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

THE HOLY TRADITION AND THE VENERATION OF MARY AND OTHER SAINTS IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

$
0
0
In preparation for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th, I am going to give my readers a number of posts from different sources on the Blessed Virgin Mary, not to hide where we differ, but to celebrate our common faith, and to try to put our differences in perspective. This is the first, and very beautiful it is too. - Fr David

The Holy Tradition and the Veneration of Mary and other Saints in the Orthodox Church
by Very Reverend John Morris

One of the first things that one notices when visiting an Orthodox Church or the home of an Orthodox Christian is the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Everywhere that one looks, one sees icons of the Blessed Virgin. Her icons are on the iconostasis, ceiling and walls of the Church and in the homes of the faithful. Orthodox Christians frequently mention her name in hymns and prayers and request her intercession at every important moment of their lives. The Orthodox devotion to the Theotokos is not merely a matter of popular piety. It is also an expression of the central teaching of the Orthodox Church, the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ.

Significantly, the Orthodox Church has transmitted its teaching concerning Mary through devotional and liturgical texts rather than through theological essays or dogmatic declarations. This shows how Eastern Orthodox Christians preserve and transmit their deepest-held beliefs. Fr. John Meyendorff wrote:

Through the liturgy, a Byzantine recognized and experienced his membership in the Body of Christ. While a Western Christian generally checked his faith against eternal authority (the magisterium or the Bible), the Byzantine Christian considered the liturgy both a source and an expression of his theology … The liturgy maintained the Church’s identity and continuity in the midst of a changing world.

Although Eastern Orthodox Christians hold the Holy Scriptures in very high regard and consider them divinely inspired, they look beyond the sacred texts to the totality of the life of the Church as expressed in the Holy Tradition of the Church. The words used during prayer and worship are a very important and also very personal manifestation of this Holy Tradition. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “In early times the Church knew full well that the lex credendi (rule of faith) and the lex orandi (rule of prayer) were inseparable and that they mutually substantiated each other — that, in the words of St. Irenaeus, ‘our teaching is in harmony with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our teaching.’” Orthodox theologians do not draw a sharp distinction between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition or between written and unwritten Tradition. Instead, they consider the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and those expressed by the prayers of the Church, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of ancient and modern theologians as manifestations of the same Holy Tradition. Orthodox Christians believe that, throughout the centuries, the Holy Spirit has led the Church to preserve the teachings of Christ and His Apostles through the life of the Church. St. Basil the Great wrote:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching, others we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ by the traditions of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.

The role of liturgy in transmitting teachings concerning Mary illustrates a very important aspect of the Orthodox understanding of the Church. Orthodox Christians believe that the Church is first and foremost a Eucharistic or worshipping assembly. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “The Eucharist, we repeat, is not ‘one of the sacraments’ or one of the services, but the very manifestation and fulfillment of the Church in all her power, sanctity and fullness.” Thus, from an Orthodox point of view, liturgy and worship are not just one expression of the life of the Church to Orthodox. They are the very essence of the Church. To Orthodox Christians, everything flows from the Eucharist and the worship of the Church. Even charitable and social works are a means to manifest to the world the presence of Christ that the faithful experience during the Divine Liturgy.

The place of liturgical texts in expressing the teachings of the Church concerning the Theotokos, illustrates the Eastern Orthodox approach to theology. Liturgical texts referring to the Theotokos are poetic manifestations of devotion to Mary, rather than rational treatises on the Blessed Virgin. They are an expression of the heart rather than the mind, because Orthodox Christians believe that human reason cannot comprehend or understand the mysteries of God. Indeed, Orthodox Christians believe that all true theology must come from the mystical experience of God through prayer and worship, rather than through the intellectual contemplation of God with the mind.

The first and fundamental meaning of Mary for the Church is the relationship between veneration of the Theotokos and Orthodox doctrine. For Orthodox Christians, there can be no Church without Orthodox doctrine. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem decreed, “We believe to be members of the Catholic Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful, who, forsooth, having received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ from Christ Himself, and the Apostles, and the Holy Ecumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering …” The Church is not a society of thinkers and philosophers, but is the Body of Christ dedicated to proclaiming the Gospel to the world. The Church is not dedicated to finding new knowledge about God, but instead is dedicated to preserving and transmitting the knowledge of God given to us by Christ and the Apostles. St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote, “For where the Church is, there is the spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.”

The veneration of Mary plays a major role in the preservation of Orthodox doctrine, because the honor paid to her is an expression of the Christology or doctrine concerning Christ of the Church. Mary’s most important title is “Theotokos,” which means “God Bearer,” or “Birthgiver of God.” This term, endorsed by the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, expresses the belief that the son of the Virgin was God from the very moment of his conception. This eliminates such false teachings as Adoptionism, which held that Christ was a good man adopted by God to be his son, and Nestorianism, which came close to teaching that Christ was only an inspired man. As St. John of Damascus wrote, “ … she is truly Mother of God who gave birth to the true God who took flesh from her … For the holy Virgin did not give birth to a mere man, but to true God and, not to God simply, but to God made flesh.”

Of all doctrines, the Incarnation is central for Orthodox Christians. As Vladimir Lossky has written, “Eastern theology never thinks of the Church apart from Christ and from the Holy Spirit.” As the Holy Scriptures teach, “Christ is the head of the Church.” The Church is the Body of Christ. Thus, in order to understand what the Church is, one must understand who Christ is. Related to the doctrine of the incarnation is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, which is not merely belief in the power of God to work wonders. The Orthodox Church believes in the sovereignty of God over creation. Thus, God is not bound by human understandings of the workings of creation, but, “Whensoever God willeth, the order of nature is overcome …” However, the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ has a much deeper meaning as a proclamation that “ … the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” Jesus Christ is really the Son of God, not a divinely inspired man accepted by God because of his own righteousness. Through the virgin birth, God really became human, not just metaphorically or symbolically, but actually. In Christ, God became physical, as humans are physical. This is important because Orthodox believe, as St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” From Mary, God assumed all that is human, to perfect that which is human and to unite humanity to Himself. On the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, September 8, Orthodox Christians proclaim that, through the incarnation, “ … the creation of us earthly beings was renewed, and we ourselves were renewed from corruption to life immortal.” In another hymn sung during Saturday evening Vespers in Tone Six, Orthodox Christians honor Mary with the words, “For the only Son rising timelessly from the Father, himself did come incarnate from thee in an inexplicable way. He, who while God by nature, became for our sakes Man by nature, not divided into two persons, but known by two natures without mixture or confusions.” Another hymn to Mary proclaims, “Thou art the preaching of the Prophets, O virgin Theotokos, the glory of the Apostles and pride of the Martyrs, the renewal of the whole race of earthly ones. For through thee we are reconciled to God.”

The Orthodox Church celebrates the two natures of Christ, the human nature received from the Blessed Virgin and the divine nature begotten by the Father, as expressed by the Church in the Council of Chalcedon through many of its hymns to the Blessed Virgin. For example, a hymn from Saturday evening Vespers in Tone Eight contains a very articulate expression of the teaching of Chalcedon and the fathers on the incarnation and the two natures of Christ:

Verily, the King of heaven, for his love to mankind did appear on earth; and with men did he deal; for he took unto himself a body from the pure Virgin. And from her did he issue in the adopted body, he being one Son, dual in Nature, not dual in Person. Wherefore, do we confess, preaching the truth that Christ our God is perfect God and perfect Man. Therefore, O Mother who hast no groom, beseech thou him to have mercy upon our souls.”

The doctrine of the two natures of Christ is relative to a discussion of the Church because, like Christ, the Church has two natures, the human and the divine. Thus, the Church, which is a divine institution, is also made up of sinful men and women. For this reason, Orthodox Christians believe that the Church itself is perfect and without sin, although some of its members are still in the process of being healed of sin. Thus, although the Church cannot sin, the people in the Church, including its leaders, can fall into sin.

The doctrine of the Incarnation, which is expressed in Orthodox devotion to the Theotokos, is also relevant to Sacramental theology. The Church teaches that God became flesh to save those who are flesh and to sanctify the material universe. Thus God uses physical things such as water, bread and wine, and oil to convey His divine grace through the Mysteries of the Church. At the same time, by becoming physical, Christ has sanctified the physical world. Thus, at the Feast of Epiphany, Orthodox proclaim, “Today the whole creation is lighted from on high.” This means that a true Christian must care for God’s creation and seek to protect it from being destroyed by human pollution.

When the Archangel Gabriel spoke to her, the Blessed Virgin could have refused God’s request to bear His Son. Her positive response to the Archangel Gabriel plays an important part in salvation. As St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote, Mary is the second Eve, whose obedience liberates humanity from the consequences of the disobedience of the first Eve. For this reason, on the Feast of the Nativity of Mary, Orthodox Christians sing, “ … the Mother of Life, who is the renewal of the creation of Adam and the recall of Eve, the fountain of incorruption, the liberation from corruption, through whom we have been deified and delivered from death, is born of the seed of David, dispersing darkness.” Mary could have refused to bear Christ, but she chose to obey God.

Mary’s obedience is an example of synergy, or cooperation, with God. For that reason Orthodox Christians sin, “For through her hath salvation come to the whole human race.” The concept of synergy is essential to the Orthodox understanding of salvation. As understood by Orthodox Christians, synergy is the exercise of our free will to accept God’s gift of grace. It is not the idea that human merit is required or applicable for salvation. The Orthodox doctrine of synergy is also a manifestation of the two natures of Christ, human and divine. God has accomplished salvation through Christ, reflecting the divine aspect of salvation, but the individual believer must respond positively to God’s offer of the gift of salvation, showing the human aspect of salvation. Orthodox believe that St. Paul expressed this concept of human and divine cooperation for salvation with the words, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Thus, Orthodox believe that, despite the curse of sin, humans still possess a free will and can respond positively to God’s invitation to receive His divine grace. Orthodox believe as St. John Cassian wrote:

These two things — that is, the grace of God and free will — certainly seem mutually opposed to one another, but both are in accord, and we understand that we must accept both in like manner by reason of our religion, lest by removing one of them from the human being we seem to contravene the rule of the Church’s faith. For when God sees us turning in order to will what is good, he comes to us, directs us, and strengthens us, for as soon as he hears the voice of our cry, he will respond to you.

The Orthodox Church calls Mary “immaculate,” and “all pure,” as a manifestation of the Orthodox understanding of salvation as deification. Orthodox Christians believe that through the grace of God Mary has been deified or made by grace what God is by nature or, as St. Paul wrote, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another …” Vladimir Lossky wrote, “ … the very heart of the Church, one of her most secret mysteries, her mystical center, her perfection already realized in a human person fully united to God, finding herself beyond the resurrection and the judgment. This person is Mary, the Mother of God.” Thus salvation for Orthodox theology is more than the forgiveness of sins or justification, but is also the transformation of the believer by the grace of God to become a partaker of the Divine Nature. Orthodox Christians see the realization of salvation in the deification of Mary.

However, Orthodox Christians do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin was born in ancestral sin just like any other person. This is important because if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ. Indeed, a prayer addressed to the Virgin Mary from the service of Compline contains the beautiful words, “thy glorious birth-giving has united God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things.”

Although Orthodox theologians do not dogmatize the Assumption of the Virgin, the Orthodox Church celebrates the feast of her falling asleep and translation to Heaven on August 15. Once again, this is a reflection of the Gospel by telling the faithful that they, like Mary, may share in the victory of Christ over death. Thus, through Christ, the Blessed Virgin has become “more honorable than the cherubim, more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim,” for she has been deified and has inherited a place in the Kingdom of God.

Finally, the devotion of Mary is an expression of meaning of the word “Church.” In the original Greek, the word “Church,” or “ecclesia,” literally means a gathering or assembly. Alexander Schmemann wrote that properly an Orthodox Church building (temple) “is experienced perceived as sobor, as the gathering together of heaven and earth and all creation in Christ — which constitutes the essence and purpose of the Church itself.” To Orthodox Christians, the Church is not just an assembly of humans, but is a participation in the worship of the Saints and angels before the throne of God. That is why there are so many references to the angelic hosts during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Again, Alexander Schmemann wrote, “The Eucharist is always a going out from ‘this world’ and an ascent to heaven …” Thus, Orthodox Christians believe that through the Liturgy, the faithful mystically ascend to heaven and join the company of the faithful departed before God. This assembly of the entire company of heaven before the throne of God through the Eucharist creates a relationship between the living and the departed in Christ. This is manifested by the prayers of the living for intercession of Mary and the Saints, who are mystically present in the lives of the faithful through the mystery of the Church. This mystery transcends the boundaries between heaven and earth and unites those on earth with those in heaven.

Therefore, Orthodox devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is not merely an expression of popular piety. It is much more. Orthodox veneration of Mary is a manifestation of the most essential doctrines of the Orthodox Faith. The prominent place played by Mary in Orthodoxy also shows the importance of worship as the essence of the Church and the chief means whereby the Church transmits and preserves the Gospel for future generations. The deification of Mary shows that the promises of Christ are real, for, through Christ, those who follow Him will share the experience of God’s deifying grace that is manifested by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Finally, the familiar way in which Orthodox Christians ask Mary and the other Saints for their intercessions, illustrates the very meaning of “Church,” which is an assembly of the faithful, those on earth and those in heaven, with the angels before the throne of God.

Courtesy of the
June 2007 issue of The Word magazine.


HENRI de LUBAC AND CATHOLIC RENEWAL by Peter J.. Leithart

$
0
0
This article is of great importance for anyone who wants to know how to interpret Vatican II or to value its effects on the Church, or who wish to understand why de Lubac, Bouyer, Ratzinger and other resourcements theologians were disappointed at some of the immediate results of Vatican II and look for further changes.It is also of importance when comparing Catholicism with Orthodoxy, because many Orthodox objections are really objections against the neo-scholastic tradition of Cajetan and not the richest Latin Catholic tradition of the West as expounded by de Lubac and friends, both privately and publicly in the Documents of Vatican II.
   
WEDNESDAY, 08 JUNE 2011 07:00


Part I: The Supernatural

The French Jesuit theologian Henri de Lubac (1896-1991) was one of the most significant Catholic theologians of the twentieth century, a central figure in the ressourcement movement and the nouvelle theologie that inspired the change of atmosphere in the Catholic church leading up to Vatican II. In his recent book on de Lubac, John Milbank claims that de Lubac and the Russian Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov were the two great giants of twentieth-century theology.

