the front line in Syria. It is called "the Monastery of St James the Mutilated".  The photos are taken in happier times, but they help put faces on the Christians who are suffering now.
my source: The Community's Facebook

Peace of Christ! Our little monastery has monks and nuns from 8 nations - and not one of us has returned home, but we have freely decided to stay in Syria at the risk of our lives. Why? Because Syrian people are suffering, and we want to help.

Help of the Syrian People

"We didn't see a piece of bread for nine months," one woman told the BBC. "We were eating leaves and grass." From Muaddamiya, rif Damascus - where thousands had been held hostage, under siege. Mother Agnes told us that she was going to fight for their release, because "500 children are starving". The story of what Mother Agnes did was amazing, because she walked into a zone that was totally off-limits, no one wanted to enter - you couldn't even get a piece of bread in there without being shot. On Oct 20 she walked through a field of snipers with a white flag "if I die, I die" she said. She spoke to the rebels as brothers and fellow human beings to try to convince them to let the people go. God moved their heart and they agreed... 1500 were set free and receive govt aid and food, then about 2000 more were released on the 28th of October. Thank you for your prayers for the diverse Syrian family - may God's light shine on us all!


As civil war continues to rage in Syria, Christian communities with ancient roots in the country stand in the crossfire between the Syrian government and the rebel forces. Below is an account of several days in the war zone from Father Daniel Maes, O.Praem., a Belgian priest who has been at the Monastery of Mar Yakub in Qara, Syria for several years [Editor: the monastery is under the jurisdiction of the Melkite diocese of Homs]. In it he details the efforts of Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix, the Lebanese-born superior of the Mar Yakub nuns, to free hostages taken by the rebels and to negotiate peace. Father Daniel’s account appears in Italian at the blog Ora Pro Siria.

Saturday, October 12

At 11 am Mother Agnes-Mariam and Sister Carmel went to Muadamiyet-al-Cham, on the outskirts of Damascus, together with the rescue team of the Red Crescent, along with Ms. Kinda al-Shamat, the Minister of Social Affairs, and with the army.  Twelve snipers were ensconced above the arcades that lead into the city. Mother Agnes-Mariam swept up a white flag and headed with determination, along with Sister Carmel, toward a group of about 40 leaders of the armed rebel bands that have been kidnapping thousands of ordinary people.… Now these armed bands were also threatening…to block off all food supplies. The ensuing confusion was indescribable, with shots being fired and shouts ringing out about how no one was to leave the place alive.

So Mother Agnes-Mariam tells Sister Carmel to pray and they begin to invoke the name of Jesus. Suddenly there is silence, and there is an opening for negotiations over the liberation of the hostages. It isn’t until around 4 pm that they regain their freedom. Some are numb with fear and the children are very weak. The soldiers kiss the elderly people on their foreheads as a sign of respect. Everyone hugs Mother Agnes-Mariam. The weakest are brought to the ambulances, the others are put on buses, to be taken to a school building in Damascus, where Governor Hussein Khallouf has readied the necessary care.  Two thousand people have been freed.  All have lost their ID cards.  Tomorrow 1,500 more civilians and a group of 80 soldiers will be waiting to be liberated. Besides all this, somehow the armed groups have to be coaxed into laying down their weapons. And meanwhile, the terrorists have kidnapped two more people. The way home is still riddled with roadblocks, set up by the National Army, by the Free Army, and by the terrorists.  As they struggle to get through the roadblocks, 12 more people are taken hostage and more negotiations are needed to set them free.

Sunday, October 13

Today 1,500 more civilians have been set free, and all has been caught on film and documented by the TV. We are seeing some very moving images. The newscaster on TV says that Fadia Laham (Mother Agnes-Mariam) has coordinated the entire operation. Mother Agnes-Mariam trusts that these events in Muadamiyet-al-Cham may set an example for the impending peace negotiations.

Monday, October 14

Trouble. These operations are very risky, and not everyone feels up to the risk. There are many misunderstandings with the [Syrian social affairs] minister. Meanwhile pleas keep pouring in from people taken hostage, begging to be liberated and helped. … This is the region where the most fanatical terrorists are active. However, there are also some rebels who have come to Mother Agnes-Mariam in tears, to tell her they are on her side.

Tuesday, October 15

The situation is getting better and there is hope for a liberation. The minister pledges her complete support for Mother Agnes-Mariam and also says something about a medal for the “Woman of Peace.”

Wednesday, October 16

They’re ready: 35 buses, 10 ambulances, and about 30 volunteers have come to evacuate from 1,000 to 2,000 people. Mother Agnes-Mariam and Sister Carmel are already on their way to the city, when, 200 meters away from them, a bomb is dropped into the street, wounding a few children. The army orders everyone back. The ambulances and buses leave, still empty. More bombs explode—a trap organized by terrorists attempting to infiltrate the crowd in order to kill the generals there. The army was not caught off-guard; it was on the alert and well-prepared, but the hoped-for liberation is averted. Mother Agnes-Mariam stays in touch with the rebels, negotiating their surrender. Those who are from Syria and lay down their arms will receive a pass in exchange for their surrender and will be allowed to go back to their families.

Syria, on the road to liberation

Syria has always preserved its independence from Western imperialism and has refused many international duties invented by this “new world order,” imposed with the sole purpose of undermining a country’s sovereignty. Syria has never stumbled into this trap: environmental taxes, labor taxes, taxes on production and on all forms of energy….  Despite the fact that from a political point of view there was little personal freedom in Syria, life was very cheap, very secure, and harmonious. The freedom and hospitality that we experienced for centuries in Syria, before the war, is inconceivable in a Western country.

There are many signs that Syria will rise up again, slowly but surely. … Moses led the “People of God” to the Promised Land after a long trip through the desert. This Exodus was the most important event in the history of Israel, and also the prototype for all liberations.

Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, Son of God, and savior of the world, in the role of a new and final Moses, has given the deepest sense to this liberation by his death on the cross and his resurrection.

This is our faith. And we believe and trust that now too He will be the final Liberator of Syria.

[Editor's note: This blog post was updated on November 2, 2013, with the following correction: the Monastery of Mar Yakub in Qara, Syria, is not a Carmelite monastery, but is under the jurisdiction of the Melkite diocese of Homs.]


THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE TIBERIADE

$
0
0

Story of the foundation

THE ROOTS

the small cabin, now the hermitage of St Bruno

At twelve years old, I discovered a small hidden hut. Over the years, I spent time alone and like a scout I worked with my hands, prayed and discovered the Church. Fifteen years later, I was ordained by the bishop of Namur. The hope wich burned my heart: to give to the Church a small fraternity, some brothers and sisters docile to the Holy Spirit, who would live in harmony and humility to answer the calls of the Church and our time, who would proclaim Jesus, would give witness of Him in unity and prayer and by humble work with their hands.

33 years after this commitment, 30 brother sparrows and 10 little robins were given to me. The name of "sparrow" because we are like apostle monks, we often take flight to evangelize in the most direct way possible in every place. This religious life is fully penetrated by contemplation, fraternal life and mission. Our days are punctuated by prayer, welcoming people and we try to give priority to manual work. Manual work roots us to reality and opens us to the marvels of Creation. By study, we strive to receive a solid and spiritual formation to train versatile little brothers some of whom could become priests according to the call and the necessities of the mission. 
Brother Denis in the hermitage Esprit-Photo.com

The Church to be loved

From prayer and fraternal communion we try to overflow into mission. Our great joy is to announce Jesus and to love his Church by converting ourselves to the Gospel, by following the great example of Saint Francis and the little way of Saint Therese. The luminous example of Saint Francis and the little way of Saint Therese help us to live in abandon to Providence. 

Ardent disciples

We especially carry out this evangelization among young people and families so that the Spirit gives to the Church young saints, ardent disciples. Regularly we lives times of mission in villages, schools and parishes, where we are invited. We also visit families, this mission is very near to our heart to give to the Church holy families.

What characterizes us is:

-the choice of a simple life, a moderation that leaves space to Providence;
-attention to the quality of the fraternal life: place of conversion so that the love circulates like in the Trinity;
-to allow oneself to be simplified by the Gospel and trust;
-unity by charity, humility and  faithfullness create many possibilities. Humbly, we also want to serve the unity wherever the Lord sends us. What is important for us, is not to be of such or such tendency, but to live the Gospel and the love of the Church with courage, and not to waste time in useless quarrels, so that "the Love is loved".


The name "Fraternity of Tiberiade"
Brother Marc with some brothers and sisters
The story in the Gospel of Peter walking on the water guided me in the choice of this name. For me, to follow Christ is a call to walk in faith. Very often, I swallow salt water, but ceaselessly, the risen Christ pulls me from the depth of the sea.

By meditating the Gospel, I perceived how much this lake and its shores were rich in the presence of Jesus: the answer of the first followers to his call and the witness of the confidence of Jesus, who sleeps in the boat despite the storm and answers the distress of his brothers.

Brother Marc

THE FOUNDATION IN LITHUANIA
Tiberijados Bendruomene

LT 32234 Baltriškes – Zarasu raj.
Lithuania
Téléphone – fax : 00 370 385 43 694
web : www.tiberiade.lt

History of the foundation.

At a distance of 30 km from Lavaux-Sainte-Anne, Benedictine monks pray for the unity of the Church. The Monastery Chevetogne has monks of both the Latin and Byzantine rites, being a sign and a cry for unity between the Churches. They made us discover two Eastern figures : Saint Seraphim of Sarov ( Russia ) and Saint Siluan of Mount Athos ( Greece ). So after the fall of the Berlin wall, we naturally turned towards the Eastern countries that were recovering their freedom of expression.

With this in mind, Brother Joseph was invited in march 1991 to a Congress in Paris,  which had as its theme: " How to give a soul back to Europe ? " Contacts were made with a Ukranian priest, but because of visa problems, Brother Joseph turned towards Lithuania. J?rate Telerskaite took part in this event with a Lithuanian delegation. She tells of her first meeting with the Brothers of Tiberiade.

" I have had a strong experience of God in 1990 while in Taize. Returning to Lithuania, I rediscoverd a patronizing Church very far from the spirit of Vatican II. I visited many communities in France, I understood we needed help, we had need of a spiritual oasis. Quite quickly, this inner wish became reality. In March 1991, I met Brother Joseph of the Fraternity of Tiberiade. Our paths crossed : my wish was to invite missionaries to talk about God's love, and Brother Joseph wanted to go to the East to proclaim the Gospel. In the summer of 1991, Vytautas Toleikis, who took part in the Paris meeting, invited Brother Joseph to a " ateitininku " camp during the summer. It was a wonderful experience of prayer, joy and life with youg people. "

After this first contact, everything progressed quickly. The camp was organised for the young people of the Ateitis mouvement, by Vytautas Toleikis, o professor from Vilnius.

" Going to Lithuania was more like a pilgrimage to the land of martyrs, rather than like a mission of evangelization", says Brother Joseph. " We were about 30 young people and we lived in Samogitie (Žemaitija ) by the Lake Plateliai. Every day, we met interesting people ( poets, writers, monks... ). We met Father Stanislovas of Paberž?, from Orvydas, we met Brother Astijus from Kretinga and many others."

A few weeks after this first stay in Lithuania, two young people ( Darius ans Daiva ) hitch-hiked to Belgium. They came to invite Brother Joseph to go back to Lithuania. On the 11th November 1991, Brother Marc, Brother Joseph and Brother Benoit left to spend two weeks in Lithuania. For Brother Marc, this mission was improbable as the Belgian foundation was growing very slowly : there were only three brothers. That stay in 1991 was a turning point. A spirit of freedom was blowing and one could feel the spiritual thirst of the young.

The meeting with Cardinal Sladkevi?ius was promising, he asked the brothers to start a foundation, being very interested in their mission with the young people and the families. " Our visit continued with moments of prayer at the Mount of the Crosses, in Aušros vartai " recalls Brother Joseph. " We had meetings in schools, boarding schools, every day, we were asked to start a foundation. Everyday life is very simple, for example we had to go to 7 shops to gather 1 kg of potatoes. "


Tiberiade will be here, in Baltriškès.
Brother Joseph with other Brothers made 18 trips to Lithuania before the permanent foundation in April 2001. The choice of the village of Baltriškès was decided the following year. In June 92, after the second ateitis camp, Father Algirdas Dauknys welcomed the Brothers an made them visit the whole region : Rokyškis, Dusetos, Zarasai ans Salakas. He also proposed a spot for the community. " It was after the First Communion Mass in Degu?iai ", continues Brother Joseph, " we were on our way back to Antaliept_ along country roads, when, all of a sudden, we saw a beautiful wooden church of the beginning of the century. We were in Baltrišk?s. The place moved us a lot : Tiberiade will be here ". Brother Marc visited the village in November 1992 and confirmed that the community would be established there. The welcome of the villagers helped us make this choice.
The first young camp took place in 1993. Romas Gurklys, who lived temporarily in the presbytery, welcomed ou pilgrim brothers. They also lived in the presbytery and the young people in the old village school. There were about 30 youngsters from Zarasai, Utena, Vilnius " There were no tables, no benches, so we ate sitting on the floor. After the camp, we visited the young in the schools, where some had started prayer-groups that met every week. Father Algirdas and Romas helped us with the administrative work, the phone connection, the papers to acquire the village school."
It was in 1995 that the community settled at the opposite side of the village. A house became vacant and an old kolkhoze nearly, were a good opportunity. An incredible number of young people helped us to transform the kolkhoze into a house open to all. Everything was done very gradualy : the roof and and the wooden walls had to be dismanteld – we had firewood for 5 years –, the mangers for the cows had to be destroyed... and then everything had tobe rebuild. Brothers François remembers : " I had just joined the Fraternity and as a novice, I went for the first time to Baltrišk?s. I was very impressed by the place. The Brothers lived in a permanent camp, without running wather in those days. The washing by hand of the clothes was a weekly event. Many young people and families came to visit us unexpectedly, always eager to pray and to find peace in their hearts. The inhabitants were full of admiration when we spoke a vord of lithuanian. In the beginning, we needed the help of youngsters or of a teacher of french from Antaliepte for the translations. And then we had to start learning the language. When I had to answer the phone, I did not understand much and confused, I always asked to call back...just as well my Brothers learned faster...lit13

At the end of the sumer, like the storks, we flew back to Belgium. Antanas and Ona, our neighbours, were always sad to see us go. We had to hide everything, pretend the place was abandoned not to attract attention. We barricaded the windows with old planks, we packed hay on the car in the garage and we came back the following spring. Only in 2001, could the Fraternity send four Brothers to Baltrišk?s. This answered Brother Marc's promise to Cardinal Sladkevi?ius : " We will be able to send 4 Brothers to Lithuania when we will count 12 Brothers in Belgium. "

Like a Dance:
In spring 2001, Brother Joseph, Brother Bart, Brother Gilles and Brother François arrived finally in Baltrišk?s. Nature began to awaken, the seasons influenced life in the village. The inhabitants showed a lot of kindness, they helped the Brothers with their advice. They welcomed their prayer routines. The vegetable garden surprised them many times with new kinds of vegetables such as leeks or another king of potatoes. " I remember the day when Antanas showed us how to cut the hay, says Brother François. He showed us how to hold the sickel, he wanted each of us to experiment, he made the mouvements with the Brothers, it became like a danse, a waltz...
 LIT8

Like children, we awaited the winter impatiently. What a spectacle ! It was marvellous to see the frozen lake covered with snow, the trees white with frost. Mos impressive was the silence that drew us down into contemplation. It was so beautiful, but it was cold. One needed o lot of wood to keep oneself warm. Cutting the wood, splitting it, carrying it to the shelters became a regular activity when we welcomed the young people... Since Brother Michel joined us we organise weekends for children. They roughly follow our shedule with a big game during the afternoon. That livens up life in the village. The ordination of Brother Gilles in 2004 was important for our foundation in Baltrišk?s, for the parishioners, the young and the families we welcome. It's a blessing to celebrate the Eucharist every day, it is the high point of our day.

It's difficult to relate all we have experienced durign those firs years in Baltriškès. So many marvellous moments ! This is only possible thanks to the generosity of each Brother and of so many who helped us by their prayers or small services. We can testify than Baltrišk?s is a land of resurrection. We have seen young people and families discover hope, a meaning to their lives : they went from death to life. "

If you want to help the mission of evangelization of our Brothers in Lithuania and Latvia, your gifts will be welcomed on the bank number 068-2323806-04 ( for the international tranfers : codes IBAN : BE10 0682 3238 0604 and BIC : GKCCBEBB ) with the title " for Lithuania " Thank you.

THE TIBERIADE MISSION IN THE CONGO

Brotherhood of Tiberias
"The Portiuncula"
Ngulumzamba neighborhood, Kanzombi
Common Lukemi
Kikwit (DRC)
Email Address: Diocese of Kikwit, the Brothers of Tiberias, Portiuncula, BP 7245 KIN I (DRC) 
tel: 00243/80 729 81 22 
E-mail: tiberiadeafrique@yahoo.fr
-


Today we are four brothers in the fraternity of Tiberias in Kikwit: brothers Benedict, Joseph Cyril and Pascal. Our home is called "The Portiuncula" in reference to this small place where St. Francis in Assisi and his brothers first lived..


These six years of presence in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been for each of us the opportunity to both a revision of our values and a deep enrichment. The challenge to be faithful, especially to Christ's call to live a true poverty in a world so different from ours and with such great suffering. Enrichment because life here takes us back continually to Jesus and his gospel, down to its most radical demands: to be pruned, converted, pacified ... so that our hearts are opened to the dimensions of Christ's love.

Our life is modelled on that of our parent community in Belgium: prayer, manual labor, fraternal life and evangelization. Our Congolese brothers and sisters are sometimes surprised to see us return to the chapel so frequently (5 times a day), or continue this pace even when one of us is alone at home! It is because Jesus is the center of our lives and without this we really can not do anything.
As for work, it is not lacking in a foundation in the bush, 6 km from Kikwit, where everything has to be built. But with the help of many, the landscape is gradually beginning to reflect the simple beauty of God's presence. Beyond the construction work, there is the planting of fruit trees, rearing chickens and rabbits, and the vegetable garden ... and the thousand and one little things of everyday life such as preparing meals with the means at hand or washing up by hand!


Of course, we do not live with a view to "settle" but rather we are  building a small nest strong enough so that, like "sparrows", we can fly to the mission and then return back to find strength in the Lord in the joy of fraternal life.


This mission starts when we meet with our neighbors, with day laborers, especially with children. Children are the smile of the Congo! We started a small group of "Children of the Harvest" which meets every other Saturday to  learn to read and write, to play games, catechesis and prayer. The mission also spends some time with the youth; and we learn together to better know the Lord, to serve Him better and to love him.

But the mission is also compassion and sharing. We are able to help  widows materially when needed, to give food to children at risk and to make sure that the very poor are treated properly and with dignity in  medical centers.


There are so many urgent needs here! But the greatest need is love; as Bishop Mununu said to us when he greeted us into his diocese: "I entrust to you the people of Kikwit to love" . Thank you for praying for us to become more and more love, Christ's witnesses, balm on the wounds of our brothers.

TIBERIADE IN THE PHILIPPINES


-


San Damiano House
269#, Sampaguita Street
Greenland executive village
1900 CAINTA
RIZAL PROVINCE
PHILIPPINES
Phone :Nick ARAMBULO of Miss Gilda EREA
0063/ 91 94 85 60 25
-
Presentation

During the World Youth days in the Philippines in 1995we met kuya Nick, a young Filipino, who later committed himself to the community of Tiberiade as a lay missionary. Since then, has started growing closer link with the Philippines and especially with Talim Island, where started the St. Damiano house. Nick, together with other St. Damiano group members, local residents, is working on several projects. They retain the dispensary, bamboo workshop, support poor students and do evangelization...