De Lubac’s work covers a wide range of subjects. His earliest work was on the Thomist conception of the “supernatural,” and more narrowly on the question of whether man has a natural desire for the supernatural. (Though this seems to be a pretty fine point, it has wide ramifications for Catholic theology, and for all Christian theology.) He also wrote a classic medieval Eucharstic theology (Corpus Mysticum), a four-volume study of medieval methods of exegesis, a history of modern atheism, studies of the medieval figure Joachim of Fiore, the Renaissance philosopher Pico della Mirandola and the modern Catholic evolutionary philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

The debate over the supernatural in modern Roman Catholic theology is partly a debate about the interpretation of Aquinas, who has been the most important authority of modern Catholic theology. According to the influential interpretation offered by the Dominican Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534), Thomas offered a kind of two-storey view of the world, with a self-sufficient “natural” world at the bottom and an added “supernatural” world at the top. (This is the interpretation of Thomas offered by Protestant critics like Francis Schaeffer.) Philosophy, politics, economics belong to the natural world and the natural nature of man, and can be conducted without much or any reference to God or grace. Thomas can offer proofs for the existence of God on the basis of natural reason, and then reason from that to revealed and supernatural truths. On this reading, Thomas operates within dualisms of reason/faith, philosophy/theology, nature/grace.

The specific question in debate had to do with the question of the natural desire for supernatural fulfillment. According to Thomas’ (Aristotelian-influenced) metaphysics, the nature of a thing was teleologically qualified – having a nature means seeking some kind of fulfillment of that nature, the full enjoyment of that nature. The telos of man, his highest aim and fulfillment, comes for Thomas in the enjoyment of the beatific vision of God. In several places in his writings, Thomas speaks of a desiderium naturale for the beatific vision. This would suggest that man as a natural being is not fulfilled by natural achievements – painting pictures, organizing businesses, establishing cities – but that he has a natural, built-in desire and longing for complete fulfillment. Simply as a creature, not merely as a redeemed creature, man aims to be united to God.

According to Cajetan’s reading of Thomas, this natural desire cannot be innate, because an innate, natural desire for the supernatural end trespasses the boundary between nature and supernature, between nature and grace. By the desiderium naturale, Thomas simply meant an “elicited” desire for God, which is aroused by the intellect’s curiosity about the world (“I wonder how the sun rises”) which produces in the will a desire to know the cause of the world (“I want to find out who made the sun”).

The actual desire for a supernatural end does not arise from man’s nature, but only when there is an offer of grace. That is what “elicits” the desire. Part of Cajetan’s point was to insist on the graciousness of grace: If there is a natural desire for the beatific vision that precedes the actual offer of grace in the gospel, then the offer of grace is something less than a pure offer of grace. After all, if God implanted a natural desire for the beatific vision in man, then, Cajetan argues, to be just God must fulfill that desire: What kind of God would He be if He aroused these longings only to frustrate them? But that turns the beatific vision into a matter of justice rather than mercy.

To fill out this reading of Thomas Cajetan posited a doctrine of “pure nature.” In Milbank’s summary, “Cajetan, unlike Aquinas, explicitly says that human nature in actuality is fully definable in merely natural terms. This means that there can be an entirely natural and adequate ethics, politics, and philosophy and so forth. Man might even offend the moral law, and yet not be directly guilty of sin.”

De Lubac challenged this reading of Thomas. He explored the history of Christian usage of the terms “nature” and “supernatural,” and concluded (Milbank’s summary again) that “the essential contrast, up until the High Middle Ages, remained one between natural and moral and not natural and supernatural.” De Lubac argued that the former distinction was authentically Christian: “on the one hand there was created nature; on the other hand there was created spirit, which was free, and intellectually reflexive (‘personal’). This ‘moral’ realm was in some sense not just created; it bore a more radical imprint of divinity: the imago dei.”

In this earlier paradigm, there is no “pure nature,” and de Lubac argued that there was no notion of “pure nature” in Aquinas either. He took Thomas’ statements about the natural desire for the supernatural end quite literally: Human beings exist only as creatures of God oriented toward their creator. As he said in a 1932 letter to Maurice Blondel, the problem with pure nature is “how can a conscious spirit be anything other than an absolute desire for God.” Instead of grace being an “extrinsic” addition to nature (as in Cajetan’s reading), grace brings natural abilities and natural inclinations and natural desires to their fulfillment.

De Lubac always insisted that the relation of nature and supernature was a paradox. On the one hand, human beings have a natural longing for fulfillment of their nature in the vision of God; on the other hand, this natural longing is fulfilled not as a necessity or a matter of justice, but in an act of sheer grace.

The point can be broadened: There is nothing that is “purely natural.” Since all is created, the “supernatural” (if we wish to retain the terminology) is always already present within ordinary creation. The ordinary is extraordinary. Another of the broader implications is captured in de Lubac’s claim that “Christianity is a humanism, else it is misunderstood. On the other hand, secular humanism is the absolute antithesis of the Gospel.”

The second part of this is pretty clear: Any effort to understand human reality as if it were closed to God and His revelation in Christ is antithetical to the gospel. The first part is trickier. Christianity is a humanism because its offer of grace does not destroy the genuinely human but brings the human to fulfillment. Grace does not come to reshape human life into something other than human life; grace comes to reshape fallen human life into genuine human life, which is human life in communion with God. There is a “fit” between what the gospel promises and the realities of human existence, because the God who redeems is the God who created.

De Lubac believed that the reinterpretation of Thomas, allowing for an autonomous natural realm, is the source of modern secular humanism. But from the other direction a Catholic “piety” that viewed supernatural grace as wholly extrinsic, something “superadded” to a self-sufficient natural sphere, was equally to blame, because viewing grace as extrinsic and added-on helped to reinforce the autonomy of the natural (secular).

De Lubac’s work on the supernatural influenced his entire corpus. His massive study of medieval exegesis shows that the allegorical is not something “added on” to the literal, but something that emerges from the literal as the fulfillment and telos of the literal. In his treatises on ecclesiology, he insists that the church is not a “supernatural” community wholly different from the natural communities of the world, but is the gracious fulfillment of natural community. He was deeply interested in scientific study and in the “integral humanist” philosophy of the French Catholic Jacques Maritain precisely because he believed that greater understanding of the natural world and of human existence would ensure that theology would not float off again into extrinsicism. The claim that everything is illuminated by the light of grace is only persuasive when we are exploring the darker corners of the everything that is being illuminated.

Part II: Gift and Gratitude

De Lubac insisted in his later book “The Mystery of the Supernatural” that the natural desire for the beatific vision was not grace itself. Grace meets the natural desire and fulfills it, but the natural desire is something in “human nature of itself” (Milbank). This must be so on de Lubac’s theory, since otherwise there is no nature to be fulfilled by supernatural grace, and that appears to lead back to thinking of supernatural grace in extrinsic terms. But this seems to me to put us back several steps. Why talk about “human nature of itself” at all? Doesn’t that itself pressure us toward a dualistic two-story model, in which human nature has qualities of “its own”?

De Lubac sometimes dealt with this question by emphasizing the gift-character of created existence, and Milbank presses this theme in de Lubac even further. One problem raised by Humani Generis was the threat that the denial of pure nature posed to the gratuity of grace: If, the encyclical argues, God cannot but create beings that are oriented to Him, then the graciousness of the fulfillment of that orientation is threatened. God is obligated to fulfill this desire, and that means it is no longer grace. But, Milbank argues, this assumes that the logic of the gift operates the same when we talk about God and man as it does when we talk about man and man. At the human level, “gift” and “obligation” are contrasted: Repaying a debt is not the same as giving a gift. But because God is God, self-sufficient and transcendent, this logic does not apply.

As Milbank says, “gratuity arises before necessity or obligation and does not even require the contrast in order to be comprehensible. The creature as creature is not the recipient of a gift, it is itself this gift. . . . since there is no preceding recipient, the spirit is a gift to a gift and the gifting of giving oneself to oneself, which is the only way consciously to live being as a gift and so to be spirit.” This is convoluted, but the point is that when God gives life and existence to creatures, there is no recipient on the other end, because the existence of the recipient is what is given. Oh my, that was convoluted too. Let me try to be simple: We are only as gifts from God. In the sphere of divine-human interaction, we find what Charles Bruaire, a follower of de Lubac, calls “unilateral exchange.” Thus, there is no “human nature in itself,” but only human nature as sheer gift of God.

And this, Milbank argues, means that human existence, insofar as it is human reception and response, is simply gratitude: “one knows that one is not all of possible knowing and willing and feeling and moreover that, since our share of these things is what we are, we do not really command them, after the mode of a recipient of possessions. Hence to will, know, and fell is to render gratitude, else we would refuse ourselves as constituted as gift. Such gratitude to an implied infinite source can only be, as gratitude, openness to an unlimited reception from this source which is tantamount to a desire to know the giver.” Later, Milbank emphasizes that the gift of created being is “so unilateral that it gives even the recipient and the possibility of her gratitude.”

This has fundamental soteriological implications:“if nature and grace are . . . spatially outside each other (on an extrinsicist model) then this situation will pertain not just at the moment of the reception of grace, but throughout the experience of salvation. Either we will independently contribute to the reception and meriting of grace (‘Pelagianism’) and in that case it will be something chosen or deserved and not a gift, or else it will be something that externally compels our will and, again, no more a gift than is a brick wall that we might inadvertently run into. Whereas the gift of grace involves a change in status of the spirit itself, ontic models of the contrast of gift with non-gift dissolve such radical gratuity altogether.”

On this model, then, there is no “human nature itself” that has a desire for God, no natural sphere that can run autonomously. We exist as gifts, everything we have is given, and the only possible way to live with ourselves is to live in gratitude.

There is more to critique in de Lubac. It is especially important to probe his doctrine of sin. But I don’t have time for that. Only one concluding observation: De Lubac’s work, though it is operating within Catholic and specifically Thomist problematics, has enormous implications for current soteriological debates in the Reformed world. Protestants as well as Catholics have operated with an “extrinsicist” understanding of grace, and in some versions of the covenant of works we seem to see a Protestant version of Cajetan’s “pure nature.” De Lubac’s work will surely look different in a Protestant context, but we do have much to learn from him.

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 VOICE OF THE CHURCH MUST BE PROPHETIC by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

$
0
0

Your Holinesses and Beatitudes, Your Eminences and Graces, dear brothers and sisters, esteemed delegates of the Assembly:

The World Council of Churches has a long and rich history.
Set up after the Second World War, the Council responded to the expectations of Christians of various confessions who strove to meet, to get to know each other and to work together. Over the 65 years since the founding of the WCC, several generations of Christians belonging to religious communities that were cut off from each other have discovered for themselves the faith and life of their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Many prejudices regarding other Christian traditions have been overcome, yet at the same time that which divides Christians to the present has been acknowledged ever more clearly and deeply.
The greatest achievement of the Council has been those encounters, that well intentioned and mutual respectful inter-Christian communication, which has never allowed for compromises in the field of theology and morality and which has enabled us to remain true to ourselves and to bear witness to our faith, while at the same time growing in love for each other.
The World Council of Churches today remains a unique instrument of inter-Christian cooperation that has no analogy in the world. However, the question arises as to how effective this instrument is. We must notе with some regret that, in spite of all of the efforts aimed at bringing Christians of various confessions closer to each other, within Christendom not only are the divisions of the past not disappearing, but new ones are arising. Many Christian communities continue to split up, whereas the number of communities that unite with one another is extremely small.
One of the problems which the WCC is encountering today is that of finances. It is said that it is connected with the world economic crisis. I cannot agree with this opinion. The experience of other international organizations, whose work is of general benefit and therefore needed, has shown that funding can often be found for noble goals. This means that the problem is not the economic crisis, but how relevant and important is the work of the WCC for today’s international community, which is made up to a significant degree by, and at times, a majority of Christians.
The creation of the WCC was determined by the endeavour to find answers to the challenges of the post-War period. Yet in recent years the world has changed greatly, and today Christians from all over the world are facing new challenges. It is precisely upon how successfully we respond to these challenges that the need for our organization in the future depends.
The contemporary situation demands from us more decisive action, greater cohesion and more dynamism. And yet it also demands a re-orientation of the basic direction of our work, a change in priorities in our discussions and deeds.
While we continue to discuss our differences in the comfortable atmosphere of conferences and theological dialogues, the question resounds ever more resolutely: will Christian civilization survive at all?
In my address I would like to focus on two fundamental challenges which the Christian world today faces in varying degrees. The first is that of the militant secularism which is gathering strength in the so called developed countries, primarily in Europe and America. The second is that of radical Islamism that poses a threat to the very existence of Christianity in a number of regions of the world, mainly in the Middle East, but also in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Militant secularism in Europe has a long history going back to the period of the French revolution. But it is only in the 20th century in the countries of the so called socialist bloc that godlessness was elevated to the level of state ideology. As regards the so called capitalist countries, they preserved to a significant degree the Christian traditions which shaped their cultural and moral identity.
Today these two worlds appear to have changed roles. In the countries of the former Soviet Union, in particular in Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Moldavia, an unprecedented religious revival is underway. In the Russian Orthodox Church over the past 25 years there have been built or restored from ruins more than 25,000 churches. This means that a thousand churches a year have been opened, i.e. three churches a day. More than 50 theological institutes and 800 monasteries, each full with monks and nuns, have been opened.
In Western European countries we can observe the steady decline of the numbers of parishioners, a crisis in vocations, and monasteries and churches are being closed. The anti-Christian rhetoric of many politicians and statesmen becomes all the more open as they call for the total expulsion of religion from public life and the rejection of the basic moral norms common to all religious traditions.
The battle between the religious and secular worldview is today raging not in academic auditoriums or on the pages of newspapers. And the subject of the conflict is far from being exhausted by the question of belief or lack of belief in God. Today this clash has entered a new dimension and touches upon the fundamental aspects of the everyday life of the human person.
Militant secularism is aimed not only at religious holy sites and symbols by demanding that they be removed from the public domain. One of the main directions of its activity today is the straightforward destruction of traditional notions of marriage and the family. This is witnessed by the new phenomenon of equating homosexual unions with marriage and allowing single-gender couples to adopt children. From the point of view of biblical teaching and traditional Christian moral values, this testifies to a profound spiritual crisis. The religious understanding of sin has been conclusively eroded in societies that until recently thought of themselves as Christian.
Particularly alarming is the fact that we are dealing in this instance not only with a choice of ethics and worldview. Under the pretext of combating discrimination, a number of countries have introduced changes in family legislation. Over the past few years single-gender cohabitation has been legalized in a number of states in the USA, a number of Latin American countries and in New Zealand. This year homosexual unions have attained the legal status of ‘marriage’ in England and Wales and in France.
We have to state clearly that those countries that have recognized in law homosexual unions as one of the forms of marriage are taking a serious step towards the destruction of the very concept of marriage and the family. And this is happening in a situation where in many historically Christian countries the traditional family is enduring a serious crisis: the number of divorces is growing, the birthrate is declining catastrophically, the culture of a family upbringing is degraded, not to mention the prevalence of sexual relations outside of marriage, the increase in the number of abortions and the increase of children brought up without parents, even if those parents are still alive.
Instead of encouraging by all means possible traditional family values and supporting childbirth not only materially but also spiritually, the justification of the legitimacy of ‘single-gender families’ who bring up children has become the centre of public attention. As a result, the traditional social roles are eroded and swapped around. The notion of parents, i.e. of the father and the mother, of what is male and what is female, is radically altered. The female mother is losing her time-honoured role as guardian of the domestic hearth, while the male father is losing his role as educator of his children in being socially responsible. The family in its Christian understanding is falling apart to be replaced by such impersonal terms as ‘parent number one’ and parent number two’.
All of this cannot but have the most disastrous consequences for the upbringing of children. Children who are brought up in families with ‘two fathers’ or ‘two mothers’ will already have views on social and ethical values different from their contemporaries from traditional families.
One of the direct consequences of the radical reinterpretation of the concept of marriage is the serious demographic crisis which will only grow if these approaches are adhered to. Those politicians who are pushing the countries of the civilized world into the demographic abyss are in essence pronouncing upon their peoples a death sentence.
What is to be the response of the Christian Churches? I believe deeply this response can be none other than that which is based on Divine Revelation as handed down to us in the Bible. Scripture is the common foundation which unites all Christian confessions. We may have significant differences in the interpretation of Scripture, but we all possess the same Bible and its moral teaching is laid out quite unambiguously. Of course, we differ in the interpretation of certain biblical texts when they allow for a varied interpretation. Yet much in the Bible is stated quite unambiguously, namely that which proceeds from the mouth of God and retains its relevance for all subsequent ages. Among these divine sayings are many moral commandments, including those which concern family ethics.
In speaking out against all forms of discrimination, the Church nonetheless must vindicate the traditional Christian understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman, the most important mission of which is the birth and upbringing of children. It is precisely this understanding of marriage that we find on the pages of the Bible in the story of the first human family. This same understanding of marriage we also find in the Gospels and the apostolic epistles. The Bible does not know of any alternative forms of marriage.
Unfortunately, not all Christian Churches today find within themselves the courage and resolve to vindicate the biblical ideals by going against that which is fashionable and the prevalent secular outlook. Some Christian communities have long ago embarked on a revision of moral teaching aimed at making it more in step with modern tendencies.
It is often said that the differences in theological and ethical problems are linked to the division of Christians into conservatives and liberals. One cannot but agree with this when we see how in a number of Christian communities a headlong liberalization is occurring in religious ethics, as a rule under the influence of processes taking place in secular society. At the same time the witness of the Orthodox Churches should not be reduced to that of conservatism. The faith of the Ancient Church which we Orthodox confess is impossible to define from the standpoint of conservatism and liberalism. We confess Christ’s truth which is immutable, for ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever’ (Heb. 3:8).
We are not speaking about conservatism but of fidelity to Divine Revelation which is contained in Scripture. And if the so called liberal Christians reject the traditional Christian understanding of moral norms, then this means that we are running up against a serious problem in our common Christian witness. Are we able to bear this witness if we are so deeply divided in questions of moral teaching, which are as important for salvation as dogma?
In this regard I would like to speak about the Church’s prophetic vocation. I recall the words of Fr. Alexander Schmemann who said that a prophet is far from being someone who foretells the future. In reminding us of the profound meaning of prophecy, Schmemann wrote: ‘The essence of prophecy is in the gift of proclaiming to people God’s will, which is hidden from human sight but revealed to the spiritual vision of the prophet’ (Schmemann, The Celebration of Faith, vol.1: I Believe…, p.112).
We often speak of the prophetic voice of the Churches, yet does our voice actually differ much from the voice and rhetoric of the secular mass media and non-governmental organizations? Is not one of the most important tasks of the WCC to discern the will of God in the modern-day historical setting and proclaim it to the world? This message, of course, would be hard to swallow for the powerful of this world. However, in refusing to proclaim it, we betray our vocation and in the final run we betray Christ.
In today’s context, when in many countries and regions of the world the revival of religion is underway and yet at the same time aggressive secularism and ideological atheism is raising its head, the World Council of Churches must find its own special voice that is understandable to modern-day societies and yet which proclaims the permanent truths of the Christian faith. Today, as always, we are called upon to be messengers of the Word of God, the Word which is ‘quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword’ (Heb. 4: 12); the Word which is not bound (2 Tim. 2: 9). It is only then that we can bring to Christ new souls, in spite of the resistance of the ‘rulers of the darkness of this world’ (Eph. 6: 12).
Allow me to speak now of the second global challenge for the entire Christian world, the challenge of radicalism on religious grounds, in particular radical Islamism. I use this term fully aware that Islamism is in no way identical to Islam and in many ways is the opposite of it. Islam is a religion of peace able to coexistence with other religious traditions, as is demonstrated, for example, by the centuries-old experience of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims in Russia. Radical Islamism, known as Wahhabism or Salafism, is a movement within the Islamic world that has as its goal the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate in which there is no place for Christians.
Here I shall not go into the reasons for the appearance and rapid growth of this phenomenon. I shall say only that in recent years the persecution of Christians has assumed a colossal scale. According to the information of human rights organizations, every five minutes a Christian dies for his faith in one or another part of the world, and every year more than a hundred thousand Christians die a violent death. According to published data, no less than one hundred million Christians worldwide are now subject to discrimination and persecution. Information on the oppression of Christians comes in from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a number of other countries. Our brothers and sisters are being killed, driven from their homes and separated from their families and loved ones; they are denied the right to practice their faith and educate their children according to their religious beliefs. Christians are the most persecuted religious community on the planet.
Unfortunately, manifestations of discrimination with regard to the Christian minority can no longer be treated as separate incidents: in some regions of the world they have become a well established tendency. As a result of the continuing conflict in Syria the number of murders of Christians has increased, churches and holy sites have been destroyed. The Copts, the original inhabitants of Egypt, have today become a target for attacks and riots, and many have been forced to abandon their own country.
Radicalism on religious grounds is growing not only in the countries where the population is predominantly Muslim. It is important to draw attention to the situation in the area of Asia where today’s Assembly is taking place. In this region the Christian communities for more than three hundred years, thanks to the efforts of missionaries, have grown and developed. According to data by the experts, over the past ten years the level of discrimination of Christians in the region has increased many times over. Great anxiety is caused by the position of the Christian communities of Indonesia, where over the past two years the level of aggression aimed at Christians has increased considerably. Information on the discrimination of Christians is coming in from other Asian countries too.
Today we have to be aware that one of the most important tasks facing us is the defense of our persecuted brothers and sisters in various areas of the world. This task demands urgent resolve for which we must employ all possible means and levers—diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and so on. The topic of the persecution of Christians ought to be examined in the context of inter-Christian cooperation. It is only through common energetic endeavours that we can help our suffering brothers and sisters in Christ.
Much is done in this regard today by the Roman Catholic Church. There are Christian organizations that monitor the situation and collect charitable aid for suffering Christians. Our Church also participates in this work. I believe that of much benefit would be joint conferences and the exchange of information and experience between Christian human rights organizations that are pursuing this problem.
The rights of Christians can be guaranteed only by supporting dialogue between religious communities at both the inter-state and international level. Therefore, one of the important directions of the WCC’s work is inter-religious dialogue. I believe that we ought to pay more attention to the development of a deep and interested mutual inter-action with traditional religions, especially with Islam.
The World Council of Churches is already working to draw attention to the problem of the persecution of Christians. As an example I can quote the Christian-Muslim consultation on the topic of the Christians presence and witness in the Arab world, organized by the WCC in January 2012 in Lebanon, as well as the conference held there in May of this year on the persecution of Christians, in which the General Secretary of the WCC participated. I would also like to remark upon the work carried out by the Council with the aim of reducing the level of tension in Syria, of averting an escalation of the conflict and of not allowing external military intervention.
Addressing those who confessed Christianity St. Peter said: ‘But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy’ (1 Pet. 4: 13). Recalling these words, we prayerfully desire that the All-Merciful Lord shall grant comfort and joy to those afflicted and oppressed so that they, in feeling the help and compassion of those brothers and sisters who are far away geographically yet close in the faith, may find in themselves the strength, with the aid of the grace of God, to travel further down the path of steadfast faith.
In concluding my speech, I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart the Christian communities of South Korea for the hospitality that they have shown us and the excellent organization of this General Assembly. The Russian Orthodox Church sympathizes with the Korean people in its striving to find unity, and in prayer and in deeds supports the processes for the overcoming of tension in relations between the two countries of the Korean peninsula.

To all of you, the participants of the Assembly, I enjoin the aid of God in joint labours and those labours which each of us carry out in their Churches and communities. May our witness become the word of truth which the world needs so much today.


WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
VATICAN RADIO REPORT


VATICAN RADIO INTERVIEW
WITH THE ARCHBISHOP WELBY OF
CANTERBURY

CLICK HERE




BUSAN, South Korea - The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby has made his first appearance at an assembly of the World Council of Churches when he attended the 10th Assembly of the World Council of Churches Asia meeting in Busan, South Korea.

RELATED
the-rev-olav-fykse-tveitWorld church body geared for interfaith talks alongside UN Syria meeting
Global churches leader sees world facing serious threats, but with hope
It's men and women in black on Thursdays from October 31
Song, dance at world churches' body convention tells Korea story
Ecumenical leader urges world church body to face up to changes
World churches body opening prayers invoke unity within nations
Korean Christians rail against world church body, Peace Train arrives
"'This is my first Assembly. I am enjoying sense of wonder at my smallness, my tiny place among God's great Church, which draws together women and men, young and not so young, lay and ordained, from different continents and cultures and different ecclesial traditions," said Friday

Welby was enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the 80-million strong Anglican Communion, on March 21.

He was enthroned for the first time by a woman as the senior cleric of the Church of England.

Speaking in Busan at the meeting of the WCC's highest governing body, its assembly, Welby a former banking and oil industry executive, said, "Being here together a fresh vision of that to which we are called. It is an opportunity for genuine encounter, an opportunity to learn about one another and to learn from one another.

"We must learn to hear Christ through one another. We renew our commitment to the ecumenical journey and the ecumenical task. We need one another," Archbishop stated during a special meeting on Asia..

Follow us 

Welby said that his predecessors had been given the opportunity to learn in the life of the fellowship through ecumenical activity due to participation.

"Ever since the first Assembly at Amsterdam in 1948, Archbishops of Canterbury have been present at Assemblies, a personal sign of how important the fellowship of churches has been, and still is, for Anglicans.

"As a result we have sometimes been uncomfortably challenged and even moved to reform ourselves.

"Friendship is the seed bed in which unity, the visible unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church grows and flourishes," the archbishop said.

The World Council of Churches 10th Assembly theme this year is to create justice, peace, and unity. Archbishop expressed friendship is an importance to achieve unity.

Professor Joshua Rathnam Chinthala, of the Church of North India, explained he has met a lot of people and hopes the people that he has met at the WCC will eventually become life-long friends.

"I have met a lot of people so far, and I have gotten to know those who live in different countries; I hope these will turn into life-long friendships," Chinthala told Ecumenical News.

"When we look to God our eyes are turned outwards to his world, and we hear again the command, as Pope Francis said, to be a poor church for the poor.

"The children of Christ act instinctively to love those who suffer, as He loves us. If justice faints, hope fades. But when justice is loved, and lived, the poor have hope and the whole world begins to sing.

One of the guest speakers, YangYa-Chi, a Taiwanese graduate of the University of Cambridge, who gained her master's degree in Modern Society and Global Transformations, related to Welby's statement.

She said, "The children of Christ act instinctively to love those who suffer, as he loves us. If justice faints, hope fades. But when justice is loved, and lived, the poor have hope and the whole world begins to sing."

YangYa-Chi said, "Jesus never looks down on human sufferings; we as followers of Jesus must help others."

Delegate, Archbishop Aristarchos of Constantina from Jersusalem said to Ecumenical News, "I believe that as a Christian, an orthodox Christian, who lives in Jerusalem, in the holy land, in the land in which Jesus Christ lived, as a person, the son of god. I believe that as a member of the church, we have the belief of Jesus Christ, the belief to his mission which is love, reconciliation, peace, and justice."

The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his gratitude on behalf of the Anglican Communion for the opportunity to be a part of the opening of the 10th WCC Assembly.


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 ICON IS MAKING ITS WAY IN AMERICA

$
0
0
my source: Orthodox Arts Journal ( an excellent website)

“The Icon is Making its Way in America”, an interview with Ksenia Pokrovsky
December 5, 2013
By Mary Lowell


The life of Ksenia Pokrovsky (March 9, 1942-July 7, 2013) touched thousands of people from nearly every part of the world. Here are excerpts from an interview taken by Irina Yazikova in 2009 for an Italian magazine. Yazikova is a noted art historian and author of many books about iconography, including “Hidden and Triumphant: The Underground Struggle to Save Russian Iconography, in which she writes about Pokrovsky’s influence in Russia and her work in America. The entire interview in Russian can be found at http://www.art-sobor.ru/archives/5604

Mary Lowell

Excerpts from and Interview with Ksenia Pokrovsky

(Interview conducted by Irina Yazikova)
FOR ITALIAN MAGAZINE “NEW EUROPE” (2009)
Ksenia Pokrovsky and son Dmitriy (center) at the 1989 exhibition of the “Modern Icon” organized in the Znamensky Cathedral in Moscow. It was the first exhibition of contemporary church art held during the entire Soviet period. Prior to this exhibit, icons had only been exhibited as museum pieces and always as something from a period previous to 1917.