Families or young people who are friend of our community, contribute regularly to help in accordance with their existing talents. Since January 2009 Francois and Aude (from Belgium) with the small Matthew (www.gossetbrochier.com) went there for 2 years. They help in the local projects 2 other families started before.

 PHI5Some brothers go annually to encourage Nick and all the St Damiano team in the Philippines.

If you want to help the mission of evangelization of our Brothers in Philipines, your gifts will be welcomed on the bank number 068-2323806-04 ( for the international tranfers : codes IBAN : BE10 0682 3238 0604 and BIC : GKCCBEBB ) with the title " for Philipines " Thank you.

Votre aide nous permettra de poursuivre les différents projets en cours et de soutenir notre mission auprès des familles et des jeunes. Merci et recevez déjà notre prière d'action de grâce.




Families or young people who are friend of our community, contribute regularly to help in accordance with their existing talents. Since January 2009 Francois and Aude (from Belgium) with small Matthew (www.gossetbrochier.com) went there for 2 years. They help in the local projects 2 other families started before.

 Some brothers go annually to encourage Nick and all the St Damiano team in the Philippines.

If you want to help the mission of evangelization of our Brothers in Philippines, your gifts will be welcomed on the bank number 068-2323806-04 ( for the international tranfers : codes IBAN : BE10 0682 3238 0604 and BIC : GKCCBEBB ) with the title " for Philipines " Thank you.


Votre aide nous permettra de poursuivre les différents projets en cours et de soutenir notre mission auprès des familles et des jeunes. Merci et recevez déjà notre prière d'action de grâce.

Presentation

During the World Youth days in the Philippines in 1995we met kuya Nick, a young Filipino, who later committed himself to the community of Tiberiade as a lay missionary. Since then, has started growing closer link with the Philippines and especially with Talim Island, where started the St. Damiano house. Nick, together with other St. Damiano group members, local residents, is working on several projects. They retain the dispensary, bamboo workshop, support poor students and do evangelization...

Families or young people who are friend of our community, contribute regularly to help in accordance with their existing talents. Since January 2009 Francois and Aude (from Belgium) with the small Matthew (www.gossetbrochier.com) went there for 2 years. They help in the local projects 2 other families started before.
Some brothers go annually to encourage Nick and all the St Damiano team in the Philippines.

If you want to help the mission of evangelization of our Brothers in Philipines, your gifts will be welcomed on the bank number 068-2323806-04 ( for the international tranfers : codes IBAN : BE10 0682 3238 0604 and BIC : GKCCBEBB ) with the title " for Philipines " Thank you.

Votre aide nous permettra de poursuivre les différents projets en cours et de soutenir notre mission auprès des familles et des jeunes. Merci et recevez déjà notre prière d'action de grâce.

THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING

$
0
0
CHRISTUS VINCIT



The royal banners forward go,
The cross shines forth in mystic glow;
Where He in flesh, our flesh who made,
Our sentence bore, our ransom paid.

Where deep for us the spear was dyed,
Life’s torrent rushing from His side,
To wash us in that precious flood,
Where mingled water flowed, and blood.

Fulfilled is all that David told
In true prophetic song of old,
Amidst the nations, God, saith he,
Hath reigned and triumphed from the tree.

O tree of beauty, tree of light!
O tree with royal purple dight!
Elect on whose triumphal breast
Those holy limbs should find their rest.

Blest tree, whose chosen branches bore
The wealth that did the world restore,
The price of humankind to pay,
And spoil the spoiler of his prey.

Upon its arms, like balance true,
He weighed the price for sinners due,
The price which none but He could pay,
And spoiled the spoiler of his prey.

O cross, our one reliance, hail!
Still may thy power with us avail
To give new virtue to the saint,
And pardon to the penitent.

To Thee, eternal Three in One,
Let homage meet by all be done:
As by the cross Thou dost restore,
So rule and guide us evermore.

CHRISTUS REGNAT



CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - 
We commonly hear Protestants--usually of the Evangelical or Southern Baptist tradition--proclaim the dogma of "once saved, always saved." This doctrine is called the doctrine of the "preservation of the saints" or the doctrine of "eternal security." It is usually traced to the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. For many Protestants, the "once saved, always saved" dogma is a sincerely felt--but deeply erroneous and unscriptural--belief that the Gospel teaches that accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior gives one what they call the assurance of salvation. A corollary of this unfortunate doctrine is that nothing one does from that point--even a heinous sin--can take away that salvation. Nothing. Since we didn't earn salvation by being good, we can't lose salvation by being bad. Basically, it is the view that once we say "yes" to God, we can never say "no." Either that or the "nos" to God make no difference in our relationship with God at least insofar as it relates to our salvation. John Henry Newman--even while Protestant--rejected this doctrine, calling it in one of his sermons an "error," a "deceit," one stemming from the "shallowness of religion," or even "a blinded conscience." These are very harsh words by a verbal craftsman who was of a very judicious bent. Even while still a Protestant, Newman rejected a Christianity that revolved around "any particular time when you renounced the world (as it is called), and were converted." This is a reference to a "once saved, always saved" theology of salvation. Newman, a man deeply sensitive to the inner life of conscience and deeply versed in scripture understood within the light of tradition, emphatically rejected the "once saved, always saved" dogma with very strong words. This is a dogma which points to a "particular time" where salvation is got, and then leaves it at that. For Newman who had his feet surely planted in the Gospel and in the inner promptings of conscience which was the voice of God found within man, salvation is not a painting, a still picture, an instant in time in one's life--but a drama, a series of pictures, a process in time throughout one's whole life. We must constantly be converted to the Lord Jesus, not just once, but daily. In the Lord's Prayer, we ask for our "daily bread," our panem quotidianum. Is our turning to Christ, the giver of that bread of life, to be any less quotidian? It is not sufficient to say "yes" to Christ once and then take leave. Our task is to become incorporated into Christ himself so as to develop in us the mind, the attitude which was in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:5). And what is this mind of Jesus, this attitude of Jesus to which we must strive? Jesus, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, "was not 'yes' and 'no,' but 'yes' has been in him." Non fuit est et non, sed est in illo fuit. (2 Cor. 1:19) Christ's being was all in God, was in fact God. There was no part of his being, including his human nature, which was not in God. He was all "yes" unto God. The Gospel insists that as Christians we must strive like Christ to be all "yes" unto God, so that there be no admixture of "yes" and "no" in us. St. Paul tells the Philippians that to live is Christ and to die to oneself is gain (Cf. Phil. 1:21). To live is Christ is to say all "yes" to Christ. To die to self, to say "no" to self which means to say "yes" to Christ, is gain. Among all mankind, Mary most perfectly imitated Jesus. She, "our tainted nature's solitary boast," was all "yes" unto God. Her "yes," which lasted from the first moment of conception until the end of her earthly life and assumption into heaven never had the least "no" to it. Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum said the one whose name was "full of grace" and who was worthy to bear God and give him the mantle of human flesh. "Be it done unto me according to your word." (Luke 1:38) These words of Mary are the words of someone who is all "yes" unto God. These are the words of someone who understood that to live is Christ. It is this attitude which was in Christ the Redeemer and in Mary, the one perfectly redeemed, which must be in us. None of us can say we are all "yes" unto God throughout our lives. If we say we have no sin in us, if we say we have not said "no" to God, we deceive ourselves. (1 John 1:8). Every time we sin, especially a mortal sin, we say "no" to God. A mortal sin is a categorical "no" to God which entirely negates any prior "yes." A venial sin is a lesser "no" which mars, but does not negate the "yes" unto God. Anyone who has examined his conscience honestly after a fall into a mortal sin will recognize how the "no" to God involved in choosing a particular act, whether out of weakness or, worse, intentionally, shuts God out of the picture. We close the door on God, and he has been excluded from the drama of our life. Does a man who looks at pornography on the internet to assuage his lust, or one decides to have an adulterous affair, or one who talks his wife into aborting their child have any "yes" to God left in him when he makes such choices and acts upon them? If such a man looks honestly into his soul and does not rely upon some shallow dogma of "once saved, always saved," he will confront the horrible reality that engaging in mortal sin, with knowledge and consent, is an entrance into a horrible darkness that leaves a damned spot in the soul. And that darkness, that dark spot, stays in the soul, though one may neglect it or even forget it. And there the spot festers, suppurating, befouling the soul. "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!" says the conscience, and yet it can do nothing about it on its own. The conscience cannot forgive itself. And the furies of conscience whirl about the iner mountains of the soul, the cliffs of fall as Gerard Manley Hopkins called them, while the fate of our soul, which has said "no" to God, hangs at the balance. But forgetfulness, either through neglect or through suppression, does not out the spot. Reliance on a past "yes" of ours is of no avail. The darkness can only be overcome by a return, by a renewed "yes," to the merciful God to whom one has said "no." While we have the ability to say "no" to God--which is something with us till our dying day--we cannot have assurance of salvation, unless through some sort of special revelation. And yet we are not therefore compelled to despair. This is because God gives us the grace to say "yes" anew to him. "In one sense, indeed, you may take comfort from the first," Newman says, as "from the first you know [God] desires your salvation, has died for you, has washed away your sins by baptism, and will ever help you; and this thought must cheer you while you go on to examine and review your lives, and to turn to God in self-denial." But this cheer and this hope we have is different from assurance of salvation. Newman continues to tell his flock that "you never can be sure of salvation, while you are here; and therefore you must always fear while you hope." To believe in "once saved, always saved" is not authentic Christianity, but a corrupt form of it, one rejected by the Church in various ways, but most notably by the Council of Trent in its Decree on Justification. As Aidan Nichols explains it in his excellent book The Shape of Catholic Theology, the Council of Trent saw the "supernaturalized life," as "life lived under grace in faith, hope, and love," and therefore presented "a more complex and subtle picture," than the "once saved, always saved" doctrine of the Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin. As Aidan Nichols explains it, the life of a Christian travels between "two poles." In the drama of the Christian life, one pole is "absolute confidence in the goodness and mercy of God, mediated to us through Christ via the sacraments of the Church." The other pole is "a fearful recognition of our weakness, the permanent possibility that we may reject this goodness and mercy." For this reason, the "Catholic experience of justification would consist in an unconditional trust in the help of God, but within this trust, a genuine fear of separating oneself from God." This leads to "a conscious effort of union with God in prayer and penance." This is authentic Christianity, in the words of Newman, "the true Christian state" of life. As Newman describes it, an authentic Christian life will have the following dramatic elements: "A deep resignation to God's will, a surrender of ourselves, soul and body, to Him; hoping indeed, that we shall be saved, but fixing our eyes more earnestly on Him than on ourselves; that is, acting for His glory, seeking to please Him, devoting ourselves to Him in all manly obedience and strenuous good works; and, when we do look within, thinking of ourselves with a certain abhorrence and contempt as being sinners, mortifying our flesh, scourging our appetites, and composedly awaiting that time when, if we be worthy, we shall be stripped of our present selves, and new made in the kingdom of Christ." Look at the action words that Newman uses: resigning, surrendering, hoping, fixing our eyes upon, acting, seeking, devoting, working, looking within, thinking, mortifying, scourging, awaiting . . . . This is a marriage with Christ, not a one-night stand with Christ. That's the true Gospel, a dramatic life in Christ, not an instantaneous "once saved, always saved" experience. Newman famously said that "in heaven, love will absorb fear; but in this world, fear and love must go together." And for that reason, "fear and love must go together; always fear, always love, to your dying day." These are the words of a true Christian sentiment, and they are at the heart of the Christian drama: always fear, always love, to your dying day

. ----- Andrew M. Greenwell is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, practicing in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is married with three children. He maintains a blog entirely devoted to the natural law called Lex Christianorum. You can contact Andrew at agreenwell@harris-greenwell.com. ---


CHRISTUS IMPERAT



my source: Adoremus
  The Foundations of Liturgical Reform

by Francis Cardinal George



Editor's note: As we reported in the December-January Adoremus Bulletin , in observance of the anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium , the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Liturgy, a day-long conference sponsored by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) was held at the Vatican on December 4, 2003.

The conference, which featured several speakers, opened with the reading of the new Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, which begins with the phrase from the Book of Revelation, "The Spirit and the Bride" . The Letter, published in AB February 2004 , calls for an "examination of conscience" concerning the reception of Sacrosanctum Concilium . The Holy Father asks bishops and liturgists to build on the "riches" of the reform while also pruning "serious abuses" with "prudent firmness".
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago gave the initial address at the conference. Cardinal George, who heads the US Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, is a member of the CDW and is US representative to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, which provides English-language liturgical texts. His address, which focuses on the philosophical background and foundation of the post-conciliar liturgical reform, is reprinted here with the cardinal's kind permission.
***
Introduction
The fortieth anniversary of the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium has prompted a flurry of meetings, discussions and symposia. It remains a document of keen interest to us because of the central and crucial role of the Liturgy in the life of the Church. The subject is broad and vast, however, and difficult to summarize in a forty-minute presentation. Other bishops, extremely competent in the field of Liturgy, have already treated this topic: I am thinking in particular of Bishop Tena Garriga, auxiliary of Barcelona, who gave a masterful address on Sacrosanctum Concilium in this very aula in the year 2000, in the context of the Jubilee Year celebrations.1 Quite recently, Cardinal [Angelo] Sodano, in a letter to the participants of the Italian National Liturgy Week (August 25-29, 2003) also gave an overview of Sacrosanctum Concilium, listing a number of areas of research that remain to be explored, namely, the relationship between:
1. creativity and fidelity
2. spiritual worship and life
3. catechesis and the celebration of the Mystery
4. presiding at the Liturgy and the role of the congregation
5. seminary formation and the continuing formation of priests.2
There remains yet another aspect of the liturgical reform that requires further study, the anthropological aspect. For this presentation, I think it might be fruitful to sketch out some of the main questions that present themselves in the philosophical and anthropological areas of the liturgical reform. It is my hope that the questions thus formulated might spark investigations that are more scholarly and in-depth in an area that requires inter-disciplinary collaboration. This approach also brings to the fore many pastoral considerations that have arisen from liturgical change.
My own belief is that liturgical renewal after the Council was treated as a program or movement for change, without enough thought being given to what happens in any community when its symbol system is disrupted. The liturgical calendar, for example is the place where time and eternity meet, when our experience or duration transcends itself through contact with the Creator of time and history. To change the liturgical calendar means to change our way of relating to God. Since time also conditions thinking for embodied spirits, whose reasoning entails a return to a phantasm, the doctrines of the Church's faith, the thinking of the Church, will also be considered differently when liturgical time is changed. Pastorally, every bishop has been asked: "Since we no longer recognize certain saints on the Church's calendar, why can't the Church correct her teaching on sexual morality, on women's ordination and on other difficult doctrines?"
A change in space, in architecture and in the placement of altars and other liturgical furnishings, has similar effect, as has a change in language, which carries and conditions our thinking and evaluating. A change in Liturgy changes the context of the Church's life. Recently, introducing the changes mandated by the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third typical edition), I remarked that the changes were "minor". A lay woman of the Archdiocese of Chicago corrected me: "Cardinal, there are no minor changes in Liturgy". She is correct.
I would like to raise the question here in order to clarify the presuppositions of liturgical change and so to advance the liturgical renewal with self-conscious attention to the pastoral context as well as to liturgical theory. The questions are raised not to bring the renewal itself into question but to strengthen its call to the Church and its effects in the Church. This presentation will be guided by two questions: 1) Who is the subject of the Liturgy? and 2) How does that subject participate in the Liturgy? I will look at the subject from three more or less different angles: theological, philosophical and anthropological, in each case asking what has yet to be explored.
The subject of the Liturgy considered from a theological point of view
A. Who is the subject of the Liturgy?
Sacrosanctum Concilium 7, continuing in the tradition of Mediator Dei [Pope Pius XII's 1947 encyclical on the Liturgy], defines the Liturgy as the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. Hence it is the whole Christ, Head and members who are the subject of the Liturgy. The text goes on to say that the earthly Liturgy is a participation in the heavenly one (SC 8); this affirmation expands the subject of the Liturgy to include the heavenly host of angels and all the saints. Since the first section of Sacrosanctum Concilium (the nature of the Liturgy and its significance in the life of the Church) is deliberately brief, these very important points are not further developed. Aspects of the theology of the Liturgy were taken up again in Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, and the area of liturgical theology has been the subject of serious reflection in the last forty years.
The greatest magisterial development of this issue, however, can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This surely fits under the category of development of doctrine, because the Catechism's treatment of the subject of the Liturgy takes a significant step forward that is at once disarmingly simple and wonderfully profound. The Liturgy is Opus Trinitatis, the work of the Holy Trinity (CCC 1077, title).3
While Sacrosanctum Concilium focuses on the Christological aspect of the Liturgy, the new Catechism meditates at length on the role of the Father and of the Holy Spirit as well. In fact, it is the relatively lengthy section on the Holy Spirit (CCC 1091-1109) which makes a remarkable contribution to a new Trinitarian understanding of the Liturgy. While the Catechism cites Sacrosanctum Concilium 8 verbatim on the heavenly Liturgy (CCC 1090), it also goes a step further by devoting nine paragraphs (CCC 1136-1144) to the question "Who celebrates the Liturgy?"
First of all there are the celebrants of the heavenly Liturgy: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: the persons of the Trinity are the primary actors in the Liturgy. Then come the heavenly powers, all creation, biblical saints, the martyrs, the all-holy Mother of God and the great multitude of the elect. The earthly Liturgy exists not by itself, but in relation to the heavenly Liturgy. The celebrants of the sacramental Liturgy include the entire Body of Christ extending through time and space, then the local celebrating assembly, ordered hierarchically in such a way that each person has his proper role.
Clarity about the theological subject of the Liturgy is crucial. In the post-conciliar period, a limited understanding of the "People of God" has often led to a limited, horizontal concept of the subject of the Liturgy. Hence it is extremely important that this wonderfully complete vision of the Liturgy, earthly united to heavenly, become better known and then internalized and lived.
B. Theologically, how does the earthly Liturgy participate in the heavenly Liturgy?
The question of participation is perhaps the overriding preoccupation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The text refers over and over again to a participation which is sciens, actuosa, fructuosa, conscia, plena, pia, facilis, interna, externa, and so on. But how does that participation take place?4
Here the conciliar document is rather reticent. Here also the last forty years have given us examples of participation which range from the sublime to the ridiculous. Once again, it is the Catechism which makes significant strides in this area. The Church participates in the Liturgy by synergy. This idea comes from the fruitful synthesis of Father Jean Corbon, whose insights in his book The Wellspring of Worship5 ... appear later in the Catechism. Participation is the common work or synergy between divine initiative and human response. The agent who makes participation possible is the Holy Spirit. "When the Spirit encounters in us the response of faith which He has aroused in us, He brings about genuine cooperation. Through it, the Liturgy becomes the common work of the Holy Spirit and the Church" (CCC 1091).
The Holy Spirit prepares the faithful for the reception of Christ (CCC 1093-1098), recalls the mystery of Christ (CCC 1099-1103), makes present the mystery of Christ (CCC 1104-1107) and brings about that communion which is an anticipation of the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity (CCC 1107-1109). In fact, the most intimate cooperation, or synergy, of the Holy Spirit and the Church is achieved in the Liturgy (CCC 1108). Without insistent reference to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Eucharist might easily come to be imagined as a recreation of the Last Supper, a sort of memorial tableau, rather than a re-presentation in unbloody, symbolic forms of the sacrifice of Calvary.
In the Magisterium of the Church -- in particular in Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- the liturgical subject is clearly delineated from a theological point of view, and the question of participation at its most profound theological level is wonderfully illustrated. Much remains to be done to communicate this teaching more effectively and to internalize it, but the teaching itself is clear.
What is less clear is its philosophical underpinnings. Under this rubric we will consider the nature of the human person who celebrates the Liturgy.
The subject of the Liturgy considered from a philosophical point of view
A. Who is the personal subject of the Liturgy?
The human person as the subject of the Liturgy can be considered philosophically from three points of view. First, Sacrosanctum Concilium refers to the individual subject of the Liturgy simply as homo. It is clear that the text is referring to man as such, in a generic sense. The fields of study here are the philosophy of man and epistemology. The questions are: what is the nature of the human person and how does he know? These are areas which the Council did not have explicitly on its agenda.
Secondly, Sacrosanctum Concilium also uses the term fidelis [faithful], or man as a Christian believer. The discipline here is theological anthropology; the conciliar constitution, Gaudium et Spes, took some first steps but their use of terms such as "modern man" and "the modern world" lack a clearly defined framework for their interpretation, a lack that has had unfortunate effect for the development of liturgical forms in the postmodern mass culture (See Tracey Rowland, Culture and the Thomist Tradition after Vatican II, pp. 18-21, 168). In this situation the question becomes more specific: how does the believer know divine realities?
Thirdly, anthropologists have coined the phrase homo liturgicus, since we are dealing with man as he lives and acts in a liturgical context. This is a new category of philosophical investigation, unknown to the Council Fathers, where the waters are not yet completely charted. The philosophical question now is: how does man, who believes, know divine realities as communicated in the Liturgy?6
These questions point to vast and complex fields of study, the investigation of which is urgently needed in order to be in a better position to address contemporary questions of liturgical reform. We can do no more than give a brief historical sketch here of some of the main themes in these areas of philosophical anthropology and note the questions they raise.
1. Pauline anthropology
Saint Paul's letters reveal a sophisticated anthropology, although difficult to put into a system. He speaks of the various constitutive elements of the human person as soma (body), sarx (flesh), psyche (soul), pneuma (spirit), nous (mind), and kardia (heart). How does the Christian, considered under these polyvalent aspects, know the world around him? How does he grasp the things of God?
2. Patristic anthropology
In patristic ascetical theology, one frequently finds a description of the soul as tri-partite: the logikon or rational part, the thumikon or irascible part, and the epithumikon or concupiscible part. How does man, understood in this way, respond to the exterior world? How does he apprehend reality, if not by means of reason, emotion and sense perception? Here is a classic synthesis that will remain a constant point of reference throughout the centuries.
3. Thomistic anthropology
When Saint Thomas asks the question of the specific powers of the soul (I, q.78, a.1), he takes the triple distinction of the tradition (the soul described as rational, sensitive and vegetative) and develops it with extraordinary subtlety and insight. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying, we can say that the vegetative part includes nutritive, augmentative and generative elements; the sensitive part includes the five exterior senses as well as five interior senses (common sense, fantasy, imagination, and the estimative and memorative senses); and the intellectual part includes such aspects as memory, understanding, and will.
It would be worthwhile for his tightly ordered reasoning to be unpacked and explained for the sake of the non-specialist, for here is a very sophisticated analysis of how man knows, how he perceives both interior realities and the exterior world in which he lives. This kind of philosophical reasoning could be very helpful in trying to understand how homo liturgicus perceives natural and supernatural realities.7
4. Enlightenment anthropology
In terms of epistemology, the Enlightenment rationalist position affirms that reason alone is the source of knowledge and the ultimate test of truth. Revelation as a specific source of knowledge is denied. Human powers other than reason, such as sense perception, imagination and intuition are downplayed. While positive elements of rationalist thought can be seen in a rejection of prejudice, ignorance and superstition, the logical consequences of the rationalist position sooner or later lead to the profound secularization experienced in the western world today.
A moderate Enlightenment position would grant worship some role in human life, since religion has as its purpose, according to this point of view, the inculcation of moral virtue. Thus religious instruction, not the worship of God, was seen as the central point of church services. The Liturgy thus risks being reduced to a pedagogical aid.
There are studies today in German8 and English9 which argue that the roots of the 20th-century liturgical movement, and hence of the post-conciliar liturgical reforms as well, lie in the Enlightenment, with all the attendant positive and negative consequences. These studies merit serious attention.
For our purposes, the question here is how man, understood in this rationalistic sense, interacts with the world and understands supernatural realities.
5. Romantic anthropology
It is not surprising that the extraordinary force of Enlightenment thought would provoke an equal and opposite reaction. The Romantic response was to emphasize all those things that rationalism denied: sense experience, imagination, intuition, sentiment. This experiential emphasis became the hallmark of a new movement in art and literature. In the life of the Church, the positive aspects of this movement were a rediscovery of the Medieval period, a new God-centeredness, and a high theology of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. Romanticism is not without its negative consequences, however, such as piety without dogma, subjectivism, an exaggerated emphasis on feeling, and a kind of deification of "cosmic nature". How does man know? The romantic answer might be: He feels.
6. Contemporary period
The contemporary period seems to be heir to this dichotomy between the Enlightenment and Romantic movements. The dominant view is still a rationalist one, but the vigor of the romantic reaction is striking. It is ironic that the Holy Father, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, would have to defend reason itself in the face of a massive movement of popular culture toward New Age spiritualism. In the area of the Liturgy, this same dichotomy finds expression in a multitude of ways. The reality is a complex one, different in different places, but liturgical polarization between a rationalist and a romantic position is common, and few people have the tools necessary to move beyond the present impasse.10
A curious concept which seems to be in the air we breathe, an idea born of evolutionary theories and the experience of scientific progress in the 19th and 20th centuries, is that man is always progressing, getting better and better. The myth of human progress replaces salvation history. It is said that modern man is more advanced than in ages past, and therefore cannot be understood according to categories of earlier times. While it is true that technological changes have revolutionized the way we live, how true is it that the nature of man has changed?
Sacrosanctum Concilium can give the impression of ambiguity in this regard, referring frequently to the need to adapt liturgical structures and forms to the needs of our time (SC 1), to contemporary needs and circumstances (SC 4). It is also necessary to explore the question of how man needs to adapt to the demands of the Liturgy, as well as how Liturgy adapts to the demands of modern man.
B. How does the personal subject participate in the Liturgy?
Given the polyvalent reality which is man, and the difficulties of formulating how the individual subject knows, it is with some caution that we approach the topic philosophically of how the human person participates in the Liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium appears to set up a dual approach. First of all, the Christian people must understand, then they will be able to participate.
Words most frequently used for understanding are intellegere and percipere. To foster this understanding, there is a heavy emphasis on catechesis and instruction (cf. SC 35/3). Our understanding of the Liturgy should be readily accessible or easy (facile) (cf. SC 21, 50, 59, 79, etc.). If we apply the tri-partite anthropology discussed earlier, it seems that the conciliar text is emphasizing a rational understanding of ritus et preces. The aspect of intuition and imagination is not discussed, nor the apprehension of reality by sense experience. In all fairness it should be said that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not pretend to give an exhaustive treatment of liturgical epistemology, nor could the Council Fathers have possibly imagined the pastoral situations that would arise in subsequent years which would require a more nuanced and sophisticated treatment of this topic.
By understanding the Liturgy more easily, so the reasoning goes, the Christian believer is better able to participate in it. While the conciliar text mentions interior as well as exterior participation (SC 19), and states that sacred silence is also a form of participation (SC 30), the emphasis is on verbal response and physical gesture (SC 30), and in fact, the post-conciliar experience is one of an extremely verbal Liturgy with much activity going on. The more profound understanding of participation, not in the external, visible sense, but in the sacramental, internal and invisible dimension11 is not elaborated by Sacrosanctum Concilium.
What is needed, therefore, is a more unified vision of man and a more profound understanding of liturgical participation. The human person understands the Liturgy by means of reason, without a doubt. The best and brightest intellect has ample material for reflection in the rich complex of truths which the Liturgy expresses. At the same time, the human person experiences the Liturgy through emotion and feeling, through an aesthetic appreciation of beauty, through the intuitive making of connections, through associations which take place on the subliminal level. This kind of human knowing should not be undervalued. And finally, man experiences the Liturgy through the five senses, which is the human foundation of the sacramental system. This sensory experience has the capacity to open up spiritual realities, as the famous text of Tertullian says:
The body is washed so that the soul may be freed from its stains; the body is anointed, so that the soul too may be consecrated; the body is signed, so that the soul too may be strengthened.12
In addition to a renewed philosophical investigation of the nature of man and how he participates in the Liturgy, a third field of study which is extremely important is that of cultural anthropology.
The subject of the Liturgy from the point of view of cultural anthropology
A. Who is the subject of the Liturgy?
The cultural anthropologist examines not only the individual subject, but also the communal subject of the Liturgy, that is, the ritual assembly. In the Liturgy the celebrating community is usually a heterogeneous gathering of people: old and young, rich and poor, "male and female, slave and free, Jew and Gentile" (as Saint Paul would say), from every level of society, gathered together not because of some common human element, but because God, who transcends every human category, calls them together. For such an unlikely combination of people to act together as one, something extraordinary must take place. From the theological point of view, what happens is the synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church which we spoke about earlier. From an anthropological and sociological point of view, what happens is a specific kind of ritual behavior.
B. How does that subject participate in the Liturgy?
The ritual assembly participates in the Liturgy according to a complex set of rules and roles. The activity is ceremonious, formal, repetitive. What happens this Sunday is the same as what happened last Sunday, for authentic ritual functions according to disciplined patterns of habit and continuity. This kind of participation avoids spontaneity and on-the-spot adaptation in favor of the predictable and the familiar. The vehicle of expression includes words, but relies more heavily on symbols and symbolic actions. The more profound symbols have many levels of meaning, are "opaque" in that sense, are not susceptible to superficial and easy understanding. Symbols are always self-involving, objective in a way that incorporates the subjective. The qualities of beauty and holiness are communicated by signs which are the product of the highest cultural achievement. Immersion in the ritual action takes the participants out of themselves and transforms them.
On the other hand, numerous and rapid changes in ritual forms can produce estrangement and anomie; an experience reported by many of the faithful in the post-conciliar years.
In recent decades, ritual activity has been the object of study by the relatively new discipline of social anthropology. This discipline began to come into its own a decade or so after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and thus the valuable insights of social anthropology simply were not available at the time of the drafting of the conciliar text and the formulation of the liturgical reforms, although we can see perhaps an oblique reference in the assertion that liturgical change must respect the general laws of the structure and mens of the Liturgy (SC 23).
Aidan Nichols observes: "The postconciliar Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia was wound up in 1975 through absorption into the Congregation for Divine Worship, that year coinciding more or less with a real turning point in the anthropology of religion as new schools of thought began to emphasize meaning, not explanation, the non-rational as well as the rational, and ritual's transformative power: all of which led to a new respect for the formal, ceremonious ordering of rite"13.
From the point of view of social anthropology, it is not self-evident that simplicity in ritual form is more effective than complexity. It is not clear that a sign which is immediately intelligible will be more effective than a multi-faceted symbol which reveals its meaning only over time. In short, simplifying ritual action will not necessarily bring about the greater understanding and more active participation desired by the Council.14
Further work in the area of social anthropology, then, could provide insight into the many open questions concerning liturgical participation.
Conclusion
We must hope that forty years of experience since the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium will lead us from a kind of naïve innocence to a wisdom shaped by pastoral shrewdness. The difference between the two, of course, is the knowledge of good and evil. Experience teaches us that in this area, which is so vital to the Church's life, an interdisciplinary approach can bear much fruit. While much work has been done in the area of liturgical theology, not enough has been done in the fields of philosophy, epistemology and cultural anthropology. In addition to wise pastoral action in liturgical matters, what is also necessary is renewed theoretical study, serious and in-depth, of these open questions which I have tried to delineate. This has to be part of a critical re-reading of the Constitutions and other documents of Vatican II in light of such development in understanding and of the experience of the past forty years. Thank you.
***
Notes:
1 Tena Garriga, Pere. "La sacra liturgia fonte e culmine della vita ecclesiale" in: Il Concilio Vaticano II: Recezione e attualità alla luce del Giubileo, Roma 2000, 46-65.
2 Angelo Sodano. "For the celebration of Italian National Liturgy Week" in: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition 39 (September 24, 2003) 4.
3 Father Jeremy Driscoll throws light on this with his comment that the Christian taking part in the Liturgy is "a person who can participate in the community of Divine Persons", indeed who is "created for this in the image of the Divine Persons" (Jeremy Driscoll, "Liturgy and Fundamental Theology", in Ecclesia Orans, Anno XI, 1994/1, p. 79).
4 Contrary to popular, and sometimes academic, misconceptions, active participation in the Liturgy is not first of all saying, reading or taking part in rites. It is primarily, essentially and indispensably the devotion of mind, heart and will elicited and brought into vital contact with Christ through the rites. The Latin word "devotio" signifies consecration to God (O. Casel, The Mystery of Christian Worship, p. 36). For the Liturgy to be fruitful in a person's life there has to be a subjective dimension; those taking part must cooperate with and accept inwardly the act of Jesus the Priest by their devotion (cf. Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 28, 29; CCC 2563).
5 Jean Corbon, The Wellspring of Worship, New York 1988.
6 The implications of this question, though not as yet fully taken account of by many liturgists, have begun to be spelled out by anthropologists such as Victor Turner who writes, "If ritual is not to be merely a reflection of secular social life, if its function is partly to protect and partly to express truths which make men free from the exigencies of their status-incumbencies, free to contemplate and pray as well as to speculate and invent, then its repertoire of liturgical actions should not be limited to a direct reflection of the contemporary scene" (Victor Turner, "Passages, Margins and Poverty: Symbols of Communitas" in Worship 46, [1972] p. 391). Traditional Liturgy, precisely because of its archaic quality, has power to modify and even reverse the assumptions made in secular living; the archaic is not the obsolete".
7 See Jeremy Driscoll, "Deepening the Theological Dimensions of Liturgical Studies", in Communio 23, Fall 1996, pp. 513-4. This article shows how pre-rational instincts and rhythms make possible an expression of God's Word in human words.
8 Waldemar Trapp. Vorgeschichte und Ursprung der liturgischen Bewegung: vorwiegend in Hinsicht auf das deutsche Sprachgebiet, Regensburg 1940.
9 Aidan Nichols. Looking at the Liturgy: A Critical View of its Contemporary Form, San Francisco 1996.
10 A noteworthy exception to this is the paper delivered by Stratford Caldecott at the Fontgombault Liturgical Conference in July 2001, entitled: "Liturgy and Trinity: Towards an Anthropology of the Liturgy" in: Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger, Farnborough 2003, pp. 36-48.
11 Cf. the masterful analysis of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem's theology of sacramental participation by Enrico Mazza, Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age, New York 1989, pp. 150-164.
12 Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione 8.
13 Nichols, Looking at the Liturgy, 57.
14 Further and well-documented evidence for this is given by Dr. Tracey Rowland (Culture and the Thomistic Tradition, pp. 27-29, 168, n. 69 on p. 175) where she outlines the dilemma created when, in the wake of Vatican II, and because of some assumptions of the architects of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the forms of the Liturgy come to be dominated by the postmodern mass culture.



The Anglican bishop and scholar N. T. Wright has said that God created the universe as a temple where he dwells, expressing his Presence through his Image which is human beings.   It was never meant for heaven and earth to be separated, this coming about through the Fall.    We have listened to him telling us how God's kingdom has been established through Christ's death.   We have heard Bishop Kallistos Ware who agrees with Cardinal Newman that we are not saved once and for all in this life, but that we are "in the way of salvation".   Bishop Kallistos then tells us that the union between heaven and earth is accomplished in the Christian life in general and especially in the Eucharist where the angels and saints in heaven and we on earth share in the Liturgy of heaven.

Just as the Incarnation of Christ was completely functional during Christ's earthly life but did not reach its full potential until the Resurrection, so the unity of heaven and earth have been accomplished in essentials, being effectual both in the Church's celebration and within the hearts of Christians, but it is yet to reach its full potential at the Second Coming.   God, and heaven too, is present at every moment of our earthly life, but it is yet to transform the universe  as we know it.  Meanwhile, we see Christ in every circumstance of our lives and acknowledge him as King. 

HOMILY FOR CHRIST THE KING

$
0
0


Christ the King                                                                     Oxford, 24th November 2013
Homily by Dom Alex Echeandía

“This is the king of the Jews”
As we come to this final Sunday of the Church’s year, the Church herself gives us the vision of Christ as King of the Universe. 
Let us start by asking what kind of king Christ is and how he exercises his power. “The King of the Jews”, as it was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and proclaimed to the world at the crucifixion, was the title given by Pilate to Jesus after his discussion with him. Jesus admits that he is a king in reply to Pilate’s question: Yes, I am a king, and he continues:  I was born for this: to bear witness to the truth, and all who are on the side of the truth listen to my word. However, people did not listen to Jesus and refused this truth because they were expecting a different kingship. This is reflected in what the priests said, “We have no king but Cesar.” So, this authoritative public figure of kingship, the Messiah announced by the prophets, was conceived as highly worthy of the highest dignity.
The first reading not surprisingly talks about a king coming from the house of Israel. Here the people see David as leader, shepherd and king, the role given him by God. They identify with him when they say, “Look, we are your own flesh and blood.” Is this figure of kingship the same as that of the One hanging on the cross? 
The problem lies in that Jesus seems powerless. The prophet Isaiah foretold that the events of the passion would leave him no dignity at all. He was dressed as a king in royal purple, but only to show mockery; he was crowned with thorns rather than gold and jewels; instead of a triumphant procession, he carried a cross; and instead of sitting on a throne, he was hung and nailed to that cross and people looked upon him from afar.
It is at this point that he manifests the fullness of his new kingship as shepherd, leader and king, and it is far greater than David’s. In one of his sermons, St Augustine contrasts the attitude of hopelessness among Jesus’ disciples after the crucifixion with the Good Thief's eagerness to learn to hope in Christ. Augustine says that the disciples had forgotten their Master whereas the Good Thief had found his. He says, “That cross was a classroom; that is where the Teacher taught the thief; the cross he was hanging on became the chair from which he taught.” So the cross becomes a throne for the king, teacher and shepherd of his people.  
What we see in the cross is a man mocked as king. The posing of a worldly kingship is mocked, but as the Crucified, Jesus reigns from the cross and reveals his self-giving love to the last drop of his blood. It is the crucified Lord, the worthy Lamb slain of the Apocalypse, who receives power, strength, honour and glory from God. The Firstborn of all creation set us free from slavery to sin and has the power to draw all mankind to Himself and to his kingdom. 
With a king comes a kingdom, because Christ the King cannot be inseparable from the Kingdom of God. This kingdom is not of this world, he tells Pilate, and now, from the cross, he tells the thief that he will be with him in paradise. The King, Shepherd and Master leads his people, leads us all, not to a new political period or a new age of earthly riches and prosperity, but to a kingdom of light, truth and love, where things are restored through the King of the Universe. He is the True King, as St Paul tells us in the second reading, not only because he is the first-born of all creation, but because he is the first-born of the re-creation as well. He rose from the dead, making everything new. A divine and human reality has begun for us through Christ’s death on the cross. 
By acknowledging the Crucified Lord, by whom we were created and re-created, may God bring us the fruits of this reconciliation throughout the new liturgical year and enable us to share in his kingship, that began at our baptism, to serve our God and Father. On our part, let us allow the King of the Universe make us new here and now through his Body and Blood, shared at this Eucharist.