Irina: Ksenya, wasn’t it a crazy idea to leave Moscow at the time? To leave behind a well-established business, favorite students, customers? To leave Russia, a soil in which the icon is firmly rooted? Did it not seem to be utter madness to leave it all behind and move to the United States? Or did you have plans for America, expecting lucrative commissions and steady demand for your work?

What plans? We left not knowing where we were going, knowing nothing, understanding nothing, with no English, and above all, no clear idea what I’d be doing in the US. However, somehow it all has come about. In my first days in America, I wrote icons just for myself, only because I cannot cease working; it’s not in my nature.

So it happened that my confessor had already had a few of my icons. Then, he purchased some more. This was my first sale in America, which helped financially. After that, the priest commissioned even more icons. We could pay rent. In that first apartment, we didn’t have a studio; there weren’t any working conditions. I used a cardboard box for a table – just placed an icon board on it and worked. Thank God, I brought much with me – brushes, pigments etc. Soon I was able to exhibit my icons at a Christmas bazaar; they were sold, and I got a few commissions. These were my first commissions; more were to come.

Irina: And how did the first students find you?


Oh, this was a funny story. The owner of the booth that was selling my icons posted some publicity about me. A while later, a young Italian woman from Verona comes to me and says, “Hello! I will be your student.” I replied, “How could I possibly teach you? I barely speak any English.” (Truly, my English was non-existent then). “Even more so, Italian…” But she said, “In this case, I will be teaching you English, and you’ll be teaching me Russian.” I agreed. I asked her then, “What made you want to learn iconography?” And she told me her rather mystical story. Her husband was engaged in scientific research and was assigned to Boston University. Before leaving Italy, they went to see their confessor, Padre Bartholomeo. (By the way, he had shared a monastic cell at some point with the famous Padre Pio; he is very old now). Padre Bartholomeo blessed them for their journey to Boston. But then, Adriana asked him what she might be doing there, he replied, “You’re going to learn the Orthodox iconography.” She was confused, “But to do that, one ought to go to Russia!” And the priest said, “No, you have to go where your husband goes.” Adriana just laughed. But when she arrived in America, she came across my flyer, and she realized that Fr. Bartolomeo had been absolutely right. She was no longer in doubt that she must learn to paint icons. Turned out, Adriana had an aptitude for iconography. Her studies lasted a few years, and then she and her husband went back to Italy. They have four children now. Adriana still continues to paint icons. And she paints well! We are in touch to this day.

Irina: Adriana, as I understand it, was a Roman Catholic? Do you have many Roman Catholic students?

Quite a few, no less than the Orthodox. For example, one of my students is a Franciscan monk, a very learned and cultured man. He is a specialist in Stéphane Mallarmé, earned his doctorate at the Sorbonne. He is an outstanding iconographer. There are also Protestants among my students. In America, there is great interest in the Orthodox icon across many confessions.
Ksenia teaching young students in Santa Barbara, CA in 2012


Irina: Are your students mostly from the Boston area or do you also have visiting students from afar?


Oh, the geography of my students is extensive; they are coming from everywhere. And how they find out about me, I don’t even know. For example, one of my pupil lives in the mountains of New Mexico, where she has a huge farm with goats, chickens, and so on. In the courtyard she even has an owl and snakes, imagine. Twice a year, she leaves her farm and comes to me to study iconography, staying with us for two or three weeks. Her name is Claudia Gus, but we invented a Russian name for her – Klavdia Guseva. She writes icons beautifully!

Irina: Is she of Russian heritage?

No, she is a pure-bred American.

Irina: But she is Orthodox, isn’t she?

Yes, she is.

Irina: And how did she learn about Orthodoxy?


When she was still at school in Los Angeles, she had a Russian teacher. And one day he took his entire class to show them what a Russian Orthodox church looks like. There, she says, she encountered Christ for the first time. Soon she was baptized into the Orthodox faith. In New Mexico, they now have an Orthodox mission. When a visiting priest comes to serve liturgy, people from all over, from all the surrounding farms come to worship, no less than three hundred.

Irina: Wow, these students of yours are quite exotic characters.

No, Claudia is not so exotic. I’ve got another student, so that’s really a wonder of wonders! He is African-American, a very talented guy, Christopher Gosey. He writes in an original manner – Ethiopian! Very original, very vibrant. A few years ago he came to me and said he wanted to study iconography. At that time, he was working full time as a clerk. I agreed to give him lessons, but also told him that the subject of iconography is serious, and that one cannot engage in it as if it were a casual hobby. Later, he himself realized that, quit his job, and became a full-time iconographer. And an excellent iconographer! When I saw the way he worked, I told him, “Don’t change who you are; don’t shape yourself into an imitator of Greek or Russian iconography. You have to write the way your heart guides you.” And he now writes the way the ancient Ethiopians and the Copts wrote – very vividly, very decoratively, very expressively.

Irina: What church does he go to?

He is an Ethiopian Orthodox Church. In America, this church is quite numerous.
Christopher Gosey with his icon of the “Conquering Lion of Judah”


Irina: And so, among your students there are the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, and on top of it — the non-Chalcedonians (the Miaphysites, to be precise in respect to the Ethiopians). Does it ever happen that enamored with iconography, people of other confessions turn to Orthodoxy?

It happens. You might think it strange, but the Roman Catholics rarely convert to Orthodoxy; they only go deeper into their own tradition. The icon allows them to move closer to the origins of the undivided Church of the first millennium. Icons are near to their heart, and icons also speak their language. Devout, serious Catholics love the Byzantine iconography more than what is nowadays common among them – sentimental realism painting. But turning to Orthodoxy is more common among the Protestants. It often happens that first they are introduced to icons, and then encounter the patristic theology, and quite often after that they convert to Orthodoxy. This is how they, shall I say, discover the Apostolic Tradition and get to know the Church in all its fullness. One of my former pupils, who converted to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, has become a close friend and almost a member of our family. She came from a very traditional Protestant background, but when she became Orthodox, there were some family ties broken, and she experienced rejection and the unwillingness to understand by her own people. Such cases in America are countless. Most of the Orthodox churches in America are now filled with converts from different Protestant denominations. Although, of course, for the majority of Americans, the Orthodox Church still remains an exotic entity.


Irina: Ksenya, you have lived in America for the last ten years. Is there an emergence of interest towards traditional iconography in America?

There is definitely an interest, and it is on the rise. But there are quite a few who take advantage of this and profiteer from it. There are teachers who barely know anything about iconography and its technique but for a hefty fee will to teach anyone how to become an iconographer within a couple of weeks. There are many who take the bait. They come from all across America, responding to a massive advertising machine. And after a two-week course, students firmly believe that they have become masters. They paint icons and even sell them. This, of course, is terrible. You cannot teach iconography this way. Iconography is only the tip of a huge iceberg that is known as Orthodox Tradition. You’ve got to know not only the technical methods but also the Church’s theology and its liturgy, and also to live a life of prayer. But they exploit it instead.


Irina: But I think this is the norm: the demand creates the supply. There are plenty of such swindlers in Russia now as well. But there are other examples, more positive, aren’t there?

Of course, there are positive examples. For instance, we have now a movable exhibit of modern American iconographers, for three years already. I have taken part in its formation and selection of works. We have gathered fifteen artists who exhibit hundreds of icons. This exhibition has already visited more than a dozen cities in the US, with great success. And in every city we have lines forming to get in.

Irina: One might say, the icon is making its way in America.


Yes, to a certain extent, this is true. This is something the Americans haven’t seen before; after all, their culture is still young – only about 200 years. In America there have been no Middle Ages, there have been no deep-rooted traditions like in Russia or Europe. Therefore iconography, even the new iconography carries in itself the memory of this centuries-old tradition.

Irina: What is most important for you in iconography? As an artist, you cannot stand still, only repeating what has been invented and coined before?

Yes, of course. Iconography is a traditional and canonic art, but it is by no means a mindless copying. Creative impulse in iconography must be very strong. For example, let’s consider the new iconography. Today, we must not be afraid of develop new prototypes and new compositions. We must not be afraid of doing something that has not been done before.


Irina: You have just such a composition, of course, is the icon of “All Saints who have shone forth in North America.”
“Synaxis of All Saints Who Have Shone Forth in North America”


Yes, I’m the first one to gather in one icon all the Orthodox saints who labored in America and preached Orthodoxy here. But I mean not only new composition. We should not be afraid of exploring new forms. I, for example, am very fond of the foldable icons. It has tremendous possibilities. For example, I am now working on a poly-typtic on the subject of Great Lent; there will be shown all of the feasts and the saints that mark and comprise the seven weeks of Great Lent. I have not seen such a composition before, anywhere.
Tryptich of Great Lent (closed) from the Thomas and Elizabeth Smith Collection

Maria-Nikolaevna-Sokolova.

Triptych (open) Thomas and Elizabeth Smith collection


Or for example, the triptych “The Creation-Salvation”. Here the theme of redemption is developed from the Creation, the Fall and the expulsion from Eden all the way to the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Resurrection. In this multi-part form, you can do a lot, and also find an interesting theological interpretation. The icon must speak to the mind and heart, to help in prayer, but has also to bring new understanding of the Good News.


Irina: And how did you come to the Church? Why did you take up iconography? You were born in the Soviet Union, a place and time alien to spirituality.

My coming to faith began with the DNA molecule.

Irina: How so? Please explain!


I was about 15 years old when I first saw in the magazine a drawing of the DNA molecule bearing the record of the genetic code. It impressed me so much that I ran to my grandmother, and began showing her the picture. And suddenly she was saying such strange words, “Yes, yes, it is the Covenant of Life. The laws of nature are the Covenant to Creation. The Law of Moses is the testament to consciousness. The New Testament is the testament to Salvation. And here – the DNA – is the Covenant of Life. This is the text, the word. So it should be. ”

Irina: That’s really true, “in the beginning was the Word.”


Well, yes, it is the Word, written in the human genes. Moses brought the Tablets, the Savior brought the Gospel, the laws of nature are written into the very fabric of the Universe, and the Word about mankind is written in mankind itself. The scientist Nikolai Vavilov, in his defense of genetics, was not quite sure himself what exactly he was defending. And those who persecuted him and put a ban on genetics in the Soviet Union sensed that genetics was something dangerous to them, that it wasn’t just some ordinary science.
Mug shot of Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov (1887 –1943) taken at his arrest in 1940. Vavilov was a prominent Russian botanist and geneticist known for having identified the centres of origin of cultivated plants.


It was not by chance that they banned it with such vehement viciousness. They fought God himself in the guise of genetics. When I realized what DNA was, I was stunned. This concept has stuck in my head, and I developed an interest towards this mystery, towards this miracle, towards the mystery of life. I finished high school and went on to study microbiology, to get closer to this mystery. But then the University’s biology department did not study genetics. And I realized that I need to come to biology through physics. I became involved in crystallography, biophysics and other matters. I studied the DNA code as well. I even discovered a hitherto unknown reaction, which made the topic of my doctoral dissertation. But at some point, I began to get a feeling that what I was doing was “dissection of the corpses”, that there wasn’t mystery in any of it. But where was the mystery? Here was a clear recognition of the need of faith.

Irina: Did you have a devout family?


It all depends how you look at it. One of my grandmothers was Bulgarian; she studied in Switzerland, was well-educated, was baptized in the Orthodox Church, but was not a practitioner. She just thought that faith is manifested in the way you live your life. On the other side of the family tree, I had an aunt – her name was Ekaterina (Catherine) – who was truly a church woman, Orthodox. She was the one who took me to church when I was little. And these two women have had a great influence on me; moreover, I did not see any contradiction in those two, but only two different points of view on the same subject. And so, when I gave up on science, it was only natural to me to find myself churched and take up iconography. There was some internal logic to it all.

Irina: Did you do any drawing before?

A little bit. My aunt Katya (Ekaterina) was an artist. And one time I was considering enrollment in the School of Architecture, even spent the whole year taking preparatory classes. This, of course, wasn’t at all enough to become an artist. But it is a good thing that I didn’t become a fine artist, because the most difficult thing is to have to retrain yourself. In order to become an iconographer, you need to forget everything you’ve been taught in art school, in college, because the essence of the artist is self-expression, which in iconography should not be in any case. I was lucky, I had almost had nothing to unlearn.

Irina: Who was your first teacher?


At first, I studied with my priest, Fr. Anatoly Volgin. However, he himself was a beginner – he had begun to write icons about six months before I did. We all were beginners. Basically, we copied reproductions, went to museums, tried to peer into the old icons. It was a quest, an attempt to figure out things. We also tried our hands in restoration of icons. This also gave us an understanding of technology – how an icon is made, how brush strokes were made, about various techniques etc. Then there was one summer, probably in 1974, when we rented a summer cottage near Maria Nikolaevna Sokolova, Mother Juliana. And I came to her with one of my icons. At first, her comments were negative – this is not right, that is not right… But then, she looked at it again and said, “You know, keep at it, keep working.” I cannot say that she was my teacher. I did not take part in her iconography studio at the St. Serguis Lavra; I only came to her occasionally for advice.
Photo of Mother Juliana (Maria Nikolaevna Sokolova)


Irina: I know that you are very particular in your approach to the technical aspect of icon writing. For example, Maria Nikolaevna Sokolova wrote icons in egg tempera, in acrylic, in gouache, and in oil. Of course, those were hard times, nothing was readily available then.


Yes, it was difficult to get paint. But from the beginning I wanted to write “for real,” using natural pigments. I even had – as I call it – a “geological” period. I developed a passion for minerals. We, the young iconographers, were literally chasing the natural pigments and minerals day and night. I remember the first time I saw cinnabar, what a joy it was! We collected stones, brought them from all over the country, and pulverized them into pigments by hand with a glass mulier. Lapis lazuli, azurite, orpiment, you name it. No synthetic pigment could possibly compete with these natural pigments, no way! I have the whole collection of mineral pigments.
Ksenia crushing stones to make pigment

Irina: And you took this small fortune with you to America?


Certainly, how could I abandon it? And this collection has only grown bigger. You can get anything in America, any pigment. Albeit, for an icon, in general, one does not need much – just three or four basic colors, not counting black, white, and gold.

Irina: What about your first students in Russia? How did they find you?

Absolutely spontaneously! Someone asked me to show him how to write faces; someone brought his or her work to show; someone just started working by my side. None of us old-timers considered themselves master iconographers; it was just one big circle of colleagues and friends. Gradually, we worked out the methodology of teaching. However, I must say that this particular teaching methodology – which I use – came from Fr. Anatoly Volgin. This is the most effective teaching method.
Ksenia teaching young students in Moscow in 1980s

Irina: And what is this method?


First, we learn how to write an icon that has only the head and the shoulders. This allows us to concentrate on the face and the hair. The next step is to learn how to write half-figures, from the waist up. Here we learn how to write garments, folds, how to do the lighting. Now, at this stage we have an interesting complication of the task: the face becomes smaller but it has to retain the same elements that we would have in a large-size face! Once that stage is mastered, we proceed to full-size figures. The same technique as before, only now we have a better understanding what goes where. At this stage it is unlikely that one would push the eye into the ear – which typically happens when you start learning the craft by making a small icon. After those three stages, we proceed to a composition that has either buildings or mountains in the background, but not both. At this stage the new thing for the student to learn is the buildings and the mountains – everything else is already familiar to the student. And all subsequent work is from simple to complex, from the Annunciation to “In Thee is Gladness”.

Irina: With this method you use to this day?

Yes, it is time-tested.

Irina: How do you assess the level of iconography in today’s Russia?


In general, I believe that the overall level has improved markedly over the past ten years. It is a pity that there are not that many new names. Those who are active today are the same people that began at the same time as we did or a bit later, around 70s or 80s. These are Fr. Zinon, Alexander Lavdansky, A. Sokolov. They are well known outside of Russia and are sought after abroad. In everything else I feel there is a lot of commercialism and not enough artistry. But maybe it’s only growing pains.


Irina: Thank you very much for the interview. I wish you success in your work. May you have many new students! And may the seeds of iconographic tradition you plant in the American soil germinate a new iconographic tradition for this country. God willing, the icon will become a revelation and a “contemplation in color” as it was one for Russia

A TASTE OF RUSSIAN MONASTICISM

$
0
0
my source: Roca
The Fathers of Russian Monasticism St. Anthony of the Kiev Caves (July 10) St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (May 3) 
A nun of St Elizabeth's Monastery in Minsk gave me an icon of these two saints.   Thus, although her monastery is in Belarus and mine in Peru, although she is Orthodox and I am Catholic, I pray and hope that the presence of SS Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves in our midst will be a blessing for our monastery here as we try to sow the seeds of monasticism in Peru. (Fr David)

 After the seeds of Divine grace had been planted through the Mystery of Baptism, it was the early growth of a native monasticism with its intense cultivation of spiritual life which most effectively encouraged the Gospel teaching to take root among the peoples of Rus', The first of these native monasteries, the Kiev Caves Lavra, has been called "the cradle of Russian Christianity," and its founders, Sts. Anthony and Theodosius, are appropriately venerated as the fathers of Russian monasticism. Together with their disciples, they shone forth upon the Russian land as spiritual luminaries, dispelling the darkness of paganism and calling people, by example, into Christ's marvelous light. 


 St. Anthony of the Kiev Caves
Commemorated July 10

 At the time of the Baptism of Rus' in 988, there lived in the town of Liubech a young boy by the name of Antip. He was educated by his parents in Christian piety, and upon coming of age he set out for the Holy Mountain of Athos to observe for himself the life of the monks whose ascetic struggles were extolled by Greek missionaries at work among the peoples of the Kieran princedom. Inspired by the monastic ideal, the youth chose to follow this angelic path himself and was soon tonsured with the name Anthony. He settled not far from the monastery of Esphigmenou in a small cave overlooking the sea. The zealous young ascetic had been there only a few years when the abbot, prompted by Divine revelation, sent him back to his native land in order that his example might serve to draw others from among the recently enlightened people to embrace the monastic life. 

 Arriving in Kiev, Anthony made the rounds of the various Greek monasteries there, but finding none of them to his liking --for he was accustomed to the more austere, Athonite tradition--he discovered a small cave not far from the city and there resumed his life of solitary struggle. His peace, however, was interrupted by the fratricidal turmoil which followed upon the death of Great Prince Vladimir in 1015 and the seizure of the throne by his ruthlessly ambitious son Svyatopolk, and Anthony decided to return to Athos, But as soon as this time of troubles passed, the abbot sent him back once again to Kiev with the blessing of the Holy Mountain, encouraging him with the prophecy that many monks would join him. On his return, Anthony discovered another cave where the ascetic priest Hilarion had been wont to retire for prayer before his appointment as first Metropolitan of Rus'. Enlarging it just enough to make it habitable, Anthony settled there as a hermit. 

Some kind people, on learning of his presence there, supplied him with the scant provisions he would accept. He subsisted almost exclusively on bread and water. The Saint's life of solitude was short lived, as people began coming to ask his blessing and counsel. Soon, there came also those who desired to share his way of life. One of the first to join the Saint was the priest Nikon (March 23) who later tonsured another newcomer and Anthony's closest disciple, Theodosius. 

 From the beginning, the emerging monastic community enjoyed the favor of the royal household, although it was not always a smooth relationship. When the son of a wealthy boyar gave up his worldly goods for a monastic life of voluntary poverty, his father complained to the Prince. Soon thereafter a favorite among the Prince's retinue followed suit and was likewise tonsured by Nikon. Prince Izyaslav angrily demanded that Nikon persuade the two to abandon their new way of life, threatening Nikon with his wrath. "Do with me as you will," replied Nikon calmly, "but I cannot take soldiers away from the King of Heaven." The Prince's anger unabated, St. Anthony decided it would be expedient for him to depart for a season which he did until the Prince, assuaged by his wife, the pious Maria Casimirovna, requested his return. 

 When the number of brothers reached twelve, Anthony expressed his desire to retire into solitude. "God has gathered you and there rests upon you His blessing and the blessing of the Holy Mountain. Now live in peace; I am appointing for you an abbot, for I wish to live alone as before." And he began digging for himself a new cave, some 200 yards from the old one, which later came to be known as the "Far Caves."

 The first abbot, Barlaam (Nov. 14), was soon called by Prince Izyaslav to head the monastery of St. Demetrios which he had newly established at the gates to the city. When the brethren asked St. Anthony to designate a new abbot, the choice fell upon Theodosius whom he particularly loved for his meekness and obedience. As more new brethren joined the community and conditions became crowded, Anthony requested from the Prince the hill in which the caves were located. When this was granted, the monks built there a wooden church and some cells, and encircled the area with a fence. But even with Theodosius as abbot, St. Anthony continued to guide the community. In his humility Theodosius did nothing without going first to St. Anthony's cave to ask his advice and his blessing. And others came, for St. Anthony was widely recognized as a holy man rich with the gifts of healing, of clairvoyance and spiritual discernment. 

 Once, as Prince Izyaslav and his brothers were preparing to fight the Kumans, they came to ask Anthony's blessing. The Saint foretold that because of their sins they would suffer defeat, but that the Viking prince Shimon, who had taken refuge with the princes of Rus' after having been expelled from his native Scandinavia, would survive and return to Kiev where he would live for many more years, "and you will be buried in a church that you will build." Both these prophecies were precisely fulfilled. 

 It was not long after this ill-fated campaign that Kiev became the stage of a rebellion which forced Izyaslav into exile. He suspected Anthony of sympathizing with his opposition and intended, on his return, to banish him. But before he could act on this design, his brother Svyatoslav, Prince of Chernigov, arranged for the Saint to be brought secretly to Chernigov. There St. Anthony dug for himself a cave, and thus laid the foundation, as it were, of the Yeletsk Monastery which was later established on that site. Finally Izyaslav was persuaded of the Saint' s innocence and asked that he return to Kiev.

 Shortly thereafter Izyaslav's reign came to an end; he was overthrown by his brothers and Svyatoslav became Grand Prince. In view of the steadily increasing number of monks, Sts. Anthony and Theodosius purposed to build a large stone church. Certain miraculous signs confirmed God's blessing upon this undertaking. Many people saw a bright light at night over the proposed site of the new church. And when the Viking Prince Shimon returned from fighting the Kumans, he related that as he lay wounded on the field of battle, he saw a vision of a magnificent church set in the midst of the Caves Lavra. He had had a similar vision before setting sail from his native land. He was praying before an image of the Crucified Lord when the Saviour Himself appeared and told him that in that far away land which would receive him, a church would be built. He instructed Shimon to take from the crucifix the gold crown and gold belt with which it was adorned; the crown was to be hung above the altar of the new church, and the belt was to be used in fixing the dimensions of its foundation--30 times its measurement in length and 20 times in breadth. As he sailed away, Shimon saw in the night sky a church set in a blaze of light. St. Anthony reverently accepted the gold crown and belt, and the church was built according to the measurements so wondrously revealed to the Viking prince. The venerable Anthony, however, did not live to see the church completed. In 1073, soon after blessing its foundation, he peacefully gave his soul to God, having spent 90 years on this earth in fruitful spiritual labors. 

Before his departure he called his monks together and comforted them with the promise that he would always remain with them in spirit and would pray the Lord to bless and protect the community. He also promised that all those who stayed in the monastery in repentance and obedience to the abbot would find salvation. The Saint asked that his remains be forever hidden from the eyes of men. His desire was fulfilled. He is said to have been buried in the cave where he reposed, but his relics have never been found. However, multitudes came to pray in his cave, and there, many who were sick found healing. 

 The Life of St. Theodosius, St. Anthony’s closest disciple and co-founder of the Kiev Caves Lavra, forms a valuable chapter in early Russian hagiography. Preserved in the Kiev Caves Patericon, it was written by the chronicler Nestor about ten years after the Saint’s repose in 1074, and is based on accounts of contemporaries; the description of his youth comes from the Saint’s own mother. 

 St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves Commemorated May 8 

 Theodosius, whose name means "gift of God," grew up in the small cities of Vasilkov and Kursk where his father was a judge. Although his parents were Christian and gave him an education directed primarily at the study of Scripture, they were astonished to see his heart so completely overtaken by love for God. His father died when I heodosius was 13, and this caused the boy to retreat still further from the world common to one of his age and social rank. He gave away his good clothes, preferring to dress like the poor, and found pleasure in helping the peasants with their work. He often went to church, and when he learned that Divine Liturgy was sometimes not celebrated due to a lack of prosphora, he undertook to bake them himself. His mother loved him dearly, but she did not share her son's life-encompassing Christian outlook; she was very conscious of her social standing and felt that by engaging in such lowly occupations Theodosius brought shame upon the family. She tried cajoling, then threatening and even physically beating him to make him change his ways, but Theodosius stood firmly on the path of the Gospel commandments. His zeal for the things of God inspired Theodosius to slip away with a band of pilgrims bound for the Holy Land. Three days later his mother tracked him down, berated the pilgrims for having taken the boy along, and dragged Theodosius home where she kept him in chains until the youth promised not to leave her again. The humility of the youth and the sufferings he endured at the hands of his mother came to the attention of the governor who requested that the youth attend him in church. This served to calm the domestic drama, but Theodosius' heart yearned for a more concentrated spiritual atmosphere, for monastic life.

 Standing in church one day, he was struck by the words of the Gospel: "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me." With fixed resolve, he took advantage of his mother's departure into the country for a few days to set out for Kiev, taking with him nothing but some bread for the road. The monks in the established monasteries, however, turned him away because he had no money. Then he heard about the righteous Anthony. Coming to his cave, Theodosius fell to his knees and begged the holy ascetic to accept him. "My son ," said Anthony, "you see my cave; it is cramped and dismal, and I fear you will not endure the difficulties of life here.""Know, O blessed father," replied Theodosius. "that God Himself has led me to your holiness that I might find salvation. I shall do all that you enjoin." Foreseeing his future greatness, the blessed Anthony accepted the determined aspirant and bade the priest monk Nikon tonsure him. Theodosius was 23 years old. 

 It was a few years before his distraught mother finally discovered her son’s whereabouts. With great reluctance Theodosius went out to her. At first she vowed that she would die if he did not come home with her. But gradually God softened her heart and she came to see the wisdom of her son's patient admonitions. Following his advice she entered the St. Nicholas convent there in Kiev where she ended her days in peace. 

 When Theodosius became abbot, he saw need for a common rule to unite the growing community--which by that time was living above the ground; only a few hermits were left in the caves--and he sent one of his monks to Constantinople to copy out the rule of the Studite Monastery. The rule governed the daily life of the monk: it set the hours of prayer and work; monks were forbidden to have any personal possessions, everything was held in common; all monks were together for common meals: time, apart from prayer, was to be spent in working; all activity was begun with a blessing from an elder and with prayer. The monks were to reveal their thoughts to the abbot, a practice which roused them to constant spiritual vigilance and helped to check manifestations of the passions before they took root in the heart. Above all things, have fervent charity among yourselves. (I Peter 4:8) It was St, Theodosius' choice of the Studite Rule, with its emphasis on the duty of charity and the common good, which served to revive the ancient ideal of strict cenobitism and gave Russian monasticism its characteristic warmth. "What is principally necessary," taught Theodosius, "is that the youngest should love their neighbor and listen to their elders with humility and obedience. The elders should lavish on the young love and instruction; they should teach them and comfort them." 

This attitude created an atmosphere eminently suitable for missionary work, and it was thanks to the monasteries that Christianity was so successfully propagated in Russia. 

 Of a strong constitution, Theodosius was a model of industriousness. Even as abbot, he felled trees, carried water, and ground wheat, often helping the other brethren with their obediences. Once, the cook came to ask if he would assign a monk to cut firewood, as the kitchen supply was depleted. "I am idle," replied the Saint, and he set to chopping wood himself. He worked through the dinner hour and the brethren, when they came out and saw their abbot hard at work, were inspired to do likewise. 

 Knowing the great benefit of good books upon the soul, Theodosius instituted the reading of spiritually profitable texts during meals, and sought to augment the number of such books in the monastery. Books were still a rarity at that time, and one of the valued occupations of the monastery was the copying and binding of manuscripts. Theodosius himself helped in this work. 

 At first, life in the Caves Monastery was very austere indeed. The monks lived principally on rye bread and water with the addition of a few vegetables which they cultivated themselves; they wove their own cloth and sewed their own garments. When the brethren murmured about some deficiency, Theodosius exhorted them to place their trust in the Lord Who knew their needs. And his faith was often miraculously rewarded. 