JOHN PAUL II AND THE NEW HESYCHASTS by Ric. Ballard

$
0
0

     Understanding the great need for spiritual renewal, Blessed John Paul the Great called the Church once to reconnect with the mystical traditions. In doing so, he encouraged reading the teachings of saints associated with the western contemplative traditions. The holy father even said that those who would bring spiritual renewal in our churches would be contemplatives(the New Evangelists). There has been a strong response to his call in the Catholic Church over time. In fact, the resources to tap into the western contemplative teachings since then almost seem endless. However, its important as Byzantines that we respond to this call by also looking at our own mystical traditions. We have a rich tradition called Hesychasm and it has much to offer to the spiritual renewal of our churches.

     In its traditional understanding Hesychasm is defined as the pursuit of stillness(hesychia) in Jesus Christ. It's also commonly known to be a tradition that has flourished in the context of Byzantine monastic communities. Basically, Hesychasm is a way for the (whole) person to experience God by achieving stillness (hesychia). In the teachings associated with Hesychasm, such as in the Philokalia, there are different systems that incorporate mental as well as physical activity. These systems help to purify a person, making them able to achieve 'stillness' and experience God continually. For example, in the most common practice associated with Hesychasm, the Jesus Prayer, the body as well as mind are engaged in the work of purification. The purification takes place in the body through recitation and in the mind by its focus on God. Its in hope that through these continual actions the (whole) person will grow in their experience of God.

     The activities used for purification in the tradition of Hesychasm are very diverse. You will find different fathers speaking about different activities to use in prayer and in daily life. However, even though there is diversity its important to understand the activities as synergistic, and not just as mere methods. Every action in purification, physical or mental, has a dual character. On one end its your own effort, but, on the other it is the work of God. This goes to demonstrate that we are the temples of the Holy Spirit(1 Corinthians 3:9), since in a temple there are always two at work, both God and man. This is a vital distinction to have because many times the actions Hesychasts employ are equated to practices in non-Christian religions or even therapeutic techniques. The difference rests in the fact that by working with the Holy Spirit we can give divinizing power and meaning to any action.

     In contrast to what can be found in the western contemplative traditions there are a few things worth noting. The activities used to prepare one for encountering God are not always of the same nature. In fact, in the west discursive techniques are often abandoned ,such as meditation, when a state of contemplation is achieved. The activities used are even often referred to as "the work" to get to the state. In Hesychasm the activates used in the traditions do not have the form of preparing a person for a state. As I said they are synergistic and remain a normal part of a lifestyle of ongoing purification and encounter. On the other hand, what the two traditions do have in common are moments of immersion in God where our activities do cease. It's in these moments that St. Seraphim of Sarov once said that we "cease to pray" and enjoy the presence of God.

     There will always be moments in the life of prayer in any tradition when God chooses to bless us as St. Seraphim described. However, these moments are not the goal in Hesychasm. The goal is to grow daily in experiencing who God is by becoming what He is through grace. The ongoing purification practiced by the Hesychast allows for a more and more richer experience of divinity in every aspect of what we are. For example, when my mind looks to Christ it is becoming Christ and when I do many prostrations my body is becoming Christ. In essence, Hesychasm is a very special way to live out our Byzantine tradition of Theosis. In fact, Hesychasm itself was birthed overtime from Byzantine spirituality and remains our most developed spiritual tradition.
     In his vision Blessed John Paul the Great saw the renewal of our Church coming from modern contemplatives. In translating this vision into our Byzantine tradition we can say that the renewal of our churches will have their foundation in the New Hesychasts. The New Hesychast unlike the old must be a person who can learn to incorporate this spirituality into all modern circumstances. This can only happen if we learn to take the teachings of Hesychasm, such as in the Philokalia, beyond the walls of the monastery and into ordinary life. It was never to be a tradition for specialized monastic and needs to be rediscovered and renewed in order to fuel the spiritual renewal that we all wish to see.
     Just like the western contemplative tradition, that Blessed John Paul the Great spoke of, Hesychasm can be a vital resource for renewal. Also, Hesychasm can be very simple. You can even be someone who works in front of a computer all day, stay at home parent, or even a garbage man. All you have to do is ask God to purify you through the action. It then becomes synergistic. You are exercising hope doing your best in the task (seeking hesychia) and He is making a way for you to become what HE is. This is no different than when we stand for long hours in prayer except in that there is a different level of intensity or intimacy. There is no part of the day that cannot lead us to encounter God! When St. Athanasius wrote "God became man so that men might become gods" he did not add "only on Sundays" or "clergy only". This was a saying for all people, of all times, and every moment. Through the practice of Hesychasm we can become what God is and be the vessels of renewal our churches desperately need.

(Note: for those who don't understand the Byzantine tradition on divinization. Man does not become another person of the Trinity. He participates in what God is making him a god by grace and never by nature. We are not born eternal beings but become so by participation in what God is. As it says in 2peter 1:4 "you may become partakers of the divine nature")

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MICHAEL VORIS? - 1 "A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST".

$
0
0
A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITHCHRIST

Michael Voris makes me feel very uneasy, and I want to explore why.    I believe the same dogmas of the same Church as Michael Voris, just as much as he does, but our Catholicism could not be more different.  

 The impression I get from his videos is that people have to accept his brand of Catholicism and his "cowboys and Indians" approach to theology or be accused of being caught up in "lies and falsehoods". Everything is black and white, and there are no greys.  Not only do we have to agree with the Pope, but we need to accept his version of what the Pope says in the context in which he quotes him.   He applies to the Pope his own pre-suppositions which often disort the Pope's meaning.   All other interpretations of our Faith  he views with nothing but contempt: it is Catholicism looked at through the eyes of a sectarian.   

I could have chosen many of his videos to prove my point  but have decided to concentrate on just two, the first on a "personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ", or a "relationship with Jesus", which is an absolutely central theme; at least, it is to me. 
.
Before criticising what he says, let us look at what he doesn't say.   What have Popes John Paul II, Pope Benedict II, and the present Pope Francis said about the Charismatic Movement?   He requires us to agree with the popes, but, when talking about "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" which is part of the normal vocabulary of the Charismatic Renewal, no mention is made of the fact that all three popes have expressed agreement on the value of that movement.  It is as though the Charismatic Renewal does not exist. Pope Francis only said recently that the Charismatic Renewal is God's gift to the Church, along with many others as well, of course.

Then there is ecumenism, something of great importance to all three popes, as well as the Vatican Council.   He quotes Pope Francis that we cannot have Jesus without the Catholic Church; but this must be seen in the light of the strong relationship he had with evangelicals in Buenos Aires and his clear commitment to ecumenism as pope, especially with the Orthodox.   When ecumenism is ignored, then these statements from the pope about the necessity of the Church are simply misunderstood.  

 Pope Francis was actually prayed over by Evangelicals at his request before leaving Buenos Aires to be elected pope, certainly the first pope-to-be ever to do this.


One incident in the World Youth Day in Rio that did not get into the papers was told me by some Dominican Sisters who were there.   The Pope was going from one WYD activity to another, and they happened to pass an Evangelical chapel that was in full swing.   He stopped the car and entered.   They must have been surprised to see the Pope enter the chapel.   He spoke a few words to the congregation and asked them to pray for him and then left to continue his journey.  At least, that is what two American Dominican Sisters of St Cecilia told me, as they travelled back to America via Peru.

 Here is a short article from First Things on the relation between Pope Francis and Evangelicals - there are other similar articles by both Catholics and Protestants.

Luis Palau, an Argentine-born evangelist who has in many ways taken up the mantle of Billy Graham, speaks of his friendship with Pope Francis:
One day I said to him, ‘You seem to love the Bible a lot,’ and he said, ‘You know, my financial manager [for the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires] … is an evangelical Christian.’ I said, ‘Why would that be?’ And he said, ‘Well, I can trust him, and we spend hours reading the Bible and praying and drinking maté [an Argentine green tea].’ People do that with their friends, share and pass the mate, and every day when he was in town, which was often, after lunch he and his financial manager would sit together, read the Bible, pray, and drink maté. To me, he was making a point [about his relationship with evangelicals] by telling me that: trust and friendship.
Palau predicts that Pope Francis’ facility with Evangelical-style spontaneous prayer will shape his papacy:

You know he knew God the father personally. The way he prayed, the way he talked to the Lord, was of a man who knows Jesus Christ and was very spiritually intimate with the Lord. It’s not an effort [for him] to pray. He didn’t do reading prayers; he just prayed to the Lord spontaneously. It is a sign that good things will happen worldwide in the years of his papal work.
Francis’ spontaneity—already on display in the first days of his papacy—resonates with Evangelical Protestants but is in its way deeply Catholic. As R.R. Reno observed on Francis’ election, Jesuits “break the rules,” which helps explain why Francis “took the name of the most severe critic of the papacy before Martin Luther [and] bowed to receive the crowd’s blessing.” Protestants see one of their own in the new pope, which might prompt a Catholic to say that much of what we see as Protestant can be found more fully realized and rightly oriented in the heart of the Church.
 Such a statement as that quoted by Michael Voris that it is impossible to have Jesus Christ without the Catholic Church can be interpreted in two ways.   It can be interpreted exclusively, that only in the Catholic Church as an institution is there grace, and outside there is none.   This view was condemned by Pope Pius XII when he excommunicated Fr Feeney, a Jesuit, for saying exactly that.   The other is Catholic teaching, the one held by Pius XII and Vatican II, and is inclusive.   It is that anyone who has a relationship with Christ is also related to the Church, even if he does not realise this, even if he can't stand the Catholic Church, because the Church is Christ's body inseparable from its head. Hence, we are all brothers and sisters and already belong to one another, whether we like it or not: it is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours.   Pope Francis treats Protestants as brothers and sisters in this way, and he finds it natural to ask them to pray for him as he prays for them.

  Because Michael Voris does not make this distinction, his statement is - to use his own vocabulary -  ambiguous and murky.   We are now ready to comment directly on this video.

He says that we must treat the phrase "a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" with much caution because, in it, there is more emphasis on the human being than on Jesus Christ.

This is not the case if the "personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" is genuine, authentic.  I am sure that Michael Voris will recognise that a person talking of this relationship with Jesus can do so authentically.  It is of the very nature of a relationship with Christ that we put Christ first, so that "Christ lives in me".   It is also true that great emphasis on Christian Joy can be authentic too: there was joy in the eyes of the Roman martyrs as they went to their deaths.   There was a wild, "happy clappy" joy at the beginning of Sunday Mass as the congregation greeted the entrance of St Basil and St Augustine in the time of the Fathers, so much so that they had difficulty starting!   Joy is the theme of the first apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium.




 That both the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" and the emphasis on Christian joy are used authentically has been recognised by Pope Francis and his two predecessors in their approval of the Charismatic Renewal and the World Youth Day, both of which are characterised by expressions of joy.

However, I must admit that there is a relationship with Christ that is too egocentric to be real; and there is a joy that is a mere reaction to being immersed in a crowd, with sentimental music, preachers with great acting skills, a holy atmosphere etc, conversions that don't last; but there are real, stable conversions too, even in evangelical mega-churches.

   Once is is admitted that there are people with a profound Christian joy that arises from a genuine relationship with Christ, whether they be Catholics, Orthodox or Protestant, who is Michael Voris to judge?   In fact, the Desert Fathers were very much afraid of the sin of judging others.   They knew that, in our way to sanctity, each level of Christian life has its own typical sin.   The same God, they said, who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not judge."  We do not have the authority to judge others , but it is the typical sin of those who are seeking holiness without yet loving God  with everything they have and are, and without yet loving their neighbour as Christ loves him, and that means us.   They taught that it is one of the easiest sins to commit, but that it can render our own Christianity inauthentic.   So, watch out, Michael Voris!

Another question I would like to put to Michael Voris is, why pick on those who speak of a personal relationship with Christ for criticism?   What can be said of evangelical campaigns can also be said of Lourdes - though, for me, I love the authenticity of Lourdes; but that does not mean I believe in every pilgrim who goes there; and people can be moved in a superficial way on pilgrimage.  Moreover, conservative, traditionalist Catholics can also live inauthentic Christian lives. We all can!

  It is quite usual for someone who begins his spiritual life with a superficial imitation of other people; but, when the moment of grace arrives, becomes authentic.   It is true, in fact, that all of us are inauthentic to the degree we are not yet saints.  We move from inauthentic to authentic as we grow in holiness, as do "faithful Catholics".   We are not in a position to say we are not like other people: we are, but know God loves us!   That is the only thing we can be sure of, but it is Good News indeed.

In the light of all this, people who talk of "we traditional Catholics" as though they are a cut above the rest are, at best, simply immature and, at worst, pharisees.   When our religion is not shot through with humble love, the fruit of prayer, it becomes, as Pope Francis has said, a mere ideology. St Gregory of Nyssa puts it more strongly, "Orthodoxy without charity is the religion of the devil."  Think about it: the devil KNOWS the whole Catholic faith, but he knows it without love.   This love embraces the whole of the human race, and is completely incompatible with contempt for whole classes and groups of people.

In my next post on "What is wrong with Michael Voris?"  we shall look at his version of Pope Francis as found in a recent video.

OUR LADY THE THEOTOKOS FROM AN EASTERN CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE by Ric Ballard

$
0
0

Salvation through Mary 

 A friend of mine of a protestant tradition asked me recently about my feelings about Mary. I did not go into great detail but, for starters, I agreed that there is often a misconception that Catholics worship her. In doing this I pointed out, however, that in the English dictionary the word worship has different meanings. Not only can it mean reverence offered to a divine being but it can also mean an extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem. Based on the meanings that this word has, I pointed out that I worship God in a unique way, as the scriptures demand, but I also worship in a differentl way my wife and other people like Mary who we Catholics believe to be very much involved in salvation. What I did not have time to go into with my friend is why we give her a special kind of worship, which I will now do from a Byzantine Catholic perspective.

 To begin, Mary or, as we of the Byzantine tradition call her, the Theotokos [gr.birth giver of God] is like all of us,  a person who needs to be saved. The thing is that with salvation we all experience it in different ways. There are even times when people who after living a life of evil find Jesus Christ in the last five minutes of their life. They obviously did nothing to earn salvation but through their human freedom accept the gift in their final moments. In addition, there are also times when God, for sake of all humanity, gives people the chance to experience salvation in unique ways.

 Just looking through the Old Testament we find people like Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and the Jewish people who were given this opportunity. Just how they experienced salvation is a mystery but their experience of it was something that generated results. For example, we read that holy men like the prophet Elijah were taken up into heaven, which was something that is often hard to understand before the coming of Christ (2kings 2:11). It is important to point out that at no point did the special people of the Old Testament lose their human freedom. Nor did they find themselves outside of the realm of the fallen condition when offered the experience of salvation. In fact, we do read in many places where the gift that God presented to them was rejected. Never the less, even in the experience of rejection, God continued to work with humanity (Rom. 11:29). From the perspective of God's saving humanity you could say that it was essential that the chosen people responded to God when they did. The need for this response to some degree is best expressed in the prophecies concerning St. John the Baptist and Forerunner of the Lord. The scriptures specifically say that he would “prepare the way” for Christ (Malachi 3:1).Consequently, it is possible to think that the Lord’s coming into the world would not take place apart from the contributions of not only St. John but also all those that came before him. This is especially true of the Lord’s mother who could be said to be the recipient of all the contributions of those that came before her. In fact, an early Church father named St. John of Damascus referred to the Theotokos as the one who “contains all the history” of God working salvation in the world before Christ (On the Orthodox Faith, 3:12). 

 So far we can begin to see why the Theotokos is a special person for Catholics. In her we find that God had been bringing humanity along in order that human nature might be ready to receive all of what God is in the Incarnation. This is where my protestant friend might have trouble because in being able to receive all of what God is we hold that the Theotokos was pure of sin. This is based on the fact that she received a gift that allowed her to enter into such a state, which has its foundation in the holiness of those that came before her. This does not mean that she did not need to be saved but like those that came before her she was given a unique privilege that would lead to the salvation of all. In her case her gift allowed for her to achieve purity to the extent of what was humanly possible before Christ. This is another reason why we hold her is such high regard because through great struggles the Theotokos continued to say yes to God. Out of every human being born to this world it was only in the Theotokos that God became man. Never finding herself outside of the need to be saved we find that she participated in salvation in a special way. When it comes to the gift of her purity I think it’s important to realize that it cannot compare to the purity that we now experience in Christ. Her purity was essential but alone it was not enough to bring about the salvation of the human race. It is only through Christ that we see the power of sin ultimately defeated. Just like us the Theotokos had to say yes to not only the gift that made salvation possible but also to the gift that would allow her to become a partaker of the divine nature(2 Peter 1:4). In the end like us she needed to be saved even though she helped through her gift of herself for all to be saved.

 On the other hand, unlike us she was the first to participate in the fullness of the experience of salvation. Based on her life, and who she is now, she is for us Catholics the one truly worthy of all human veneration.

THE SEASON OF ADVENT

$
0
0


the Introit for the 1st Sunday ofAdvent
with music, translation & commentary

THE SEASON OF PREPARATION (BUT FOR WHAT?)  (Orthodox)
 First Sunday of Advent
For us Catholics, the new Liturgical Year commences with the first Sunday of Advent. In this new liturgical year, the Church not only wishes to indicate the beginning of a period, but the beginning of a renewed commitment to the faith by all those who follow Christ, the Lord. This time of prayer and path of penance that is so powerful, rich and intense, endeavors to give us a renewed impetus to truly welcome the message of the One who was incarnated for us. In fact, the entire Liturgy of the Advent Season, will spur us to an awakening in our Christian life and will put us in a ‘vigilant’ disposition, to wait for Our Lord Jesus who is coming:

‘Awaken! Remember that God comes! Not yesterday, not tomorrow, but today, now! The one true God, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", is not a God who is there in Heaven, unconcerned with us and our history, but he is the-God-who-comes.’1

The Season of Advent is therefore a season of vigilant waiting, that prepares us to welcome the mystery of the Word Incarnate, who will give the ‘Light’ to the womb of the Virgin Mary, but essentially this time prepares us not only to welcome this great event but to incarnate it in our lives. We could say that the true light enters the world through the immaculate womb of Mary but it does not stay there. On the contrary, this light flows out into our dark, obscure, sinful lives to illuminate them, so that we can become the light that illuminates the world. For this reason, let us live this time of waiting not only to celebrate a historical memory but to repeat this memory in our lives and in the service of others. To wait for the Lord who comes, means to wait and to watch so that the Word of Love enters inside us and focuses us every day of our lives.

As Blessed John Henry Newman reminded us in a homily for the Advent Season: “Advent is a time of waiting, it is a time of joy because the coming of Christ is not only a gift of grace and salvation but it is also a time of commitment because it motivates us to live the present as a time of responsibility and vigilance. This ‘vigilance’ means the necessity, the urgency of an industrious, living ‘wait’. To make all this happen, then we need to wake up, as we are warned by the apostle to the Gentiles, in today's reading to the Romans: ‘Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rm 13:11).

We must start our journey to ascend to the mountain of the Lord, to be illuminated by His Words of peace and to allow Him to indicate the path to tread. (cf. Is 2:1-5). Moreover, we must change our conduct abandoning the works of darkness and put on the ‘armor of light’ and so seek only to do God’s work and to abandon the deeds of the flesh. (cf. Rm 13:12-14). Jesus, through the story in the parable, outlines the Christian life style that must not be distracted and indifferent but must be vigilant and recognize even the smallest sign of the Lord’s coming because we don’t know the hour in which He will arrive. (cf. Mt 24:39-44)

1 Pope Benedict XVI, Celebration of First Vespers of Advent, Vatican Basilica, December 2006



BRITISH CHRISTIANITY: HISTORICAL CONTRIBUTION AND CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MICHAEL VORIS? - 2 : MICHAEL VORIS AND POPE FRANCIS

$
0
0

Let us begin with Michael Voris at his worst which shows that he is as far from the mind of Pope Francis as any Catholic could be.  He quotes, but out of context, and adds his own words to give what Pope Francis says a meaning that it does not have.   In fact, he is as bad as the secular media in misinterpreting Pope Francis; but the secular media has the excuse that it reports without faith, so misunderstanding is to be expected. What is the excuse of Michael Voris?

To begin, let me show you two videos: one of Cardinal Bergoglio celebrating a First Communion Mass in Buenos Aires in Latin American style,- I have celebrated many Masses like that and feel nostalgic watching it - and the other where he gives a short talk on the Eucharist.   In this way you can see a typical Latin American fiesta Mass and discover from the Celebrant its meaning. This shows you a real"happy clappy" Mass, with a statement from a real celebrant who happens now to be Pope: not a sweeping statement on "happy clappy" masses in general and an insulting, uncharitable, basically schismatic and unCatholic description of celebrants of "happy clappy" masses in abstract.  This can form the context for my commentary on Michael Voris's words. In these two videos you will discover that the celebrant is totally orthodox, like most of the celebrants I have met.   The crisis of a clash between "faithful Catholics" and "modernists and liberals" has been exaggerated by Voris to such an extent that he falsifies the situation, and he gets most things wrong.




  Michael Vorst begins his comments on the Mass by triumphantly quoting the Pope:


"We think: we go to the temple, we come together as brothers - that is good, it's beautiful - but the centre is where God is.   And we adore God.  More important is the adoration: the whole community unites  to see the altar where the sacrifice is celebrated and adored."

 This is an about-face from the way the Mass has been celebrated almost everywhere in the world - he says - where everything is centred on the people.   He says that coming together as brothers is all very well, but is of no importance when compared with the reasons why we really go  to Mass.   He is not criticising a few nutcases, some exceptions, a minority, but Mass as is celebrated almost everywhere in the world.   Why has this situation come about?   "Because of zillions of weak-kneed, effeminate bishops".   This is not about a few bishops, but "zillions": he is talking about the episcopal college.  He speaks like a schismatic, and not as a Catholic at all.  Actually, the Pope shows no sign of disillusion with the new Mass nor does he accept Voris's exaggerated interpretation of what takes place.

Voris says that we go to the altar and not the table, to the sacrifice, not the meal.  This is pure Michael Voris.

   Anyone who has read St Thomas Aquinas knows that the Mass is both sacrifice and meal, and that the altar is also a table.   Theologians differ in their explanation of the exact relationship between sacrifice and  meal; but, as long as neither aspect of the Eucharist is denied, they remain within Catholic Tradition.   In the Eastern tradition, the altar is called the holy table, and "altar" refers to the whole sanctuary.  

The Mass is a Mystery, and no explanation or vocabulary is adequate enough to be universal, apart from dogma which is common to all.   Thus, in Pope Francis's words, there is unity in diversity, in theologies as well as in liturgical practice.

Pope Francis does not say that the people coming together is "meaningless": he says that it is beautiful.   However he reminds us - not imposing on us from the outside: we are Catholics and hence already know, deep down, that he is right - that  coming together gains its meaning from the Mass which is orientated towards God.   "More important is the adoration: the whole community unites to see the altar where the sacrifice is celebrated and adored."

I am absolutely delighted to read these words.   During and after the Council, I had conversations with theologians and liturgists either directly involved or colleagues of theirs or professionals with inside knowledge of what was going on. When we were discussing Mass where the priest is on the other side of the altar with his face in the direction at the people, the only argument I heard in favour of that practice was that both priest and people could see the paten and the cup, everyone had a good view of the altar, and the central part was not hidden by the priest's own body and that what happens on the altar is what unites us, exactly Pope Francis's point.   When I later saw priests keeping eye contact with the people, even at the most sacred moments, I considered them to be  liturgically and theologically uneducated.   I was shocked when I read Cardinal Ratzinger who said that "Mass facing the people" was so that everyone could look at everyone else. It was the first time I had seen that view written down. I thoroughly agreed with him how absurd it is, but his version went completely against all I remembered.  

Now, at last, Pope Francis has given the main reason why, in the post-Vatican II Mass, the altar is truly central, so that everyone can see the altar "where the sacrifice is celebrated and adored."  "There is nothing to see," say opponents of the idea.  To this we can quote St Francis of Assisi who said, "Believers see and believe: non-believers just see."

In both the old Mass and in the new, priest and people are facing the altar.   THAT is in accordance with the hermeneutic of continuity.   In the old Mass, the priest is facing God, while in the new Mass people face each other, THAT is the hermeneutic of rupture: it is not only liberals who rupture.

Let us now look at the Mass, Latin American style, as celebrated by Cardinal Bergoglio.   It is of a kind that, according to Michael Voris, has become common due to "zillions of weak-kneed, effeminate bishops." 

  Two questions arise.   Does he have reason to believe that Cardinal Bergoglio was weak-kneed and effeminate?  After all, as archbishop, he was happy  to permit "happy clappy" Masses in his archdiocese, just like all the rest, and, as Pope, Francis is happy to celebrate the new Mass and shows little interest in celebrating the old.   Does that make him less Catholic than Michael Voris?  I suspect that Voris will have to reply "No" to both questions.   If that is the case, what makes Michael Voris believe that Pope Francis is the exception, or, looking at the problem the other way round, why does he believe the majority of bishops are weak-kneed and effeminate if the Pope is doing exactly the same thing?  

It would be a mistake to believe that the Latin American Mass he celebrates in the video is directed towards the people rather than God.   The aim is to include all those children in the upward movement of adoration. I know: I have celebrated them.  Latin Americans have a tradition of celebrating fiestas centred on some saint, of combining a sense of holiness with quite secular forms of celebration.  The new Mass fits well into that context.   You must not presume that what is going through the mind of the worshippers is the same as in an English or American congregation.   They have a well developed sense of the holy, in contrast to many in the West.   When I have  asked Peruvian kids in confession why they had not been to Mass, I have sometimes received the reply, "I intended to, but I had committed such-and-such a sin; and as I approached the doors of the church, I came out in goose pimples, and I just couldn't enter until I had been to confession."  They were so sinful and the Mass so holy; but it is a "happy clappy" Mass in which the people sense God's presence.    

You must remember that the Pope is also very keen on the Byzantine Liturgy which he used to serve as acolyte in his youth.   That is why he emphasises that  Catholicism is unity in diversity, where unity is brought about by the same Holy Spirit that is at work in all its parts.,

The Pope also says:
I believe - I say this humbly - that maybe we Christians have lost a little of the sense of adoration.

 I think that he realises the same thing that his predecessor did, that reform of a kind required by Vatican II is not the work of a single generation.  Pope Benedict said somewhere that a council is a charismatic occasion in which the Church's bishops work and pray in synergy with the Holy Spirit,  Then there is usually a turbulent time as the Church tries to comes to terms with the insights and make the changes that the council implies.   This is rarely easy, nor is there immediate agreement on everything.   There is usually much more in the council than a single generation can cope with.   He reflected on one of the Cappadocian Gregorys who said that having councils should be avoided as much as possible because they always bring turmoil and bring out the worst in people.   

Like Pope Benedict, Pope Francis realises that the liturgical reform we have does not yet do justice to all that Vatican II said about the liturgy.   There is more to come when the Church is ready.  Clearly there must be more emphasis on a sense of adoration. 

    Gradually, the Holy Spirit, working through Tradition, that is, through the way that the Catholic Church actually celebrates the life of Grace throughout the world and down the ages, will find solutions, and the liturgy will grow.   The process has already started, and all of us are part of it, even Michael Voris if he gets off his high horse.  

Unfortunately for Michael Voris, the "weak-kneed and effeminate bishops" have a key part to play in this work of the Holy Spirit.   However, those who are keeping alive the old Latin liturgy will certainly contribute, as will the Anglican Ordinariates,  the traditional non-Roman Latin rites, but also the neo-Catechuminate and other particular traditions; and we will also receive help from the Eastern Orthodox, and, above all, the ordinary experience of the faithful.  In spite of all  these sources, the work of the Holy Spirit will eventually bring about harmony under the successors of the Apostles who have the vocation from Christ, not from Voris, to preside at the Liturgy. St Ignatius of Antioch says, whatever we do,  we do in communion with the bishop.   As Pope Benedict said often, the Church is a communion, and that involves us working in harmony with the bishops, not an abstract episcopate, but the concrete bishops we have, with all their faults and virtues.   They are bishops by the grace of God and favour of the Apostolic See.  Therefore, whatever we do, we do in harmony with them.   We do not insult them.

In fact, I think I now know why I disagree thoroughly with Michael Voris. Have any of you read the "Letters from the Desert" by Carlo Carletto?   He was a top member of the International YCS and a young leader of Catholic Action in Italy.   Then, one day, he simply disappeared, leaving many friends and contacts wondering what had happened to him.   One moment he was there, and the next moment, he wasn't.   About five years later, he wrote "Letters from the Desert" to tell them what had happened.   He suddenly realised that God did not need him, that he did not have to try to carry the world on his shoulders, because Christ is doing that.  Christ wanted to set him free from all this hyper-activity to concentrate on "the one thing necessary".   He joined the Little Brothers of Charles de Foucauld as a novice in the Sahara, burned his address book, and concentrated on opening himself up to the Lord.  He came to recognise that, compared with "the one thing necessary", most of what he had been doing was a waste of time.

I believe that much of what Michael Voris is doing is also a waste of time.   Take the liturgy, for example.  It is the primary expression of Tradition which is the product of the synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church, and it is the highest expression of the ordinary magisterium of the Church which functions by means of the same synergy.

  In the early Church there was considerable liturgical invention, but all this invention had to go through a process where the main actor is the Holy Spirit working through his instrument, the Church. It is the same in the present Church.  Central to that process is the episcopate, but not in isolation from the rest   of the Church, but participating in the liturgy by presiding and by listening and choosing, as instruments of the Holy Spirit.   In this process Michael Voris's videos have no place.   The litugical creativity of the Church is submitted to the Holy Spirit in the actual celebration.   The Church does all this on its knees: liturgy is as much a product of the Church's prayer as an expression of it.  Unconsciously, Michael Voris has a Protestant view of the Church where he and his faithful followers, like Luther and Calvin before him, in the name of a purer form of Christianity, attack the zillions of Catholic bishops and makes sweeping judgements on the Masses they celebrate or permit to be celebrated.  He does not seem to be aware that, every time Mass is celebrated, God is more involved than man; and this is true, whatever the style of the Mass.   Hence, the solution to the problems in modern liturgy is to be found, not in the intervention of Michael Voris and his ilk, but in the constant action of the Holy Spirit on those who participate in the liturgy, especially the bishops.   Therefore, if he wants a solution to the Church's problems, let him fall on his knees and pray.   Like Carlo Carretto, he must realise that he does not bear the Church on his shoulders: Christ does, working through the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit works in and through the visible Church, using its structures including the bishops that Voris insults.  Liturgical reform does not depend on him but on Christ, working in the Church through the very act of celebrating. 

This process is called Tradition and is the very life of the Church, so that the phrase “traditional Catholic” is a tautology, like “round circle”.   Adhesion to Tradition is the very guts of what it is to be a Catholic because it is the shape that salvation has taken in us; but Tradition is a process of celebrating and passing on this synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church, between the Holy Spirit and the humble, obedient soul, from one generation to the next. The Bible is the Word of God, but, when the book is closed, the Word of God is not being transmitted.   However, as soon as it is read, it is interpreted by Catholics according to Tradition because its very reading is an act of "traditioning"; and the main deposit of wisdom gleaned from a traditional reading of the Bible is embedded in the Liturgy.

 The sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit is ecclesial charity, so that, in patristic times, being in communion with the Church and being in charity meant one and the same thing.   For St Augustine, breaking unity with the Catholic bishops was breaking away from charity and, therefore, from the Holy Spirit.  (I can’t remember exactly where he said it, but he did, with regard to the Donatists.)   I don’t know how St Augustine would have rated calling the bishops “weak-kneed” and “effeminate” and rejecting the way they preside at the liturgy in their local churches.  To hold that Pope Francis, or any other pope for that matter, would concur with such behaviour is simply absurd.

 Voris must be careful not to gate-crash this process of "traditioning" by cheap journalism,  acting like a bull in a china shop, rushing in where angels fear to tread with hob-nail boots onto holy ground, insulting the very people the Holy Spirit is using to preside over the process instead of humbly praying with  and for them, waiting on the Lord and being obedient to the Church for the love of Christ. If he chooses the latter way, he will do so with confidence : as a Catholic he knows that this process is going on, perhaps in spite of appearances, because the Church is the body of Christ. 

 Next year, the bishops of the world are going to meet in synod, and then again the year after, to discuss the family.   Meanwhile, it seems that there is going to be a complete overhaul of the way the Church is organised, with more authority going to the universal synod, regional synods and national episcopates "with and under Peter".   Thus, the insights and decisions of Vatican II are being implemented in other directions, and the way the Church is organised will be closer to  the synodal structure of  the first thousand years.

I am sure this process will have its teething problems.   Michael Voris will have to choose whether he is to be part of the solution by prayer and non-judgemental reporting or to be one of the problems by playing party politics, like a a crypto-Protestant in Catholic clothing.







Synthesis of Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation “The Joy of the Gospel”

[Vatican Information Service]

Vatican City, 26 November 2013 (VIS) - “The joy of the Gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus”; thus begins the Apostolic Exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium”, by which Pope Francis develops the theme of the proclamation of the Gospel in the contemporary world, drawn from, among other sources, the contribution of the work of the Synod held in the Vatican from 7 to 28 October 2012 on the theme “The new evangelization for the transmission of the faith”.

The text, which the Holy Father consigned to a group of thirty-six faithful following the closing Mass of the Year of Faith last Sunday is the first official document of his pontificate, since the Encyclical “Lumen fidei” was written in collaboration with his predecessor, Benedict XVI. “I wish to encourage the Christian faithful to embark upon a new chapter of evangelization marked by this joy, while pointing out new paths for the Church’s journey in years to come”, he continues. It is a heartfelt appeal to all baptized persons to bring Christ’s love to others, “permanently in a state of mission”, conquering “the great danger in today’s world”, that of an individualist “desolation and anguish”.

The Pope invites the reader to “recover the original freshness of the Gospel”, finding “new avenues” and “new paths of creativity”, without enclosing Jesus in our “dull categories”. There is a need for a “pastoral and missionary conversion, which cannot leave things as they presently are” and a “renewal” of ecclesiastical structures to enable them to become “more mission-oriented”. The Pontiff also considers “a conversion of the papacy”, to help make this ministry “more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization”. The hope that the Episcopal Conferences might contribute to “the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”, he states, “has not been fully realized”. A “sound decentralization” is necessary. In this renewal, the Church should not be afraid to re-examine “certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some of which have deep historical roots”.

A sign of God’s openness is “that our church doors should always be open” so that those who seek God “will not find a closed door”; “nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason”. The Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness”. He repeats that he prefers “a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church … concerned with being at the centre and then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures. If something should rightly disturb us … it is the fact that many of our brothers and sisters are living without … the friendship of Jesus Christ”.

The Pope indicates the “temptations which affect pastoral workers”: “individualism, a crisis of identity and a cooling of fervour”. The greatest threat of all is “the grey pragmatism of the daily life of the Church, in which all appears to proceed normally, which in reality faith is wearing down”. He warns against “defeatism”, urging Christians to be signs of hope, bringing about a “revolution of tenderness”. It is necessary to seek refuge from the “spirituality of well-being … detached from responsibility for our brothers and sisters” and to vanquish the “spiritual worldliness” that consists of “seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and well-being”. The Pope speaks of the many who “feel superior to others” because “they remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” whereby “instead of evangelizing, one analyses and classifies others” and those who have “an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact” on the needs of the people. This is “a tremendous corruption disguised as a good … God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!”.

He appeals to ecclesial communities not to fall prey to envy and jealousy: “How many wars take place within the people of God and in our different communities!”. “Whom are we going to evangelize if this is the way we act?”. He highlights the need to promote the growth of the responsibility of the laity, often kept “away from decision-making” by “an excessive clericalism”. He adds that there is a need for “still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church”, in particular “in the various settings where important decisions are made”. “Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected … cannot be lightly evaded”. The young should “exercise greater leadership”. With regard to the scarcity of vocations in many places, he emphasizes that “seminaries cannot accept candidates on the basis of any motivation whatsoever”.

With regard to the theme of enculturation, he remarks that “Christianity does not have simply one cultural expression” and that the face of the Church is “varied”. “We cannot demand that peoples of every continent, in expressing their Christian faith, imitate modes of expression which European nations developed at a particular moment of their history”. The Pope reiterates that “underlying popular piety … is an active evangelizing power” and encourages the research of theologians, reminding them however that “the Church and theology exist to evangelize” and urging them not to be “content with a desk-bound theology”.

He focuses “somewhat meticulously, on the homily”, since “many concerns have been expressed about this important ministry and we cannot simply ignore them”. The homily “should be brief and avoid taking on the semblance of a speech or a lecture”, should be a “heart-to-heart communication” and avoid “purely moralistic or doctrinaire” preaching. He highlights the importance of preparation: “a preacher who does not prepare is not ‘spiritual’; he is dishonest and irresponsible”. Preaching should always be positive in order always to “offer hope” and “does not leave us trapped in negativity”. The approach to the proclamation of the Gospel should have positive characteristics: “approachability, readiness for dialogue, patience, a warmth and welcome which is non-judgmental”.

In relation to the challenges of the contemporary world, the Pope denounces the current economic system as “unjust at its root”. “Such an economy kills” because the law of “the survival of the fittest” prevails. The current culture of the “disposable” has created “something new”: “the excluded are not the ‘exploited’ but the outcast, the ‘leftovers’”. “A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual”, of an “autonomy of the market” in which “financial speculation” and “widespread corruption” and “self-serving tax-evasion reign”. He also denounces “attacks on religious freedom” and the “new persecutions directed against Christians. … In many places the problem is more that of widespread indifference and relativism”. The family, the Pope continues, “is experiencing a profound cultural crisis”. Reiterating the indispensable contribution of marriage to society”, he underlines that “the individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favors a lifestyle which … distorts family bonds”.

He re-emphasizes “the profound connection between evangelization and human advancement” and the right of Pastors “to offer opinions on all that affects people’s lives”. “No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society”. He quotes John Paul II, who said that the Church “cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice”. “For the Church, the option for the poor is primarily a theological category” rather than a sociological one. “This is why I want a Church that is poor and for the poor. They have much to teach us”. “As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved … no solution will be found for this world’s problems”. “Politics, although often denigrated”, he affirms, “remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity”. I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by … the lives of the poor!”. He adds an admonition: “Any Church community”, if it believes it can forget about the poor, runs the risk of “breaking down”.