 The reputation of the monks as 'angels on earth' began attracting pilgrims; princes and peasants came for spiritual counsel and left donations. Grand Prince Izyaslav, who became very attached to St. Theodosius and frequently came to visit him, was a great benefactor of the monastery, as also was the Viking Prince Shimon who was baptized into the Orthodox Church together with his entire household, numbering some 3,000 members. With increased means, Theodosius was able to build a guest house for pilgrims where the poor and sick also found refuge. No beggar was ever turned away from the monastery without being given a meal. Weekly a cart was sent from the monastery laden with bread to be distributed among those in prison. 

The Saint's compassion was boundless. Once there were brought to him some robbers who had been apprehended in the act of stealing monastery property. With tears the Saint entreated them to mend their ways. Then, having fed them, he let them go. The robbers were so moved by the Saint's mercy that they repented and became honest, God-fearing men. 

 Like St. Anthony, Theodosius also endured the effects of the princes' quarrels. At the same time he maintained his independence and did not fear risking the displeasure of his royal benefactors if he felt called as a spiritual father to admonish them. When, for example, Svyatoslav unjustly took the throne from Izyaslav, the Saint wrote a strong letter to Svyatoslav, reproving his action and urging him to restore power to his older brother. This angered Svyatoslav, and Theodosius was warned of possible consequences, but he calmly replied: "Nothing could be better for me in this life than to suffer for the sake of the truth." Mindful of the Saint' s popularity, Svyatoslav took no action against him and even went to visit him. He was surprised when Theodosius received him with the respect due to one of authority. "I was afraid you'd be angry with me," said the Prince. "Our duty," replied the Saint, "is to say what is beneficial for the soul's salvation; and you would do well to listen." Although Svyatoslav could not be persuaded to give up the throne and Theodosius continued to commemorate the pious Izyaslav as the lawful ruler, their relationship was peaceful and it was Svyatoslav who gave land for the building of the new stone church. Work had just begun on this church when St. Anthony reposed. 

Neither did St. Theodosius live to see its completion. It was his custom to retire to a cave for the course of Great Lent, and it was during this time, in 1074, that the Lord revealed to him his imminent departure from this world. On Bright Week, having joyfully celebrated the radiant feast of Pascha in the monastery, he fell ill. Summoning the brethren, he informed them that his time had come, and foretold the very day and hour of his repose. By common consent of the brotherhood, he blessed his disciple Stefan to take his place as abbot, exhorting him not to change the tradition s of the monastery, "but follow in all things the law and our monastic rule." 
 May 3,1074. The divinely appointed hour arrived and the bright soul of the Saint took leave of its earthly tabernacle. As he had willed, his body was laid to rest in the cave which alone with the angels had witnessed his ascetic labors. Eighteen years after the Saint's blessed repose, the monastery brethren decided to transfer his relics to the new cathedral church. The abbot, together with monk Nestor the chronicler, went to the cave to dig up the relics and discovered them to be incorrupt. Accompanied by a large crowd of people, the relics were solemnly transferred to the Dormition Cathedral on August 14, 1092. And in 1106 Saint Theodosius was added to the list of canonized saints. 

 True to their promise, the holy founders of the Caves Monastery continued to watch over its existence even after their repose. There is, for example, the story--written by Bishop Simon (+1226), a former monk of that monastery and principal author of the Kiev Caves Patericorn of how the stone church was completed. Sts. Anthony and Theodosius had been gone from this world some ten years when a group of Greek iconographers came to the Caves Lavra demanding to see the two monks who had hired them to adorn the new church with frescoes. They were rather angry inasmuch as the church standing before them was considerably larger than they had been led to believe and would consequently require more work than was covered by the sum of gold they had received there in Constantinople upon signing the agreement. Abbot Nikon, confessing his ignorance of the matter, asked who it was that had hired them. "Their names were Anthony and Theodosius,""Truly," said the abbot, "I cannot summon them, for they departed this life ten years ago. But as you yourselves testify, they continue to care for this monastery even now." The Greeks, scarcely believing this possible, called some merchants traveling with them, who had been present at the signing of the agreement, and asked that they be shown an image of the deceased. When this was done the Greeks bowed low, for they recognized in the saints the exact likeness of the two men who had commissioned them to paint the frescoes and given them the gold. Acknowledging the supernatural power of the saints, they decided not to cancel the agreement after all, and set about with heightened inspiration to embellish the church. The iconographers never returned to Constantinople; they became monks and ended their days there in the Caves Monastery. The Dormition Church, rebuilt in l470, was destroyed in 1941 by an explosion which the Soviets attribute to the Germans. Witnesses, however, state that it was the communists themselves who set delayed action explosives just before the German occupation of the city. 

  THE TRIFONOV PECHENGSKI MONASTERY  =  the most northen monastery in Russia


 The classical film on Russian monasticism: it is fictional and typical - THE ISLAND (OSTROV)


 VALAAM - A SPIRITUAL JOURNEY

 OPTINA POSTYN MONASTERY, RUSSIA

ABBOT CHRISTOPHER'S FORWARD TO THE VATICAN II DOCUMENT "LUMEN GENTIUM" ON THE CHURCH

$
0
0
THE DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH - A Forward
my source: Vatican II, Voice of the Church
Introduction to Butler’s Text             
 
The following text by the then Abbot BC Butler OSB was the Foreword to a book published just one month after the promulgation of the document De Ecclesia (“The Constitution on the Church”, DLT London. 21 Dec.1964.)

Background to the Council Times

The Council, which had been two years in preparation, and which lasted four years, ended over forty years ago. The preparation had been in the hands of the Roman Curia and was judged somewhat unsatisfactory when the world’s bishops assembled. It is not now easy to appreciate the ferment of popular interest and activity at that time. People who recall it vividly are becoming rarer. Those who do recall the event, remember that as the Constitutions, or Decrees, were promulgated, these important official texts were publicised almost immediately. Also many commentaries followed shortly after. The commentary writers in many cases had themselves been active participants in the Council either as members, or as experts (periti). Abbot Butler was both a member and an expert. As a classical scholar he was an accomplished Latinist, so that he knew exactly what was going on, when many members, i.e. Council fathers did not. Consequently, in the English-speaking world he was one of the most sought-after commentators. The sense of freshness, renewal and enthusiasm is evident in these various contemporary writings and the foreword by Christopher Butler which follows is a prime example.

Many of those contemporary books and articles are long out of print, but the potential of the internet gives us much broader access than in the sixties to those vibrant first-hand accounts of the Council, which were produced while the experience remained fresh in the minds of the participants.

This new potential is timely in view of the passing of the years, of the lack of knowledge of the period, of the various subsequent uncertainties and the consequent lack of clarity about Vatican II.

Background to the Book on De Ecclesia
The volume from which the Butler Foreword is taken was valuably and rapidly produced at a time of great expectation of renewal. It was produced specifically to disseminate the single document “On the Church”. It is notable that it was published (Dec 1964) while the Council was still in progress - and more importantly - that the foreword was written by such a significant Council Father as Abbot Christopher Butler OSB. He was also one of only four elected - as distinct from centrally appointed - members of the Theological Commission. This commission in which Butler played a significant part, had the key responsibility for overseeing doctrinal matters. Its chairman was the redoubtable and deeply conservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, prefect of the Holy Office, successor to the Inquisition, now renamed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
Butler helped shape the document on The Church and his account is therefore distinguished by its authority.

The Dogmatic Constitution - De Ecclesia
The document itself can, of course, be accessed viathis website.A study of the text is strongly recommended as a sine qua non for any serious student. It is worth reiterating that generally speaking, the teaching of an ecumenical Council is that of the highest magisterium of the Church. Widely considered to be the principal achievement of the Second Vatican Council De Ecclesia is also known by its opening words - Lumen Gentium. Many other Council documents effectively depend on this Constitution ‘On The Church’ and it is strongly linked with the only other Constitution given the status of ‘dogmatic’, that “On Revelation“. Responsible as a distinguished scripture scholar, for many contributions on Revelation also, Butler was not alone in considering that latter Constitution, known as: Dei Verbum as of equal importance with De Ecclesia. Both produced significant changes in ecclesiology, but at all times during the Council deliberations, the Council Fathers remained faithful to Pope John’s words when opening the Council:
“....the church should never depart from the sacred treasure of truth inherited from the Fathers. But at the same time she must ever look to the present... to the new conditions in the modern world, .....”
Abbot Butler’s summary of the Constitution follows; the sub-headings have been added for the reader’s benefit to identify and highlight important themes that are expounded in the text.
Arthur Wells

Foreword to De Ecclesia
by Dom Christopher Butler OSB, Abbot of Downside


The programme of "aggiornamento", set before Vatican Council II by Pope John XXIII, was capable of two interpretations, and a history of the Council could be written around them. There were those (and they included some in positions of high authority and great influence) who would have been content with a protest, suitably fortified by anathema, against the grave and insidious errors of our time, along with some additions to, and subtractions from, the Corpus of Canon Law. The Synod of Rome, held shortly before the Council, would have been the type of what these would have desired. Others saw the challenge to the Church in a very different light. The number of these grew as the Council debates went on.

Most of us had grown up in an almost exclusively Latin Catholic environment, and under the sway of a theology and practice which, while reinforced by the outcome of Vatican Council I, had their roots far back in the Counter-Reformation, in medieval struggles between Church and Empire, in Byzantinism and in the so-called Peace of Constantine.

The Church reflects on herself
The Council brought us new insights. We found ourselves face to face, in liturgy and debate, with the oriental Catholicism of the Uniate Churches, so remote from the scholastic theology and sober Latin worship of the Western Church. We could no longer shut our eyes to the needs and aspirations of the Church in the Afro-Asian countries, where any policy, based on Hilaire Belloc's dictum, "The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith", would be doomed to disaster. And, perhaps above all, we were confronted with the representatives of a great theological rebirth which goes back to the pre-war years but has grown in scope, depth and purpose in the countries of Northern Europe (excluding the British Isles) largely as a result of the devastations of the war itself.
We began to see that the Church is something far greater than the Western Patriarchate. We began to realize that, if she is to measure up to her own inexhaustible potentialities and to the demands of an age without precedent in human history, her leaders must learn to think radically and to act with audacity. Especially was it necessary to engage in basic theological thinking. In particular, the Church must reflect upon herself, her nature and limits, her functions and her mission. Such was the business emphasized by the new Pope when he inaugurated the second session of the Council.

 A Constitution on the Church had been drafted before the Council opened, and had been debated and strongly criticized during the first session. Before the second session, it was superseded by a new draft, of which the Constitution passed and promulgated on November 21, 1964, is the outcome.

The Constitution is a stepping stone
I have no hesitation in saying that the Constitution is a great document, even though, being the fruit of the Holy Spirit's working in imperfect human beings, it is a stepping-stone and not a final accomplishment. Everyone will see it according to his own lights and predispositions; for each of us it has a message. I shall try here to indicate some features of it which seem to me to be important.

First, then, it is a negative virtue of this Constitution, as of all the documents that have so far emanated from the Council, that it gives us no new definition of faith, no fresh anathemas. The nearest it comes to forging a new definition is when, at the key point of its exposition of the nature of the episcopate, it uses the phrase: "this sacred Council teaches, etc." This is something less than: "the sacred Council solemnly teaches", and is on an entirely different plane from: "the sacred Council defines".
It is sometimes necessary, or useful, to define an article of faith. But it must be observed that every fresh definition sets up a further obstacle for those who are approaching us from outside. In particular, when the Christian world is becoming more and more aware of the need for "reunion", it is well to bear in mind that the post-Tridentine definitions of the papal primacy and infallibility, and of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady, have given an edge to the doctrines they enshrine which makes Catholic ecumenism more difficult than it would otherwise have been.

A Pilgrimage and Spiritual Fellowship
Secondly, the Constitution sees the Church, in her earthly pilgrimage, first and foremost as the spiritual fellowship of her baptized members, and only secondarily, and as it were consequentially, as a hierarchized communion. The great chapter III on "the Hierarchical Structure of the Church" is preceded by one on the People of God, and is immediately followed by the one on the laity. The pope and the other bishops, with the priests and deacons, are presented to us as established for the service of God's People, and the Constitution is almost entirely free from that note of "triumphalism" which has sometimes disfigured the image of the Church and which was so scathingly attacked by Bishop De Smedt of Bruges in the first session of the Council. Not only are the clergy the servants of the People of God, but the Constitution points out the role in the Church's life of the "charismatic" gifts of the Holy Spirit which are bestowed indifferently on clergy and laity alike, and which provide the dynamic, transforming element in the Church's history.

The Wider Christian Community
Thirdly, the Constitution's treatment of the questions raised by the existence of non-Catholic Christians and their communions is fully positive and respectful. It is true that, in the crucial paragraph in chapter II which explicitly adverts to non-Catholics, the language is vague and curiously un-theological. But it remains always friendly, and may be said to pave the way for much more definite and forward-looking statements on this subject in the Decree on Ecumenism, which was passed and promulgated along with our Constitution.

The Universal Call to Holiness
Fourthly, as a monk I am glad that the Constitution treats of "the Religious" (chapter VI) outside the context of the Church's institutions. Obviously, religious orders, congregations, and monasteries are institutions in the Church, but they are not, like the apostolic ministry, of direct divine foundation. It is more to the point - and the Constitution makes it easy - to see the religious vocation as a call to a special mode of realization of the universal Christian vocation to holiness which is the subject of chapter V.

The Blessed Virgin Mary

As a result of the narrowest majority in the story of the Council up to date (apart from some elections of commissioners), our Lady is treated in a chapter of this Constitution, not - as had been originally intended - in a separate document. It must be conceded that this decision, and the contents of the resulting chapter, caused a great deal of heart-burning. I can only say that I personally believe that devotion to our Lady will gain in quality through the Council's resolution to "contain" Marian doctrine within the framework of the theology of her divine Son and of the Church of which she is both type and "pre-eminent member".