The Pope urges care for the weakest members of society: “the homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly who are increasingly isolated and abandoned” and migrants, for whom the Pope exhorts “a generous openness”. He speaks about the victims of trafficking and new forms of slavery: “This infamous network of crime is now well established in our cities, and many people have blood on their hands as a result of their comfortable and silent complicity”. “Doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence”. “Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity”. “The Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question … it is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life”. The Pope makes an appeal for respect for all creation: we “are called to watch over and protect the fragile world in which we live”.

With regard to the theme of peace, the Pope affirms that “a prophetic voice must be raised” against attempts at false reconciliation to “silence or appease” the poor, while others “refuse to renounce their privileges”. For the construction of a society “in peace, justice and fraternity” he indicates four principles: “Time is greater than space” means working “slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results”. “Unity prevails over conflict” means “a diversified and life-giving unity”. “Realities are more important than ideas means avoiding “reducing politics or faith to rhetoric”. “The whole is greater than the part” means bringing together “globalization and localization”.

“Evangelization also involves the path of dialogue”, the Pope continues, which opens the Church to collaboration with all political, social, religious and cultural spheres. Ecumenism is “an indispensable path to evangelization”. Mutual enrichment is important: “we can learn so much from one another!”, for example “in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of Episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality”; “dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples”; “interreligious dialogue”, which must be conducted “clear and joyful in one’s own identity”, is “a necessary condition for peace in the world” and does not obscure evangelization; in our times, “our relationship with the followers of Islam has taken on great importance”: the Pope “humbly” entreats those countries of Islamic tradition to guarantee religious freedom to Christians, also “in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries!”. “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism” he urges us to “avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”. And against the attempt to private religions in some contexts, he affirms that “the respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions”. He then repeats the importance of dialogue and alliance between believers and non-believers.

The final chapter is dedicated to “spirit-filled evangelizers”, who are those who are “fearlessly open to the working of the Holy Spirit” and who have “the courage to proclaim the newness of the Gospel with boldness (parrhesía) in every time and place, even when it meets with opposition”. These are “evangelizers who pray and work”, in the knowledge that “mission is at once a passion for Jesus and a passion for his people”: “Jesus wants us to touch human misery, to touch the suffering flesh of others”. He explains, “In our dealings with the world, we are told to give reasons for our hope, but not as an enemy who critiques and condemns”. “Only the person who feels happiness in seeking the good of others, in desiring their happiness, can be a missionary”; “if I can help at least one person to have a better life, that already justifies the offering of my life”. The Pope urges us not to be discouraged before failure or scarce results, since “fruitfulness is often invisible, elusive and unquantifiable”; we must know “only that our commitment is necessary”. The Exhortation concludes with a prayer to Mary, “Mother of Evangelization”. “There is a Marian “style” to the Church’s work of evangelization. Whenever we look to Mary, we come to believe once again in the revolutionary nature of love and tenderness”.

[This synthesis is offered by the Vatican Information Service.]

To read the full text of the Apostolic Exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium”, or to download it in PDF format, go here:http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MICHAEL VORIS? -1 : A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST (click)

I hope someone will direct his attention to the two posts because I believe he intends to do good but is doing harm, treating Catholic things in a Protestant way and judging people unjustly and leading others to do the same.


CHRIST AND NOTHING by David Bentley Hart

$
0
0
ORTHODOX THEOLOGIAN.
SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 2006
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/sas/image/101395/139526.p.jpg
David. B. Hart's "Christ and Nothing"

This is one of Professor Hart's finest pieces. First published in First Things magazine, it has now become a important and controversial scholarly touchstone, and it is often used in apologetics and in the classroom. Here it is in its entirety:
my source: First Things (an excellent blog)
As modern men and women—to the degree that we are modern—we believe in nothing. This is not to say, I hasten to add, that we do not believe in anything; I mean, rather, that we hold an unshakable, if often unconscious, faith in the nothing, or in nothingness as such. It is this in which we place our trust, upon which we venture our souls, and onto which we project the values by which we measure the meaningfulness of our lives. Or, to phrase the matter more simply and starkly, our religion is one of very comfortable nihilism.

This may seem a somewhat apocalyptic note to sound, at least without any warning or emollient prelude, but I believe I am saying nothing not almost tediously obvious. We live in an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because unpremised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good. And a society that believes this must, at least implicitly, embrace and subtly advocate a very particular moral metaphysics: the unreality of any “value” higher than choice, or of any transcendent Good ordering desire towards a higher end. Desire is free to propose, seize, accept or reject, want or not want—but not to obey. Society must thus be secured against the intrusions of the Good, or of God, so that its citizens may determine their own lives by the choices they make from a universe of morally indifferent but variably desirable ends, unencumbered by any prior grammar of obligation or value (in America, we call this the “wall of separation”). Hence the liberties that permit one to purchase lavender bed clothes, to gaze fervently at pornography, to become a Unitarian, to market popular celebrations of brutal violence, or to destroy one’s unborn child are all equally intrinsically “good” because all are expressions of an inalienable freedom of choice. But, of course, if the will determines itself only in and through such choices, free from any prevenient natural order, then it too is in itself nothing. And so, at the end of modernity, each of us who is true to the times stands facing not God, or the gods, or the Good beyond beings, but an abyss, over which presides the empty, inviolable authority of the individual will, whose impulses and decisions are their own moral index.

This is not to say that—sentimental barbarians that we are—we do not still invite moral and religious constraints upon our actions; none but the most demonic, demented, or adolescent among us genuinely desires to live in a world purged of visible boundaries and hospitable shelters. Thus this man may elect not to buy a particular vehicle because he considers himself an environmentalist; or this woman may choose not to have an abortion midway through her second trimester, because the fetus, at that point in its gestation, seems to her too fully formed, and she—personally—would feel wrong about terminating “it.” But this merely illustrates my point: we take as given the individual’s right not merely to obey or defy the moral law, but to choose which moral standards to adopt, which values to uphold, which fashion of piety to wear and with what accessories.

Even our ethics are achievements of will. And the same is true of those custom-fitted spiritualities—“New Age,” occult, pantheist, “Wiccan,” or what have you—by which many of us now divert ourselves from the quotidien dreariness of our lives. These gods of the boutique can come from anywhere—native North American religion, the Indian subcontinent, some Pre-Raphaelite grove shrouded in Celtic twilight, cunning purveyors of otherwise worthless quartz, pages drawn at random from Robert Graves, Aldous Huxley, Carl Jung, or that redoubtable old Aryan, Joseph Campbell—but where such gods inevitably come to rest are not so much divine hierarchies as ornamental étagères, where their principal office is to provide symbolic representations of the dreamier sides of their votaries’ personalities. The triviality of this sort of devotion, its want of dogma or discipline, its tendency to find its divinities not in glades and grottoes but in gift shops make it obvious that this is no reversion to pre-Christian polytheism. It is, rather, a thoroughly modern religion, whose burlesque gods command neither reverence, nor dread, nor love, nor belief; they are no more than the masks worn by that same spontaneity of will that is the one unrivalled demiurge who rules this age and alone bids its spirits come and go.

Which brings me at last to my topic. “I am the Lord thy God,” says the First Commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” For Israel this was first and foremost a demand of fidelity, by which God bound His people to Himself, even if in later years it became also a proclamation to the nations. To Christians, however, the commandment came through—and so was indissolubly bound to—Christ. As such, it was not simply a prohibition of foreign cults, but a call to arms, an assault upon the antique order of the heavens—a declaration of war upon the gods. All the world was to be evangelized and baptized, all idols torn down, all worship given over to the one God who, in these latter days, had sent His Son into the world for our salvation. It was a long and sometimes terrible conflict, occasionally exacting a fearful price in martyrs’ blood, but it was, by any just estimate, a victory: the temples of Zeus and Isis alike were finally deserted, both the paean and the dithyramb ceased to be sung, altars were bereft of their sacrifices, the sibyls fell silent, and ultimately all the glory, nobility, and cruelty of the ancient world lay supine at the feet of Christ the conqueror.

Nor, for early Christians, was this mere metaphor. When a gentile convert stood in the baptistery on Eas-ter’s eve and, before descending naked into the waters, turned to the West to renounce the devil and the devil’s ministers, he was rejecting, and in fact reviling, the gods in bondage to whom he had languished all his life; and when he turned to the East to confess Christ, he was entrusting himself to the invincible hero who had plundered hell of its captives, overthrown death, subdued the powers of the air, and been raised the Lord of history. Life, for the early Church, was spiritual warfare; and no baptized Christian could doubt how great a transformation—of the self and the world—it was to consent to serve no other god than Him whom Christ revealed.

We are still at war, of course, but the situation of the Church has materially altered, and I suspect that, by comparison to the burden the First Commandment lays upon us today, the defeat of the ancient pantheon, and the elemental spirits, and the demons lurking behind them will prove to have been sublimely easy. For, as I say, we moderns believe in nothing: the nothingness of the will miraculously giving itself form by mastering the nothingness of the world. The gods, at least, were real, if distorted, intimations of the mysterium tremendum, and so could inspire something like holy dread or, occasionally, holy love. They were brutes, obviously, but often also benign despots, and all of us I think, in those secret corners of our souls where we are all monarchists, can appreciate a good despot, if he is sufficiently dashing and mysterious, and able to strike an attractive balance between capricious wrath and serene benevolence. Certainly the Olympians had panache, and a terrible beauty whose disappearance from the world was a bereavement to obdurately devout pagans. Moreover, in their very objectivity and supremacy over their worshipers, the gods gave the Church enemies with whom it could come to grips. Perhaps they were just so many gaudy veils and ornate brocades drawn across the abyss of night, death, and nature, but they had distinct shapes and established cults, and when their mysteries were abandoned, so were they.

How, though, to make war on nothingness, on the abyss itself, denuded of its mythic allure? It seems to me much easier to convince a man that he is in thrall to demons and offer him manumission than to convince him that he is a slave to himself and prisoner to his own will. Here is a god more elusive, protean, and indomitable than either Apollo or Dionysus; and whether he manifests himself in some demonic titanism of the will, like the mass delirium of the Third Reich, or simply in the mesmeric banality of consumer culture, his throne has been set in the very hearts of those he enslaves. And it is this god, I think, against whom the First Commandment calls us now to struggle.

There is, however, a complication even to this. As Christians, we are glad to assert that the commandment to have no other god, when allied to the gospel, liberated us from the divine ancien régime; or that this same commandment must be proclaimed again if modern persons are to be rescued from the superstitions of our age. But there is another, more uncomfortable assertion we should also be willing to make: that humanity could not have passed from the devotions of antiquity to those of modernity but for the force of Christianity in history, and so—as a matter of historical fact—Christianity, with its cry of “no other god,” is in part responsible for the nihilism of our culture. The gospel shook the ancient world to its foundations, indeed tore down the heavens, and so helped to bring us to the ruin of the present moment.

The word “nihilism” has a complex history in modern philosophy, but I use it in a sense largely determined by Nietzsche and Heidegger, both of whom not only diagnosed modernity as nihilism, but saw Christianity as complicit in its genesis; both it seems to me were penetratingly correct in some respects, if disastrously wrong in most, and both raised questions that we Christians ignore at our peril. Nietzsche’s case is the cruder of the two, if in some ways the more perspicacious; for him, modernity is simply the final phase of the disease called Christianity. Whereas the genius of the Greeks—so his story goes—was to gaze without illusion into the chaos and terror of the world, and respond not with fear or resignation but with affirmation and supreme artistry, they were able to do this only on account of their nobility, which means their ruthless willingness to discriminate between the “good”—that is, the strength, exuberance, bravery, generosity, and harshness of the aristocratic spirit—and the “bad”—the weakness, debility, timorousness, and vindictive resentfulness of the slavish mind. And this same standard—“noble wisdom,” for want of a better term—was the foundation and mortar of Roman civilization.

Christianity, however, was a slave revolt in morality: the cunning of the weak triumphed over the nobility of the strong, the resentment of the many converted the pride of the few into self-torturing guilt, the higher man’s distinction between the good and the bad was replaced by the lesser man’s spiteful distinction between good and “evil,” and the tragic wisdom of the Greeks sank beneath the flood of Christianity’s pity and pusillanimity. This revolt, joined to an ascetic and sterile devotion to positive fact, would ultimately slay even God. And, as a result, we have now entered the age of the Last Men, whom Nietzsche depicts in terms too close for comfort to the banality, conformity, and self-indulgence of modern mass culture.

Heidegger’s tale is not as catastrophist, and so emphasizes less Christianity’s novelty than its continuity with a nihilism implicit in all Western thought, from at least the time of Plato (which Nietzsche, in his way, also acknowledged). Nihilism, says Heidegger, is born in a forgetfulness of the mystery of being, and in the attempt to capture and master being in artifacts of reason (the chief example—and indeed the prototype of every subsequent apostasy from true “ontology”—being Plato’s ideas). Scandalously to oversimplify his argument, it is, says Heidegger, the history of this nihilistic impulse to reduce being to an object of the intellect, subject to the will, that has brought us at last to the age of technology, for which reality is just so many quanta of power, the world a representation of consciousness, and the earth a mere reserve awaiting exploitation; technological mastery has become our highest ideal, and our only real model of truth. Christianity, for its part, is not so much a new thing as a prolonged episode within the greater history of nihilism, notable chiefly for having brought part of this history’s logic to its consummation by having invented the metaphysical God, the form of all forms, who grounds all of being in himself as absolute efficient cause, and who personifies that cause as total power and will. From this God, in the fullness of time, would be born the modern subject who has usurped God’s place.

I hope I will be excused both for so cursory a précis and for the mild perversity that causes me to see some merit in both of these stories. Heidegger seems to me obviously correct in regarding modernity’s nihilism as the fruition of seeds sown in pagan soil; and Nietzsche also correct to call attention to Christianity’s shocking—and, for the antique order of noble values, irreparably catastrophic—novelty; but neither grasped why he was correct. For indeed Christianity was complicit in the death of antiquity and in the birth of modernity, not because it was an accomplice of the latter, but because it alone, in the history of the West, was a rejection of and alternative to nihilism’s despair, violence, and idolatry of power; as such, Christianity shattered the imposing and enchanting façade behind which nihilism once hid, and thereby, inadvertently, called it forth into the open.

I am speaking (impressionistically, I grant) of something pervasive in the ethos of European antiquity, which I would call a kind of glorious sadness. The great Indo-European mythos, from which Western culture sprang, was chiefly one of sacrifice: it understood the cosmos as a closed system, a finite totality, within which gods and mortals alike occupied places determined by fate. And this totality was, of necessity, an economy, a cycle of creation and destruction, oscillating between order and chaos, form and indeterminacy: a great circle of feeding, preserving life through a system of transactions with death. This is the myth of “cosmos”—of the universe as a precarious equilibrium of contrary forces—which undergirded a sacral practice whose aim was to contain nature’s promiscuous violence within religion’s orderly violence. The terrible dynamism of nature had to be both resisted and controlled by rites at once apotropaic—appeasing chaos and rationalizing it within the stability of cult—and economic—recuperating its sacrificial expenditures in the form of divine favor, a numinous power reinforcing the regime that sacrifice served. And this regime was, naturally, a fixed hierarchy of social power, atop which stood the gods, a little lower kings and nobles, and at the bottom slaves; the order of society, both divine and natural in provenance, was a fixed and yet somehow fragile “hierarchy within totality” that had to be preserved against the forces that surrounded it, while yet drawing on those forces for its spiritual sustenance. Gods and mortals were bound together by necessity; we fed the gods, who required our sacrifices, and they preserved us from the forces they personified and granted us some measure of their power. There was, surely, an ineradicable nihilism in such an economy: a tragic resignation before fate, followed by a prudential act of cultic salvage, for the sake of social and cosmic stability.

As it happens, the word “tragic” is especially apt here. A sacrificial mythos need not always express itself in slaughter, after all. Attic tragedy, for instance, began as a sacrificial rite. It was performed during the festival of Dionysus, which was a fertility festival, of course, but only because it was also an apotropaic celebration of delirium and death: the Dionysia was a sacred negotiation with the wild, antinomian cruelty of the god whose violent orgiastic cult had once, so it was believed, gravely imperiled the city; and the hope that prompted the feast was that, if this devastating force could be contained within bright Apollonian forms and propitiated through a ritual carnival of controlled disorder, the polis could survive for another year, its precarious peace intact.

The religious vision from which Attic tragedy emerged was one of the human community as a kind of besieged citadel preserving itself through the tribute it paid to the powers that both threatened and enlivened it. I can think of no better example of this than that of Antigone, in which the tragic crisis is the result of an insoluble moral conflict between familial piety (a sacred obligation) and the civil duties of kingship (a holy office): Antigone, as a woman, is bound to the chthonian gods (gods of the dead, so of family and household), and Creon, as king, is bound to Apollo (god of the city), and so both are adhering to sacred obligations. The conflict between them, then, far from involving a tension between the profane and the holy, is a conflict within the divine itself, whose only possible resolution is the death—the sacrifice—of the protagonist. Other examples, however, are legion. Necessity’s cruel intransigence rules the gods no less than us; tragedy’s great power is simply to reconcile us to this truth, to what must be, and to the violences of the city that keep at bay the greater violence of cosmic or social disorder.

Nor does one require extraordinarily penetrating insight to see how the shadow of this mythos falls across the philosophical schools of antiquity. To risk a generalization even more reckless than those I have already made: from the time of the pre-Socratics, all the great speculative and moral systems of the pagan world were, in varying degrees, confined to this totality, to either its innermost mechanisms or outermost boundaries; rarely did any of them catch even a glimpse of what might lie beyond such a world; and none could conceive of reality except as a kind of strife between order and disorder, within which a sacrificial economy held all forces in tension. This is true even of Platonism, with its inextirpable dualism, its dialectic of change and the changeless (or of limit and the infinite), and its equation of truth with eidetic abstraction; the world, for all its beauty, is the realm of fallen vision, separated by a great chorismos from the realm of immutable reality.

It is true of Aristotle too: the dialectic of act and potency that, for sublunary beings, is inseparable from decay and death, or the scale of essences by which all things—especially various classes of persons—are assigned their places in the natural and social order. Stoicism offers an obvious example: a vision of the universe as a fated, eternally repeated divine and cosmic history, a world in which finite forms must constantly perish simply in order to make room for others, and which in its entirety is always consumed in a final ecpyrosis (which makes a sacrificial pyre, so to speak, of the whole universe). And Neoplatonism furnishes the most poignant example, inasmuch as its monism merely inverts earlier Platonism’s dualism and only magnifies the melancholy. Not only is the mutable world separated from its divine principle—the One—by intervals of emanation that descend in ever greater alienation from their source, but because the highest truth is the secret identity between the human mind and the One, the labor of philosophy is one of escape: all multiplicity, change, particularity, every feature of the living world, is not only accidental to this formless identity, but a kind of falsehood, and to recover the truth that dwells within, one must detach oneself from what lies without, including the sundry incidentals of one’s individual existence; truth is oblivion of the flesh, a pure nothingness, to attain which one must sacrifice the world.

In any event, the purpose behind these indefensibly broad pronouncements—however elliptically pursued—is to aid in recalling how shatteringly subversive Christianity was of so many of the certitudes of the world it entered, and how profoundly its exclusive fidelity to the God of Christ transformed that world. This is, of course, no more than we should expect, if we take the New Testament’s Paschal triumphalism to heart: “Now is the judgment of this world, now will the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31); “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33); he is “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion” and all things are put “under his feet” (Ephesians 1:21-2); “having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15); “he led captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8); and so on. Still, we can largely absorb Scripture’s talk of the defeat of the devil, the angels of the nations, and the powers of the air, and yet fail to recognize how radically the Gospels reinterpreted (or, as Nietzsche would say, “transvalued”) everything in the light of Easter.