Ecumenical Councils: the Pope, the Bishops and Collegiality
The Constitution will certainly be remembered for its treatment of the episcopate in chapter III, which comes as an overdue complement to the doctrine of Vatican Council I on the papacy. Centuries of discussion were brought to a close when, in 1870, it was determined that the pope has a universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church and all her members, including the other bishops, and that his definitions of faith are irreformable "ex sese et non ex consensu Ecclesiae" (of themselves and not as a result of the [subsequent] consent of the Church).
Nearly a hundred years have elapsed since Vatican Council I broke up, never to be reassembled. During that period a tendency developed, especially in theological circles geographically close to the Holy See, to see the papal primacy as the unique fountainhead of all magisterial and governmental authority in the Church. This tendency is neatly expressed in the theory that even the supreme authority of an Ecumenical Council is something which is given by the pope. The logical conclusion of this tendency would be to regard bishops as mere delegates of the successor of St. Peter.
It is not surprising that there was a strong reaction on the part of the so-called conservative wing of the Council against the proposal to affirm the intrinsic "collegial" authority of the Catholic episcopate as a whole. It was urged that, if it were stated that the "college" of bishops has universal and supreme authority over the whole Church, this would involve a limitation upon the powers of the pope and so a virtual contradiction of the decisions of 1870. Thus the stage was set for a theological drama, played out in the general meetings of the Council, in its Doctrinal Commission, and indeed behind the scenes, of which our third chapter is the result.

Although it was the doctrine of collegiality that stole the headlines, the crux of the Constitution's teaching on the episcopate is perhaps contained in the affirmation that a bishop receives in his consecration the "fullness" of the ministerial priesthood derived from Christ, and therefore, as is explicitly asserted, not only the "office" (munus) of "sanctifying" (by sacramental ministrations) but the offices of teaching and ruling. Thus episcopal authority is not something received from the pope, but something given directly by God in the sacrament of holy orders.

In the end, the whole Constitution was passed with only half a dozen negative votes - a remarkable contrast with the final voting in 1870 on papal infallibility, when, it is true, there were only two dissenting votes (out of a much smaller number of members), but over a hundred conciliar Fathers absented themselves in order not to feel obliged to vote "non placet".
Historically, it is interesting to note that the doctrine of collegiality is the traditional one, and that in fact it was taken by the moderate papalist wing of the first Vatican Council as the basis from which to argue for the unique position of the pope. Unilateral papalism is an exaggeration, and particularly a very modern exaggeration.

It is hardly necessary to point out that this renewed emphasis on the immediate divine authority of the bishop and the supreme authority of the collegial episcopate is important for ecumenical dialogue, especially with our Orthodox and Anglican friends. Such dialogue should also be facilitated by the fact that the theology of the Constitution is profoundly biblical in its inspiration, and comparatively free from the conceptual elaborations of modern scholasticism. This will be still better appreciated when the Constitution on Revelation has been promulgated. Taken together, these two Constitutions form a monument to the revival of biblical scholarship and theology in the Church.

The Importance for the Future
Finally, it must be remarked that the value of the Constitution on the Church is largely potential. It is a document not immediately directed to practical changes. But its worth for the Church and for the future of Christianity will depend largely on our willingness to understand and communicate its message, and to give practical expression to its implications. Its key doctrines are: the common priesthood of all the faithful, originating in their baptism: the intrinsic life of the local Church, centred in the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood and episcopate; and the collegial authority and responsibilities of the bishops within the hierarchical communion of the Church. Together, these doctrines could be the basis for far-reaching practical changes, and could prepare the way to a Church in which the life of the members was not inhibited but promoted by the "presidency in charity" of the See of Rome; a Church with great elasticity and creative adaptability, such as will be needed in a world where the movement toward human unity is compensated and enriched by a keen realization of the place, within the wholeness of our history, of local variations and initiative.

BASIL C. BUTLER, O.S.B.
Abbot of Downside
Somerset, England

Concluding Note
Butler was writing in the immediate aftermath of the promulgation of the document “On The Church“. Comparing his summary with the work of other Fathers and experts, Butler, in his foreword, had explained the common view of probably the vast majority of the Fathers of the Council, at which he was a particularly acute observer and participant. Then in 1966, Butler set out his understanding of the whole Conciliar event in his brilliant and rapidly completed book The Theology of Vatican II. This received seriously favourable critical acclaim. Abbot Christopher Butler had emerged from the Council as an international figure.

A.W.
Page updated: 5 December 2011      © Vatican II - Voice of The Church 

MY NOTE ON THE ABOVE

It is clear that the "Reform of the Reform", much desired by Pope Benedict XVI, is not standing still. The Vatican is publishing all the documents related to the Constitution on the Liturgy so that people can judge for themselves how faithful to the wishes of the Council is the new liturgy.   However, nothing practical can be done until it has been decided who will actually undertake the reform.

The group of eight cardinals called by Pope Francis to sound out the opinion of the bishops about the most pressing needs of the Church have, it seemed an overwhelming response that Chapter 3 of "Lumen Gentium" must be put into practice.   Any radical change, of a kind called for by Vatican II,was postponed under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI simply because they had other priorities.   Abbot Christopher's words can be called to mind:
"I have no hesitation in saying that the Constitution is a great document, even though, being the fruit of the Holy Spirit's working in imperfect human beings, it is a stepping-stone and not a final accomplishment."

Because it is "the fruit of the Holy Spirit's working in imperfect human beings", it is only a "stepping stone", as wll be the attempts to put it into practice.   The same can be said for all the other documents, including that on the Liturgy.   We must have patience, and wait for our efforts to be processed by Tradition, by the synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church which is the special characteristic of ecclesial life as the life of Christ's body, what makes the Church different from other institutions.   The fount of this synergy we find in the celebration of the liturgy from which all the Church's powers spring and to which all the Church's activities are directed.

There is a time for everything under heaven, and it will probably be many years before the Church will be able to fully enjoy what the Holy Spirit offers us in Vatican II.  The Holy Spirit is so great and we are so little.  Impatience with the Church can very easily turn into impatience with the Holy Spirit without us realising it.

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE

$
0
0

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE 
AND ST JUAN DIEGO
by Mark Armstrong

my source: taken from The Integrated Catholic Life


Nearly 12 years after the Spanish landed and nine years after the end of hostilities, there had been only limited success with converting the Aztecs and other tribes to the Catholic faith.  By 1531 there were few converts.  The Spanish tried to translate, for the most part unsuccessfully, the tenets of the Faith to a people who did not have a written language.  Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly for all involved, that all changed  482 years ago today when a convert to the faith, Juan Diego, encountered Mary, the Mother of God.
Church of Santiago de Tlatelolco
(where Juan Diego attended)
Juan Diego — his indigenous name,  Cuauhtlatoatzin, means “the eagle that talks” — was a widowed convert to Roman Catholicism on his way to Mass on December 8, 1531, Mary’s Immaculate Conception feast day. For several years Juan Diego, then in his mid-fifties, got up before dawn and walked fifteen miles, one way, to attend Mass.  The stone church he attended (which still stands in Mexico City) was erected from the dismantled Aztec pyramid stones.  As Juan Diego walked passed by Tepeyac Hill, a few miles from church, the sky became bright and he heard singing on top of the hill, like the songs of various birds.

At the end of the song, as Juan Diego looked toward the hill, he heard a woman call out to him. There, he saw a young lady whose clothes shone with the radiance of the sun. He prostrated himself in front of her. When she asked Juan where he was going, he replied that he was going to church to hear the sermons of the friars. The woman identified herself as “the eternally consummate virgin Saint Mary, mother of the very true deity, God, the giver of life, the creator of people, the ever present, the Lord of heaven and earth.” She then asked Juan Diego to relate to the bishop her wish for a Church to be built on that very spot, where she would attend to the “weeping and sorrows of you and all the people of this land, and of the various peoples who love me….”

Juan Diego rushed the final miles on foot and waited for hours to see Bishop Juan Zumarraga. The friars were reluctant. After all, Juan Diego was a poor Indian with sandals, a walking stick and no appointment to see the bishop. After waiting patiently, Juan Diego was finally ushered in. When he related his story to Bishop Zumarraga, Juan Diego, through a translator, was told that he needed a sign to prove that this account was true. A series of other events happened to Juan Diego over the next three days that would take too long here to explain, but then on December 12, 1531, Mary provided a sign that convinced the bishop that Juan Diego spoke the truth.

When Mary appeared to Juan Diego 482 years ago today, she directed him to pick some flowers from the top of Tepeyac hill, and to gather them in his tilma (a long cloak) to present to the bishop as proof of her miraculous presence. (The roses he found only were previously known to grow in Spain, not in Mexico, and certainly not in the dead of winter.)  Juan Diego did as he was asked and the Blessed Mother even helped him lay the flowers in his tilma.

When Juan Diego returned to the bishop and opened his cloak to show the roses, the bishop and all those present were amazed and fell prostrate. The image of Our Blessed Mother was emblazoned on the tilma.
Our Lady of Guadaupe
Photography © by Mark Armstrong

The image was far more than a mere picture of a beautiful lady. Her dress and manner told a story that all the Aztec Indians could understand.  In one miraculous image, Mary explained her role in the Church and the way to God.  This is how the image helped them to understand:

Her hands are folded in supplication; her posture indicating that she is interceding for us at the throne of the God. The luminous light surrounding the Lady is reminiscent of the “woman clothed with the sun” of Revelation 12:1. The rays of the sun would also be recognized by the Aztecs and other indigenous people as a symbol of their highest god, Huitzilopochtli. Thus, the lady comes forth hiding but not extinguishing the power of the sun. She is now going to announce the God who is greater than their sun god.

Mary is standing upon the moon. Again, the symbolism is that of the woman of Revelation 12:1 who has the “moon under her feet.” The moon for the Aztecs was the god of the night. By standing on the moon, she shows that she is more powerful than the god of darkness.

The eyes of Our Lady of Guadalupe are looking down with humility and compassion. This was a sign to the native people that she was not a god since in their iconography the gods stare straight ahead with their eyes wide open.

The angel supporting the Lady testifies to her royalty. To the Aztecs only kings, queens and other dignitaries would be carried on the shoulders of someone. The mantle of the Lady is blue-green or turquoise. To the native people, this was the color of the gods and of royalty. The stars on Mary’s mantle show that she comes from heaven.

The gold-encircled cross brooch under the neck of the Lady’s robe is a symbol of sanctity. The girdle or bow around her waist is a sign of her virginity, but it also has several other meanings. The bow appears as a four-petaled flower. To the native Indians this was the nahui ollin, the flower of the sun, a symbol of plenitude. For them, this was the symbol of creation and new life. The high position of the bow and the slight swelling of the abdomen show that the Lady is with child.

By Mary’s dress, the image shows that she is of royalty from heaven and was both a virgin and “with child.” Thus, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patroness of the Americas, has become a powerful symbol for the pro-life movement.



JUAN DIEGO AND OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE 
by Diana von Glahn
 For this section on the symbolism and meaning of Our Lady’s tilma, I recommend Our Lady of Guadalupe and Saint Juan Diego by Msgr. Eduardo Chavez, an expert on Our Lady of Guadalupe. 

 Today, we are going to look at the tilma itself and its symbolism and miraculous characteristics.
Juan Diego’s Miraculous Tilma
Woven out of cactus fiber, exposed to the smoke and light from hundreds of thousands of candles, and the humid and salty air of Mexico City for more than 120 years without any protection, Juan’s tilma should have disintegrated centuries ago. Still, almost 500 years after Mary put her image on it, we can still see it at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Mexico City.

In the 1780s, experiments were made in which similar cactus-fiber cloaks were woven by some of the finest Indian weavers and then painted. They were placed in buildings around Tepeyac Hill, to mimic the conditions in which Juan’s tilma was kept. After only seven years, the colors on these mantles had flaked off or faded away and the cactus fibers were disintegrating. These cloaks had a 20-year lifespan.
While the manner in which Mary left her image on Juan’s tilma is miraculous in and of itself—it is not painted on or imprinted in any way humanly possible—the symbolism in the image presents a much more detailed and layered message than a mere portrait of a woman. Mary is shown standing atop a crescent moon and surrounded by the rays of the sun. Her head is bowed, her eyes are downcast, her hands are clasped in prayer, and she has a slight smile on her lips. Her rose-colored gown has floral designs, a black girdle is tied around her waist, and she wears a cloak the color of the sky and is adorned with gold stars. An angel holds the hem of her garments.
The Blessed Mother’s image on Juan’s tilma is like an icon, full of symbolism and meaning. Juan and his people would have understood the image according to their own beliefs and traditions. As Aztecs, they would have worshipped the gods and goddesses of the elements: Quetzalcoatl, the morning star; Huitzilopochtli, god of the sun; Coyolxauhqui and Meztli, goddesses of the moon; or Tonatiuh, god of the sun. But Mary stands atop the moon, in front the sun, and the stars and sky make up part of her clothing. Her blue cloak is the traditional color of the gods and royalty for the Aztecs! She is showing Juan and his people that she is greater than the “gods” and these elements! And yet, her bowed head, downcast eyes, and folded hands show that she is not the greatest, that she bows before One greater than she, the “Him” of whom she spoke: her Son, present in her womb!
Here are some other symbolic meanings of the image on Juan’s tilma:
The rays that surround our Blessed Mother symbolize supreme power.
The crescent moon symbolizes Mary’s perpetual virginity and hearkens back to Revelation 12:1, “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet…”
Blue symbolizes eternity, immortality, divine contemplation, and godliness of conversation.
The gold border around Mary’s mantle symbolizes her royal dignity.
The stars are reminiscent of heaven, identifying Mary as Queen of Heaven.
The eight-pointed stars symbolize baptism, and the gifts of new birth that God gave Juan and all Americans through Mary.
The stars on Mary’s mantle are in the same pattern as the stars that were present over Tenochtitlan just before sunrise on December 12, 1531. They are seen in reverse, as if seen from outside the dome of the heavens (God’s perspective!).
The rose-colored gown, similar in design to what Our Lady would have worn during her life, is a symbol of martyrdom for the Faith and of divine love. It also represents the color of the dawn of a new era.
The cuffs of the gown are lined with what looks like white ermine, a symbol of purity and honor without stain. (Also, it was cold in December!)
The floral designs on the Blessed Mother’s gown have an have an astounding array of meanings, part of which include new life for the Aztecs, transforming their culture from one of human sacrifice to one of love, founded in her Son.
The black girdle around her waist would have been a clear symbol to the Aztecs that Mary was pregnant.
Directly below Mary’s belt is a small, four-petalled flower that is not found anywhere else on Mary’s tunic. This is the nahui ollin, the jasmine flower, called the Flower of the Sun by the Aztecs, a symbol of plentitude, representing the four compass directions. For the Aztecs, this flower symbolized the center of the universe, and placed above Mary’s womb, they would have read it to say that a new sun was born of this Virgin, and would bring them new life in baptism.
The gold brooch with a cross at her neck identifies Mary as sacred, like a holy temple, and protected against all profanation. The Aztecs would have also remembered seeing the symbol of the cross on the flags of Cortez’s army.
The angel’s red, white, and blue feathered wings symbolize loyalty, faith, and fidelity. His red tunic symbolizes love for the Virgin, and his position indicates that Mary has been raised above the angels, as Mother of God.
Some other amazing facts about the tilma that have been discovered over the centuries:
In 1785, a worker accidentally spilled nitric acid on the top right corner of the tilma. While it should have disintegrated the cactus fibers, it only left a small stain.
On November 14, 1921, a bomb detonated beneath the tilma, destroying the nearby altar, bending an iron crucifix, and breaking the marble floor and windows 150 meters from the explosion. The tilma and the glass that covered it—which was normal, non-bomb resistant glass—remained completely unharmed. The crucifix can still be seen in the museums of the shrine in Mexico City (and on this video).
In 1929, it was discovered that Mary’s eyes reflect Juan Diego as Our Lady saw him. Further examinations by Dr. José Aste Tonsmann revealed not only Juan’s image, but those of the Bishop and his retinue kneeling before the image. The reflections even show a distortion, matching the curvature of Mary’s eye as well as the presence of the triple reflection (Samson-Purkinje effect) characteristic of all live human eyes. (Watch this six-part presentation by Dr. Aste, produced for the 2009 Marian Congress).
Infrared rays reveal that the tilma has no traces of paint and that the fabric has not been treated with any kind of technique.
The image changes color slightly according to the angle of the viewer, a phenomenon known as iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced with human hands.