The example of this I find most striking is the account John’s Gospel gives of the dialogue between Christ and Pilate (John 18:28-19:12). Nietzsche, the quixotic champion of the old standards, thought jesting Pilate’s “What is truth?” to be the only moment of actual nobility in the New Testament, the wry taunt of an acerbic ironist unimpressed by the pathetic fantasies of a deranged peasant. But one need not share Nietzsche’s sympathies to take his point; one can certainly see what is at stake when Christ, scourged and mocked, is brought before Pilate a second time: the latter’s “Whence art thou?” has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: “I have power to crucify thee” (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

It is worth asking ourselves what this tableau, viewed from the vantage of pagan antiquity, would have meant. A man of noble birth, representing the power of Rome, endowed with authority over life and death, confronted by a barbarous colonial of no name or estate, a slave of the empire, beaten, robed in purple, crowned with thorns, insanely invoking an otherworldly kingdom and some esoteric truth, unaware of either his absurdity or his judge’s eminence. Who could have doubted where, between these two, the truth of things was to be found? But the Gospel is written in the light of the resurrection, which reverses the meaning of this scene entirely. If God’s truth is in fact to be found where Christ stands, the mockery visited on him redounds instead upon the emperor, all of whose regal finery, when set beside the majesty of the servile shape in which God reveals Himself, shows itself to be just so many rags and briars.

This slave is the Father’s eternal Word, whom God has vindicated, and so ten thousand immemorial certainties are unveiled as lies: the first become last, the mighty are put down from their seats and the lowly exalted, the hungry are filled with good things while the rich are sent empty away. Nietzsche was quite right to be appalled. Almost as striking, for me, is the tale of Peter, at the cock’s crow, going apart to weep. Nowhere in the literature of pagan antiquity, I assure you, had the tears of a rustic been regarded as worthy of anything but ridicule; to treat them with reverence, as meaningful expressions of real human sorrow, would have seemed grotesque from the perspective of all the classical canons of good taste. Those wretchedly subversive tears, and the dangerous philistinism of a narrator so incorrigibly vulgar as to treat them with anything but contempt, were most definitely signs of a slave revolt in morality, if not quite the one against which Nietzsche inveighed—a revolt, moreover, that all the ancient powers proved impotent to resist.

In a narrow sense, then, one might say that the chief offense of the Gospels is their defiance of the insights of tragedy—and not only because Christ does not fit the model of the well-born tragic hero. More important is the incontestable truth that, in the Gospels, the destruction of the protagonist emphatically does not restore or affirm the order of city or cosmos. Were the Gospels to end with Christ’s sepulture, in good tragic style, it would exculpate all parties, including Pilate and the Sanhedrin, whose judgments would be shown to have been fated by the exigencies of the crisis and the burdens of their offices; the story would then reconcile us to the tragic necessity of all such judgments. But instead comes Easter, which rudely interrupts all the minatory and sententious moralisms of the tragic chorus, just as they are about to be uttered to full effect, and which cavalierly violates the central tenet of sound economics: rather than trading the sacrificial victim for some supernatural benefit, and so the particular for the universal, Easter restores the slain hero in his particularity again, as the only truth the Gospels have to offer. This is more than a dramatic peripety. The empty tomb overturns all the “responsible” and “necessary” verdicts of Christ’s judges, and so grants them neither legitimacy nor pardon.

In a larger sense, then, the entire sacrificial logic of a culture was subverted in the Gospels. I cannot attempt here a treatment of the biblical language of sacrifice, but I think I can safely assert that Christ’s death does not, in the logic of the New Testament sources, fit the pattern of sacrifice I have just described. The word “sacrifice” is almost inexhaustible in its polysemy, particularly in the Old Testament, but the only sacrificial model explicitly invoked in the New Testament is that of the Atonement offering of Israel, which certainly belongs to no cosmic cycle of prudent expenditure and indemnity. It is, rather, a qurban, literally a “drawing nigh” into the life-giving presence of God’s glory. Israel’s God requires nothing; He creates, elects, and sanctifies without need—and so the Atonement offering can in no way contribute to any sort of economy. It is instead a penitent approach to a God who gives life freely, and who not only does not profit from the holocaust of the particular, but who in fact fulfils the “sacrifice” simply by giving his gift again. This giving again is itself, in fact, a kind of “sacrificial” motif in Hebrew Scripture, achieving its most powerful early expression in the story of Isaac’s aqedah, and arriving at its consummation, perhaps, in Ezekiel’s vision in the valley of dry bones. After all, a people overly burdened by the dolorous superstitions of tragic wisdom could never have come to embrace the doctrine of resurrection.

I am tempted to say, then, that the cross of Christ is not simply a sacrifice, but the place where two opposed understandings of sacrifice clashed. Christ’s whole life was a reconciling qurban: an approach to the Father, a real indwelling of God’s glory in the temple of Christ’s body, and an atonement made for a people enslaved to death. In pouring himself out in the form of a servant, and in living his humanity as an offering up of everything to God in love, the shape of the eternal Son’s life was already sacrificial in this special sense; and it was this absolute giving, as God and man, that was made complete on Golgotha. While, from a pagan perspective, the crucifixion itself could be viewed as a sacrifice in the most proper sense—destruction of the agent of social instability for the sake of peace, which is always a profitable exchange—Christ’s life of charity, service, forgiveness, and righteous judgment could not; indeed, it would have to seem the very opposite of sacrifice, an aneconomic and indiscriminate inversion of rank and order. Yet, at Easter, it is the latter that God accepts and the former He rejects; what, then, of all the hard-won tragic wisdom of the ages?

Naturally, also, with the death of the old mythos, metaphysics too was transformed. For one thing, while every ancient system of philosophy had to presume an economy of necessity binding the world of becoming to its inmost or highest principles, Christian theology taught from the first that the world was God’s creature in the most radically ontological sense: that it is called from nothingness, not out of any need on God’s part, but by grace. The world adds nothing to the being of God, and so nothing need be sacrificed for His glory or sustenance. In a sense, God and world alike were liberated from the fetters of necessity; God could be accorded His true transcendence and the world its true character as divine gift. The full implications of this probably became visible to Christian philosophers only with the resolution of the fourth-century trinitarian controversies, when the subordinationist schemes of Alexandrian trinitarianism were abandoned, and with them the last residue within theology of late Platonism’s vision of a descending scale of divinity mediating between God and world—the both of them comprised in a single totality.

In any event, developed Christian theology rejected nothing good in the metaphysics, ethics, or method of ancient philosophy, but—with a kind of omnivorous glee—assimilated such elements as served its ends, and always improved them in the process. Stoic morality, Plato’s language of the Good, Aristotle’s metaphysics of act and potency—all became richer and more coherent when emancipated from the morbid myths of sacrificial economy and tragic necessity. In truth, Christian theology nowhere more wantonly celebrated its triumph over the old gods than in the use it made of the so-called spolia Aegyptorum; and, by despoiling pagan philosophy of its most splendid achievements and integrating them into a vision of reality more complete than philosophy could attain on its own, theology took to itself irrevocably all the intellectual glories of antiquity. The temples were stripped of their gold and precious ornaments, the sacred vessels were carried away into the precincts of the Church and turned to better uses, and nothing was left behind but a few grim, gaunt ruins to lure back the occasional disenchanted Christian and shelter a few atavistic ghosts.

This last observation returns me at last to my earlier contention: that Christianity assisted in bringing the nihilism of modernity to pass. The command to have no other god but Him whom Christ revealed was never for Christians simply an invitation to forsake an old cult for a new, but was an announcement that the shape of the world had changed, from the depths of hell to the heaven of heavens, and all nations were called to submit to Jesus as Lord. In the great “transvaluation” that followed, there was no sphere of social, religious, or intellectual life that the Church did not claim for itself; much was abolished, and much of the grandeur and beauty of antiquity was preserved in a radically altered form, and Christian civilization—with its new synthesis and new creativity—was born.

But what is the consequence, then, when Christianity, as a living historical force, recedes? We have no need to speculate, as it happens; modernity speaks for itself: with the withdrawal of Christian culture, all the glories of the ancient world that it baptized and redeemed have perished with it in the general cataclysm. Christianity is the midwife of nihilism, not because it is itself nihilistic, but because it is too powerful in its embrace of the world and all of the world’s mystery and beauty; and so to reject Christianity now is, of necessity, to reject everything except the barren anonymity of spontaneous subjectivity. As Ivan Karamazov’s Grand Inquisitor tells Christ, the freedom that the gospel brings is too terrible to be borne indefinitely. Our sin makes us feeble and craven, and we long to flee from the liberty of the sons of God; but where now can we go? Everything is Christ’s.

This is illustrated with striking clarity by the history of modern philosophy, at least in its continental (and, so to speak, proper) form. It is fashionable at present, among some theologians, to attempt precise genealogies of modernity, which in general I would rather avoid doing; but it does seem clear to me that the special preoccupations and perversities of modern philosophy were incubated in the age of late Scholasticism, with the rise of nominalism and voluntarism. Whereas earlier theology spoke of God as Goodness as such, whose every act (by virtue of divine simplicity) expresses His nature, the spectre that haunts late Scholastic thought is a God whose will precedes His nature, and whose acts then are feats of pure spontaneity. It is a logically incoherent way of conceiving of God, as it happens (though I cannot argue that here), but it is a powerful idea, elevating as it does will over all else and redefining freedom—for God and, by extension, for us—not as the unhindered realization of a nature (the liberty to “become what you are”), but as the absolute liberty of the will in determining even what its nature is.

Thus when modern philosophy established itself anew as a discipline autonomous from theology, it did so naturally by falling back upon an ever more abyssal subjectivity. Real autonomy could not be gained by turning back to the wonder of being or to the transcendental perfections of the world, for to do so would be to slip again into a sphere long colonized by theology. And so the new point of departure for reason had to be the perceiving subject rather than the world perceived. Descartes, for instance, explicitly forbade himself any recourse to the world’s testimony of itself; in his third Meditation, he seals all his senses against nature, so that he can undertake his rational reconstruction of reality from a position pure of any certitude save that of the ego’s own existence. The world is recovered thereafter only insofar as it is “posited,” as an act of will. And while God appears in that reconstruction, He does so only as a logical postulate following from the idea of the infinite.

From there, it is a short step to Kant’s transcendental ego, for whom the world is the representation of its own irreducible “I think,” and which (inasmuch as it is its own infinity) requires God as a postulate only in the realm of ethics, and merely as a regulative idea in the realm of epistemology. And the passage from transcendental idealism to absolute idealism, however much it involved an attempt to escape egoistic subjectivity, had no world to which to return. Even Hegel’s system, for all that it sought to have done with petty subjectivism, could do so only by way of a massive metaphysical myth of the self-positing of the Concept, and of a more terrible economy of necessity than any pagan antiquity had imagined. This project was, in every sense, incredible, and its collapse inevitably brought philosophy, by way of Nietzsche and Heidegger, to its “postmodern condition”—a “heap of broken images.” If Heidegger was right—and he was—in saying that there was always a nihilistic core to the Western philosophical tradition, the withdrawal of Christianity leaves nothing but that core behind, for the gospel long ago stripped away both the deceits and the glories that had concealed it; and so philosophy becomes, almost by force of habit, explicit nihilism.

Modern philosophy, however, merely reflects the state of modern culture and modern cult; and it is to this sphere that I should turn now, as it is here that spiritual warfare is principally to be waged.

I should admit that I, for one, feel considerable sympathy for Nietzsche’s plaint, “Nearly two-thousand years and no new god”—and for Heidegger intoning his mournful oracle: “Only a god can save us.” But of course none will come. The Christian God has taken up everything into Himself; all the treasures of ancient wisdom, all the splendor of creation, every good thing has been assumed into the story of the incarnate God, and every stirring towards transcendence is soon recognized by the modern mind—weary of God—as leading back towards faith. Antique pieties cannot be restored, for we moderns know that the hungers they excite can be sated only by the gospel of Christ and him crucified. To be a Stoic today, for instance, is simply to be a soul in via to the Church; a Platonist, most of us understand, is only a Christian manqué; and a polytheist is merely a truant from the one God he hates and loves.

The only cult that can truly thrive in the aftermath of Christianity is a sordid service of the self, of the impulses of the will, of the nothingness that is all that the withdrawal of Christianity leaves behind. The only futures open to post-Christian culture are conscious nihilism, with its inevitable devotion to death, or the narcotic banality of the Last Men, which may be little better than death. Surveying the desert of modernity, we would be, I think, morally derelict not to acknowledge that Nietzsche was right in holding Christianity responsible for the catastrophe around us (even if he misunderstood why); we should confess that the failure of Christian culture to live up to its victory over the old gods has allowed the dark power that once hid behind them to step forward in propria persona. And we should certainly dread whatever rough beast it is that is being bred in our ever coarser, crueler, more inarticulate, more vacuous popular culture; because, cloaked in its anodyne insipience, lies a world increasingly devoid of merit, wit, kindness, imagination, or charity.

These are, I admit, extreme formulations. But, while I may delight in provocation, I do not wish on this point to be misunderstood. When recently I made these very remarks from a speaker’s podium, two theologians (neither of whom I would consider a champion of modernity) raised objections. From one quarter, I was chided for forgetting the selflessness of which modern persons are capable. September 11, 2001, I was reminded, demonstrated the truth of this, surely; and those of us who teach undergraduates must be aware that, for all the cultural privations they suffer, they are often decent and admirable. From the other quarter I was cautioned that so starkly stated an alternative as “Christianity or nihilism” amounted to a denial of the goodness of natural wisdom and virtue, and seemed to suggest that gratia non perficit, sed destruit naturam. As fair as such remarks may be, however, they are not apposite to my argument.

In regard to the first objection, I would wish to reply by making clear that I do not intend to suggest that, because modernity has lost the organic integrity of Christianity’s moral grammar, every person living in modern society must therefore become heartless, violent, or unprincipled. My observations are directed at the dominant language and ethos of a culture, not at the souls of individuals. Many among us retain some loyalty to ancient principles, most of us are in some degree premodern, and there are always and everywhere to be found examples of natural virtue, innate nobility, congenital charity, and so on, for the light of God is ubiquitous and the image of God is impressed upon our nature. The issue for me is whether, within the moral grammar of modernity, any of these good souls could give an account of his or her virtue.

I wish, that is, to make a point not conspicuously different from Alasdair MacIntyre’s in the first chapter of his After Virtue: in the wake of a morality of the Good, ethics has become a kind of incoherent bricolage. As far as I can tell, homo nihilisticus may often be in several notable respects a far more amiable rogue than homo religiosus, exhibiting a far smaller propensity for breaking the crockery, destroying sacred statuary, or slaying the nearest available infidel. But, love, let us be true to one another: even when all of this is granted, it would be a willful and culpable blindness for us to refuse to recognize how aesthetically arid, culturally worthless, and spiritually depraved our society has become. That this is not hyperbole a dispassionate appraisal of the artifacts of popular culture—of the imaginative coarseness and cruelty informing them—will quickly confirm. For me, it is enough to consider that, in America alone, more than forty million babies have been aborted since the Supreme Court invented the “right” that allows for this, and that there are many for whom this is viewed not even as a tragic “necessity,” but as a triumph of moral truth. When the Carthaginians were prevailed upon to cease sacrificing their babies, at least the place vacated by Baal reminded them that they should seek the divine above themselves; we offer up our babies to “my” freedom of choice, to “me.” No society’s moral vision has ever, surely, been more degenerate than that.

And to the second objection, I would begin by noting that my remarks here do not concern the entirety of human experience, nature, or culture; they concern one particular location in time and space: late Western modernity. Nor have I anything to say about cultures or peoples who have not suffered the history of faith and disenchantment we have, or who do not share our particular relation to European antiquity or the heritage of ancient Christendom. “Nihilism” is simply a name for post-Christian sensibility and conviction (and not even an especially opprobrious one). Moreover, the alternative between Christianity and nihilism is never, in actual practice, a kind of Kierkegaardian either/or posed between two absolute antinomies, incapable of alloy or medium; it is an antagonism that occurs along a continuum, whose extremes are rarely perfectly expressed in any single life (else the world were all saints and satanists).

Most importantly, though, my observations do not concern nature at all, which is inextinguishable and which, at some level, always longs for God; they concern culture, which has the power to purge itself of the natural in some considerable degree. Indeed, much of the discourse of late modernity—speculative, critical, moral, and political—consists precisely in an attempt to deny the authority, or even the reality, of any general order of nature or natures. Nature is good, I readily affirm, and is itself the first gift of grace. But that is rather the point at issue: for modernity is unnatural, is indeed anti-nature, or even anti-Christ (and so goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom it may devour).

Which is why I repeat that our age is not one in danger of reverting to paganism (would that we were so fortunate). If we turn from Christ today, we turn only towards the god of absolute will, and embrace him under either his most monstrous or his most vapid aspect. A somewhat more ennobling retreat to the old gods is not possible for us; we can find no shelter there, nor can we sink away gently into those old illusions and tragic consolations that Christ has exposed as falsehoods. To love or be nourished by the gods, we would have to fear them; but the ruin of their glory is so complete that they have been reduced—like everything else—to commodities.

Nor will the ululations and lugubrious platitudes and pious fatalism of the tragic chorus ever again have the power to recall us to sobriety. The gospel of a God found in broken flesh, humility, and measureless charity has defeated all the old lies, rendered the ancient order visibly insufficient and even slightly absurd, and instilled in us a longing for transcendent love so deep that—if once yielded to—it will never grant us rest anywhere but in Christ. And there is a real sadness in this, because the consequences of so great a joy rejected are a sorrow, bewilderment, and anxiety for which there is no precedent. If the nonsensical religious fascinations of today are not, in any classical or Christian sense, genuine pieties, they are nevertheless genuine—if deluded—expressions of grief, encomia for a forsaken and half-forgotten home, the prisoner’s lament over a lost freedom. For Christians, then, to recover and understand the meaning of the command to have “no other god,” it is necessary first to recognize that the victory of the Church in history was not only incomplete, but indeed set free a force that the old sacral order had at least been able to contain; and it is against this more formless and invincible enemy that we take up the standard of the commandment today.

Moreover, we need to recognize, in the light of this history, that this commandment is a hard discipline: it destroys, it breaks in order to bind; like a cautery, it wounds in order to heal; and now, in order to heal the damage it has in part inflicted, it must be applied again. In practical terms, I suspect that this means that Christians must make an ever more concerted effort to recall and recover the wisdom and centrality of the ascetic tradition. It takes formidable faith and devotion to resist the evils of one’s age, and it is to the history of Christian asceticism—especially, perhaps, the apophthegms of the Desert Fathers—that all Christians, whether married or not, should turn for guidance. To have no god but the God of Christ, after all, means today that we must endure the lenten privations of what is most certainly a dark age, and strive to resist the bland solace, inane charms, brute viciousness, and dazed passivity of post-Christian culture—all of which are so tempting precisely because they enjoin us to believe in and adore ourselves.

It means also to remain aloof from many of the moral languages of our time, which are—even at their most sentimental, tender, and tolerant—usually as decadent and egoistic as the currently most fashionable vices. It means, in short, self-abnegation, contrarianism, a willingness not only to welcome but to condemn, and a refusal of secularization as fierce as the refusal of our Christian ancestors to burn incense to the genius of the emperor. This is not an especially grim prescription, I should add: Christian asceticism is not, after all, a cruel disfigurement of the will, contaminated by the world-weariness or malice towards creation that one can justly ascribe to many other varieties of religious detachment. It is, rather, the cultivation of the pure heart and pure eye, which allows one to receive the world, and rejoice in it, not as a possession of the will or an occasion for the exercise of power, but as the good gift of God. It is, so to speak, a kind of “Marian” waiting upon the Word of God and its fruitfulness. This is why it has the power to heal us of our modern derangements: because, paradoxical as it may seem to modern temperaments, Christian asceticism is the practice of love, what Maximus the Confessor calls learning to see the logos of each thing within the Logos of God, and it eventuates most properly in the grateful reverence of a Bonaventure or the lyrical ecstasy of a Thomas Traherne.

Still, it is a discipline for all that; and for us today it must involve the painful acknowledgement that neither we nor our distant progeny will live to see a new Christian culture rise in the Western world, and to accept this with both charity and faith. We must, after all, grant that, in the mystery of God’s providence, all of this has followed from the work of the Holy Spirit in time. Modern persons will never find rest for their restless hearts without Christ, for modern culture is nothing but the wasteland from which the gods have departed, and so this restlessness has become its own deity; and, deprived of the shelter of the sacred and the consoling myths of sacrifice, the modern person must wander or drift, vainly attempting one or another accommodation with death, never escaping anxiety or ennui, and driven as a result to a ceaseless labor of distraction, or acquisition, or willful idiocy. And, where it works its sublimest magic, our culture of empty spectacle can so stupefy the intellect as to blind it to its own disquiet, and induce a spiritual torpor more deplorable than mere despair.

But we Christians—while not ignoring how appalling such a condition is—should yet rejoice that modernity offers no religious comforts to those who would seek them. In this time of waiting, in this age marked only by the absence of faith in Christ, it is well that the modern soul should lack repose, piety, peace, or nobility, and should find the world outside the Church barren of spiritual rapture or mystery, and should discover no beautiful or terrible or merciful gods upon which to cast itself. With Christ came judgment into the world, a light of discrimination from which there is neither retreat nor sanctuary. And this means that, as a quite concrete historical condition, the only choice that remains for the children of post-Christian culture is not whom to serve, but whether to serve Him whom Christ has revealed or to serve nothing—the nothing. No third way lies open for us now, because—as all of us now know, whether we acknowledge it consciously or not—all things have been made subject to Him, all the thrones and dominions of the high places have been put beneath His feet, until the very end of the world, and—simply said—there is no other god.

Copyright (c) 2003 First Things 136 (October 2003): 47-57.

ST NICHOLAS IS ON HIS WAY!! by Dr Alexander Roman

$
0
0
Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org
 
The difference between the Julian calendar which most Orthodox and Greek Catholics use in their Liturgy and the Gregorian Calendar which is used in the modern world and by the Latin Church is thirteen days.   Hence  we in the West celebrate the feast of St Nicholas of Myra on December 6th, and the  Eastern Christian celebrate in on December 19th: the same day but a different calendar.

In Protestant England and in the USA, St Nicholas is a jovial myth wrapped in the colours of Coca Cola - red and white;while in Bavaria, Austria and SWitzerland, as well as in the Orthodox countries, he is dressed as a bishop, which he was, of course. - Fr David
Is there a St. Nick?

If we understand him to be jovial Santa Claus of parades and department stores, then perhaps we may have outgrown him as we've matured.

For Christians of the East, however, St. Nicholas is hardly the stuff of legends.

Nicholas was already well-known for his great personal sanctity, even before he became Archbishop of Myra in Lycia in what was Asia Minor. 

Both his parents are also saints. Good and holy parents are like iconographers in the East. Their holiness is indicated by the results of their creative and inspired artistry. St Nicholas' parents were used by the Holy Spirit to bring to fruition the full stature of Christ in his soul!

As he was present for the First Ecumenical Council in AD 325, we definitely know he was born at the end of the third century.

That Council was called to condemn the heresy of the Alexandrian monk, Arius, who denied the Divinity of Christ.

This was the Council where the term "Orthodox" was first generally used to define the true faith about and in Christ, as opposed to the heretical musings of Arius and others ever since.

Nicholas was shaken to the core of his being at the very thought of Arius' impiety. He was consumed by a holy zeal and, in righteous anger, struck Arius across the face during the Council meetings.

His fellow Orthodox Christian Bishops thought this action was unbecoming, and therefore immediately censured Nicholas by taking from him the symbols of his episcopal office, his Pallium ("naplechnyk") and his Gospel.

As they did this, an apparition took place. Christ and the Virgin Mary-Theotokos appeared on either side of Nicholas, Christ holding the Gospel-book and the Mother of Christ our God holding the Pallium. At that, the Council reinstated Nicholas.

This miracle is celebrated on his feast, December 19, according to the Old Calendar, to this day. This depiction of St. Nicholas has been the most popular in his iconography ever since.

In addition to his strong witness to Orthodox Christianity and faith in Christ, St Nicholas was also extremely compassionate and loving to his flock.

A father in Myra could not raise a dowry for his three daughters and so decided to send them into a brothel.

Nicholas then went to the man's home at night and dropped three bags of gold in through the low-lying chimney (he needed neither reindeer nor a ladder . . .). Nicholas then crept away silently into the night.

In the morning, the daughters were over-joyed at finding the gifts. The father was then inspired to believe it was Nicholas who brought the presents. He went straightway to Nicholas to thank him on his knees. But Nicholas simply gazed at him without saying anything.

This is the true story that has inspired the annual "coming of St Nicholas" to the homes, families and communities of faithful to this day. Nicholas is also remembered for many other acts of mercy and kindness. Miraculous Icons of St Nicholas abound, including one in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral at Tarpon Springs, Florida.

The coming of St Nicholas on the eve of his Feast was always a big celebration in my extended family.

My uncle, Basil, came from the town of Mykolayiv in Ukraine that was named for St Nicholas. He was the one who always got to dress up as the Saint.

The event is deeply ingrained in my soul, and always will be.

As we children played on the eve of December 18th, a thud was suddenly heard on the roof.

The doorbell rang and in came relatives shouting to us that St Nicholas had just landed with his sleigh directly on top of the house!

As a matter of fact, he was coming down and would be among us in seconds . . .

A chair was quickly prepared and covered with an appropriate white cloth for our honoured guest.

Anticipation gave way to anxiety as everyone lined up on either side of the main doors and prayerbooks were opened.

A saint from heaven was about to physically enter our home!

And then the singing of the Troparion and Kontakion of St Nicholas began. The Sign of the Cross was made with bows. The Our Father and Trisagion prayers were said.

And, lo and behold, there at the doorway appeared St Nicholas. There was no doubt about it, it was really he. Crosses adorned his white mantle. He had a mitre and a staff. He walked slowly like an elderly Bishop would. And he blessed us with the "Christogram" or with his fingers shaped in the position of the Name of Jesus Christ.

We went down on our knees and were too afraid to look up.

St Nicholas blessed us and spoke to us about the poor and hungry children in the world. He encouraged us to be happy with what we had and to share with others from the bountiful gifts that God had been pleased to give us.

He also encouraged us to read more and watch television less. I knew he saw me sneak away to turn on the T.V. when my parents told me not to!

He sat down on his chair of honour and dispensed gifts to all of us. With that, he said he had other families to attend to, especially in Ukraine and Eastern Europe where people suffered all sorts of privations. But he said he would be back. He told us to never omit our prayers and to go to Church. He also asked us to love our parents and to be kind to one and all.

I can still hear those bells on his sleigh as he went off . . .

Years later, I too got to play St Nicholas for an orphanage, mainly children from Ukraine. What could I do to make their visit with the Saint special, just like it was made so for me years back?

As I walked into the hallway, children sat transfixed by this bearded prelate with a shepherd's staff.

A little girl was crying on someone's arms. I think she thought St Nicholas had brought presents for everyone else, but not for her!

I made my way through the crowd and put my hand on the little girl. She turned to see who it was. The surprise on her face was worth the world to me! She stopped crying as I picked her up and placed her on my lap at the front so everyone could see that St Nicholas had not forgotten her after all.

Not knowing what to say, I told the children that St Nicholas was a real person living in heaven. That, even now, he was praying that God send us His special Gifts, especially the Gift of His Only-Begotten Son, Our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Today, God asks us to place Him not on a manger, but in our hearts where we ourselves would have the privilege of warming the Christ Child with our welcoming and grateful love.

As my great hobby is the study of saints, as each child came up and his or her name was read out, I could tell them a little about their patron and (my memory was better then) the patron's feastday.

A teacher stood behind me to tell me that this was all very nice, but to hurry up. I told her that she couldn't give orders to St Nicholas . . .

I recognized some children and could also tell them their birthday and other things. They later went home and told their parents that, no doubt about, they had actually seen the REAL St Nicholas.

When they told me about this later, I asked them what was it that so totally convinced them - my telling them their birthdays, their namedays, their parents' names?

As it turned out, the children said I was the real article because I told them about God and Christ. Only a real bishop would talk about that.

It then occurred to me that this was the theme that my uncle Basil emphasized as well, years ago. He had taught me well!

In his Orthodox Faith and holy compassion, St Nicholas still brings us the greatest gift of all that is Christ the Saviour!

DECEMBER 8TH: THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

$
0
0


Ineffabilis Deus

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaulate Conception, 8 December 1854.
my source: EWTN TEACHINGS

Excerpts


God Ineffable--whose ways are mercy and truth, whose will is omnipotence itself, and whose wisdom "reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly"--having foreseen from all eternity the lamentable wretchedness of the entire human race which would result from the sin of Adam, decreed, by a plan hidden from the centuries, to complete the first work of his goodness by a mystery yet more wondrously sublime through the Incarnation of the Word. This he decreed in order that man who, contrary to the plan of Divine Mercy had been led into sin by the cunning malice of Satan, should not perish; and in order that what had been lost in the first Adam would be gloriously restored in the Second Adam. From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.



And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son--the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart--and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[1]



And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner--this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus--that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.



Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God--indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve, with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.



As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman"[25]--unmistakable evidence that she was to crush the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.



Therefore, having full trust in the Lord that the opportune time had come for defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, which Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church, the desire of Catholic bishops and the faithful, and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors, wonderfully illustrate and proclaim, and having most diligently considered all things, as we poured forth to God ceaseless and fervent prayers, we concluded that we should no longer delay in decreeing and defining by our supreme authority the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. And thus, we can satisfy the most holy desire of the Catholic world as well as our own devotion toward the most holy Virgin, and at the same time honor more and more the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord through his holy Mother--since whatever honor and praise are bestowed on the Mother redound to the Son.



The Definition



Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]



Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.



Notes



1. Et quidem decebat omnino, ut perfectissimae sanctitatis splendoribus semper ornata fulgeret, ac vel ab ipsa originalis culpae labe plane immunis amplissimum de antiquo sepente triumphum referret tam venerabilis mater, cui Deus Pater unicum Filius suum, quem de corde suo aequalem sibi genitum tamquam seipsum diligit, ita dare disposuit, ut naturaliter esset unus idemque communis Dei Patris et Virginis Filius, et quam ipse Filius, Filius substantialiter facere sibi matrem elegit, et de qua Siritus Sanctus voluit et operatus est, ut conciperetur et nasceretur ille, de quo ipse procedit.



2. Cf. St. Augustine: De Natura et Gratia, c. 36.



25. Gn 3:15.



29. Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam. Cf. Denz., n. 1641



The Immaculate Conception: The Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West
byDr. Alexander Roman  


The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Rome as an article of the Catholic faith in the 19th century, has long been an additional point of disagreement between East and West on the subject of Mariology or the theological study of the role of Mary. In what way is this so and what are the possibilities for overcoming the difficulties here?



The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself affirms that the Mother of God, from the moment of her Conception in the womb of St Anne, was preserved free of the “stain of Original Sin.” In other words, she who was called to assume the great role in salvation history as the Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate and the Ark of the New Covenant was prevented from contracting the sin of Adam.



The foundation of this definition is and always has been the resolution of the issue of: a) the fact that all have fallen in Adam and: b) how can the Mother of Christ, from whose very flesh the Son of God fashioned a Body for Himself by which we are saved and sanctified, ever be said to have been a subject of sin?



St Augustine of Hippo himself, when commenting on Original Sin, affirmed that the Mother of God must always be excluded from any such consideration to begin with. But it was only later with the Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian, that the theological reasoning behind this view was worked out: The Virgin Mary was preserved free from Original Sin because the FUTURE merits of Christ’s passion and death were applied to her at her conception.



By the seventh century, the Byzantine East was celebrating the feast of the Conception of Saint Anne. This festival was first adopted in the West by the English Church from whence it soon spread elsewhere. It is still to be found in the calendar of the Anglican Church.



The West, however, was divided on whether the Mother of God could be said to have been conceived without Original Sin. St Thomas Aquinas and others, in fact, replied to this question in the negative and one could be a Latin Catholic in good standing while denying the Immaculate Conception.



However, even before this theological position was proclaimed as a binding dogma on all Catholics by Rome, there was strong, local devotion to it throughout the Catholic world centuries before.



Religious associations organized to honour the Immaculate Conception abounded in the Middle Ages and later. They wore a medal similar to the Miraculous Medal of more recent times, invoked the Virgin as the “Immaculate Mother” and even took the “bloody vow” or a vow to defend to the death her Immaculate Conception.



Even some Catholic empires proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogma to be held by all their faithful subjects.



We know that the Spanish Empire did so and anyone who was a subject of the Spanish king was obliged to accept the Immaculate Conception. The Church, built by the Spaniards, in New Orleans, Louisiana is a mute testimony to the local proclamation of this dogma by the Spanish Church.



The Immaculate Conception also came to be reverenced in Orthodox countries, especially during the height of the Baroque period in the Kyivan Church and also by Greeks, as Father John Meyendorff has shown.



The Ukrainian Saint Demetrius of Rostov, for example, belonged to an Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception (for which he was called before an Orthodox Synod to give account).



St Demetrius and others of his day prayed the rosary, recited the Hail Mary at the turn of each hour, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary and even the Psalter of the Mother of God composed by St Bonaventure. His “Easternized” prayer in honour of the Sorrows of the Mother of God survives in many Orthodox prayerbooks today as the “Tale of the Five Prayers!”



(The rosary known as the “rule of prayer of the Mother of God” was likewise prayed throughout by Orthodox Christians, especially by St Seraphim of Sarov whose main icon of the Mother of God was actually a Western picture of Our Lady of the Annunciation, known today as “Our Lady, Joy of all Joys” and is among the most popular icons of the Theotokos in Russia.)



The Kyivan Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception likewise took the bloody vow and produced Western-style depictions of Our Lady of Grace and their invocation was, “Most Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” This was a play on the “Panaghia” or “All-Holy” invocation to the Virgin Mary that is a refrain in so many liturgical services (“All Holy Theotokos, save us!”)



Some of the icons themselves came to be venerated as Orthodox miraculous icons as Professor Poselianin shows in his magnum opus, “Bogomater” (“The Immaculate Mother” as one example, although a copy of this icon is not included).



The website of the Orthodox Church in America likewise affirms that the icon for the feast of the Conception of St Anne in Orthodoxy depicts the Mother of God very much as the Western picture of Our Lady of Grace, with hands stretched downwards and standing on a globe etc.



Despite the acceptance of this doctrine in certain Orthodox circles, the fact remains that the doctrine itself was not acceptable to the Eastern Churches. Very often, Roman Catholic commentators have attacked Orthodoxy for refusing to accept this doctrine for, otherwise, this must mean that Orthodox Christians believe the unspeakable – that the Mother of God was conceived in and contracted Original Sin . . .



The crux of the matter here lies, however, not in a disagreement over Mary’s total sinlessness and holiness from her Conception.



In fact, the East does indeed affirm Mary’s All-holiness in its liturgical tradition. The liturgical celebration, and that from early times, of the Conception of St Anne ALREADY means that the Mother of God was a saint at her Conception and was sanctified by the Spirit as the Temple of the Most Holy Trinity – only feasts of saints may be celebrated, after all!



(The same holds true for John the Baptist, whose Conception is ALSO celebrated in the calendar of the Orthodox Church.)



So both East and West already affirm Mary to be All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate.



What is the problem then?



The problem is in the thorny issue of Original Sin and the way in which it has been understood in the West, taking its cue, as it does, from Saint Augustine.



For the Christian East, Original Sin does not totally ravage human nature. Adam’s personal sin resulted in death for all his descendants, the experience of concupiscence and the darkening of the mind that makes us subject to temptation etc.



So if Mary died, then she had indeed been subject to the effects of Original Sin i.e. she could not be said to have been conceived without it.



But by her great sanctification at her Conception and at other times in her life (Annunciation, Pentecost, Dormition/Assumption) God deemed to bestow on His Temple, the Ark of the New Covenant, the fullness of His Gifts of Grace.



And so, the effects of Original Sin, while not completely taken away from Mary, were mitigated in an exemplary way.’



Thus, she suffered no pain when she gave birth to Christ and her passing into eternal life was but a gentle falling asleep (or “Dormition”). Furthermore, she was taken in body and soul to Heaven by Her Son as her body was not to experience corruption. And she continues to grow in holiness in heaven as holiness is a dynamic, rather than static, thing.



So, for the East, when the West affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this implied that she did not die – something the East had always believed as its liturgical tradition (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) bore out.



But today the West understands the “stain of Original Sin” in a way that would be compatible with the view of the East. Perhaps this was all a misunderstanding that was artificially maintained across centuries by ill-will on both sides – who can know for sure?



And the West does not deny that the Mother of God was under the effects of Original Sin, even though her great holiness mitigated greatly her experience of these.



Ultimately, a mutual agreement on this issue would centre on the matter of a common and clear definition concerning Original Sin.



It would also have to be based on whether Rome’s definition of the Immaculate Conception, rooted in a form of Augustinianism as it is, cannot be adapted to a more ecumenical perspective that would be open to Eastern theological/patristic viewpoints.



Certainly, there could be no question that the East would ever need to adopt the IC dogma, given the fact that the matter of the All-holiness of the Mother of God was never a point of disagreement in the East and that the dogma itself is the product of a purely Western theological paradigm.



Apart from the dogmas of the Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, as defined by the Councils, the East prefers to keep all else concerning the Virgin Mary as part of its own intense, inner liturgical piety towards her.



As the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom sings of Mary:


“Having commemorated our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and Glorious Sovereign Mother of God and Every-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us give offer ourselves and one another unto Christ our God!


I think Dr Alexander Roman is Greek Catholic, but , see also an article by Padre Lev Gillet who was Orthodox and is not very different.



However, the classical view, as Dr Alexander Roman notes, is not to agree with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which pre-supposes the teaching of St Augustine on Original Sin, but St Gregory Palamas, no less, and many others, as well as many liturgical texts, would fully agree on the original purity or holiness of the Theotokos. Father John Meyendorff, in his book, "Byzantine Theology", writes that St Gregory Palamas wrote much on the Blessed Virgin's holiness and purity

should lead some authors to suppose that Palamas held the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Christ’s humanity is a humanity without stain, and she who gave him this humanity "resembled him in all things," as Palamas says, that is to say she possesses by special grace original purity. It is indeed probable that Palamas’ very striking piety with regard to the Virgin would have led him to accept that doctrine, if he had shared the Western conception of original sin. However, … Palamas’ view of the sin of Adam and the way in which it was transmitted, cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Rome … (For him) original sin was above all a hereditary mortality, leading the individuals of the human race to commit sins, but not implying any guilt for the actual sin of the First Father .

.

CLICK ON TITLES FOR RELEVANT POSTS ON THE MOTHER OF GOD








Viewing all 948 articles
Browse latest View live