AT LEAST WE CAN PRAY FOR THEM!!

what else can we do?
Somewhere around Maaloula, Syria, 12 nuns are cowering in fear of their Islamist kidnappers. They may be being beaten, raped or beheaded one by one. But who cares? We've got Nigella Lawson's coke habit to tickle our itching ears. Mother Superior Pelagia Sayyaf and 11 of her sisters were abducted at gunpoint from St Tecla Orthodox monastery and taken hostage by an army of "rebels", along with the orphans who were being fostered and cared for. But who cares? We've got the identity of Tom Daley's handsome new boyfriend to fantasise about. The international community and world governments are indifferent to the plight of the nuns of the St Tecla convent. And so are most people in Britain. Churches, monasteries and convents throughout Syria are being razed, desecrated and pillaged. Maaloula is being cleansed of Christians. But who cares? We've got celebrity drugs and gay sex to gossip about. Of course, if these were gays and lesbians being kidnapped, beaten and tortured by Islamists, we'd soon have celebrity declamations and government condemnation. There'd be Twitter campaigns and Facebook pages dedicated to their freedom, and the media would full of Stephen Fry demanding justice. But these are only nuns. And no one really gives a shit about Christians. We've got Nigella's coke and Tom's boyfriend to titillate us.

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. 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF POPE FRANCIS TO POPE JOHN PAUL II & POPE BENEDICT XVI

$
0
0


I am just a little younger, by a few months, than Pope Francis, which means that I was a priest student of theology and he was a Jesuit student  at the time of the Council.   It was a wonderful time to be a student, and gave us a kind of front seat in the drama that was going on within the Council just at the time in our lives when we were most curious and impressionable. 

 Of course, then as now, it was of interest to the media to turn everything into dramatic narrative, and to aid them in their wish to entertain as well as to inform, they adopted a “cowboys and Indians” approach, dividing the bishops and experts into “conservatives” and “progressives”.   That both tags are completely without any theological content in themselves, means they can be used in any way  the journalist wishes, though now it is “conservatives” and “liberals”. However,  “conservative” now refers to people like Pope Benedict XVI who was a “progressive” during the Council, in spite of the fact that his position has not fundamentally changed in most things.  Back then, "conservative" meant only one thing: it applied to those who wanted to preserve the status quo. However, the "progressive" label was given to anyone who wanted change.   This hid from the public that there were various important groups with quite different positions, and one, which could be called "liberal" was irreconcilable with the others.   “Liberal” meant people who explain truths of faith by saying they are the same as, or equivalent to something regarded as true by secular thinkers.  Hence Liberation Theology is liberal when it explains Christian eschatology as equivalent to Marx’s movement towards a perfect socialist society through class war.   Reducing spirituality to psychological wholeness is liberal.   Making the goal of the Mass the celebration of our human togetherness , while eliminating all that suggests the sacred,is also liberal.  Saying that each age has factors that oppress it, in the first years of Christianity it was sin, and nowadays it is different forms of oppression; and that the Church must adapt its doctrine of salvation to the oppression of the moment: that is liberal.  However, all who wanted change were called "progressives", and we were not conscious of the differences.


 What was going on was dramatic enough, because it is true that there was an entrenched group in the Vatican that had its own theological tradition of neo-scholasticism, plus the tendency to interpret the whole Gospel through the spectacles of a canon lawyer. They suspected there were modernists hiding under every bed, had been suspicious of the outside world ever since it confiscated the papal states; and they were ready to condemn any theologian for modernism whose thinking differed from their own.

I was a fan of a number of French theologians whose theology is now called “nouvelle theologie”, though this title was given them by their opponents because, in general, they were patristic scholars, though some were Dominicans who appealed to St Thomas Aquinas against the neo-thomist school, and one, Teilhard de Chardin, was a famous scientist.      They were not conscious of being a group, though, seen from this distance, they clearly were, largely because of common influences and their meeting with Orthodox theologians of high quality, refugees from Communist Russia, who had settled in Paris.  

Perhaps these theologians could be better described as an informal network of friendships with certain characteristics in common..   There were names which are now well known. Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou, were Jesuits, Marie-Dominique Chenu and Yves Congar were Dominicans, Louis Bouyer was an Oratorian and a liturgist,  Hans Urs von Balthasar left the Jesuits and was a parish priest in Switzerland.  They were looked on with suspicion by the Vatican, with books put on the Index some put under obedience not to publish.   However, Pope John XXIII, who had himself also been on the list of suspects by the CDF, rescued them from enforced oblivion and into the limelight by inviting them to take part in the Council. Their influence in the Council was enormous; and de Lubac was, perhaps, the most important theologian in Vatican II.   Together with a young Polish Archbishop of Cracow called Wojtyla, he wrote the original document  for discussion which came to be called Gaudium et Spes,  and it was his scholarship that was behind the document Lumen Gentium on the Church . They were joined by Wojtyla, Ratzinger and the English Benedictine Christopher Butler; and the whole Council bears their stamp.  Von Balthasar was not invited to Vatican II, but he spent the time developing his theology and is, perhaps, the best example of this ressourcement theology and a continuing influence in modern Catholic thought.   

 They differed from the “neo-scholastics” like Garigou-Lagrange, on the relationship between nature and supernatural Grace.  The neo-scholastics saw both nature and supernature as two entirely independent systems, both dependent on God, though supernature is built on nature and can transform it.   These French theologians talked of a natural desire for God, that nature was created to be transformed by Grace and would be eternally frustrated if it were to lose Grace, that there is no such thing as eternal natural happiness in Limbo, for instance, because pure nature cannot exist alone but has a natural need for grace; so much so that it is unnatural for our nature to be without  Grace because God, out of his own goodness, decreed our salvation before the creation of the world, and He created the world with grace in mind.   Hence, Nature is geared to be completed by Grace.   As St Augustine says in his Confessions, “  "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." Their opponents said that this takes away the gratuity of Grace; to which they replied that both Grace and Nature are gratuitous gifts of God and are made for one another.


  Also, they held that there is a natural attraction of the Holy, one that can be woken by natural means, and “the Holy” is the point of contact between Nature and the Grace which transforms it.  Why is the modern industrial worker without religion?    Because he is cut off from the liturgy by Latin and by a clericalised liturgy.    Give him access to the Holy, and he will have the basic religious experience upon which religion is built. There will be no re-evangelisation of Europe without liturgical reform which will open up the “sacred” to ordinary human beings.. 

The third characteristic of this group was their belief in Tradition as a basic dimension of the life of the Church.   Tradition is the product of the synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church that is found especially in the Eucharist, but also in the whole liturgical life of the Church.   In the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit and the Church act together.  Just as the Holy Spirit acted in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, thus enabling her to become Mother of God, this requiring humble obedience on her part, so the Mass is work of the Holy Spirit acting in and through the Church, enabling it to proclaim, celebrate, consecrate and communicate as Christ’s own body, this requiring humble obedience by the Church.   Just as Tradition is the product of that relationship between the Spirit and the Church found in the Eucharist and other liturgical celebrations, so the liturgy is the primary expression of Tradition as well as the source of all the Church’s powers and the goal of all its activity.  And the liturgy is celebrated in local churches.    
Especially in the early Church, there was much liturgical creativity, but this creativity had to be exposed to the celebration of the liturgy over a long time, and it was the Holy Spirit’s job to sift the wheat from the chaff, using his human instruments, the experience of the Church and especially the ministry of the bishops, to gradually eliminate what was bad and to give more and more meaning to what is good as prayers and other texts are used by God’s people.  
 The fourth characteristic of this group was a logical consequence of seeing Tradition as embedded in the liturgy of local churches and to see the celebration of the liturgy as the source of all the Church’s powers and the goal of all its activity.   It was to adopt an “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, the fruit of their meeting with Affanasiev, the Orthodox theologian who lived in Paris; and Orthodox influence can be detected in much of their theology. 
  
 The local Church with its bishop is not only a part of the Catholic Church: it is the whole Church, uniting heaven and earth and all times, from the time of the Apostles till now, and beyond now till the end of the world, and gathered together by the Holy Spirit and manifesting itself in each Mass.
   
This put the spotlight on the fact that the process of synergy between the Holy Spirit and the Church from which arises all the Church’s powers and to which are ordered all its activities is rooted in the local Church and doesn’t come down from the centre.  It must  also be at work in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches because it arises out of the celebration of the same Eucharist that we celebrate in common; also that their traditions are expressions of the same Apostolic Tradition that we enjoy, even though expressed in different words and with some different insights.   This holds out the hope that, even where we have differences, there is an underlying unity.

This led these theologians to an idea that certainly put the wind up the neo-scholastics and strengthened the belief that the ressourcement theologians were modernists.  The common neo-scholastic understanding of the development of doctrine was that the Church moves to ever greater clarification, so that, if you really want to know the true meaning for faith of historical texts, you find them in the teaching of the modern Church because it is the same Church now as then with the same guarantee of infallibility.

    However this group of theologians had a different approach.   If the Holy Spirit is continually active in the Church, not more active in one century than in another, and if the Church can reach greater clarification on a doctrine as time passes, truths coming out of obscurity into the light, then the reverse must also be true: it must be also true that some insights that were clear in the Early Church can fall into obscurity and can be forgotten over the centuries, and it is necessary to delve into the past to clarify them and to get a better understanding of the Church’s present day teaching.  It was for this reason these theologians were called ressourcement theologians. 

An example: Even though we must accept the Holy Spirit’s role in the definitions of Vatican I, if we accept that Tradition is alive in both East and West, if we discover, together with our Orthodox brethren what the Church believed when East and West were united, this may provide a better context with which to interpret the Vatican I definitions that only represents Western Tradition.   This does not deny the Holy Spirit’s work in Vatican I, but does admit that the Council represents a Church impoverished by the absence of an adequate representation of the Orthodox Tradition.   For this, the theologians were called ressourcement theologians, going back to the past and using  the thought of previous centuries to help us solve our present problems.

It is accepted each church is guided by the same Spirit, so that Catholics cannot simply reject what it has declared to be true in the past.  Neither can the Orthodox for the same reason.  When it comes to another insight, like the patristic Eucharistic ecclesiology in relation to the universalist, “legalistic”, “perfect society” ecclesiology where the Church is held together by the exercise of the jurisdiction of the pope, the 2nd Vatican Council simply puts the two versions side by side, leaving the question open to the “traditioning” process, where the Holy Spirit enables the Church to arrive at a solution.  Pope Benedict has done the same with the liturgy,  putting the old Mass and the new Mass side by side, rather than impose his own rubrics.

   Again, while discovering the underlying unity between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is the goal of the theological talks between the two sides, to find a generally accepted theory is not enough.   What would happen if the Orthodox and Catholic theologians were to arrive at an agreement before the churches are ready to come together?

  The unity of the Church is the work of the Holy Spirit and his Presence is manifested in ecclesial charity.   This ecclesial charity is the unity of the Church.   Agreement without love will never hold.   The agreement in doctrine, when it is authentic, is never simply an agreement between theologians: it is a consequence of ecclesial love, because faith as knowledge is knowledge based on love, and Christian unity is formed by the synergy between the Holy Spirit and ecclesial love..   Thus, in the Byzantine rite, the kiss of peace comes immediately before the recitation of the Creed .   They are asked to love one another in order to say "with one heart and one voice" the creed.   Hence, the Patriarch of Moscow has suggested several times that we put side by side these two versions of the One, True, Church, and concentrate on working together for the re-evangelization of Europe.   By living the "joy of the Gospel" together, we can trust the Holy Spirit to forge the context in which agreement can be arrived at and the work of the theologians bear fruit..   That is the way of Tradition.

Another group of theologians who may have been mainly German-speaking Jesuits, made common cause with the nouvelle theologie theologians in the Council.   They advocated what they called "kerygmatic theology".    They were mainly concerned with the practical work of teaching the Faith.   They said that the order in which doctrines of the faith are taught matter if those who are being instructed are to have a coherent picture of what Christianity is about.   The order of truths as laid out in the Summa Theologica is not good for this purpose.   Remember, these theologians were not trying to change Catholic teaching  but, rather, to make sure that the prime importance of the  kerygma is not obscured.   The kerygma is the Good News that God is Love and loves his creation and has manifested this Love in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.  

 There is a hierarchy of truths: those that arise from the Church's understanding of the kerygma, and the Catholic teaching (didache) of truths that gain from the kerygma their significance.  If the kerygma is not emphasised and other dogmatic truths are not seen from the standpoint of their relationship to the kerygma, then the corpus of Catholic dogmas loses its unity and Catholic moral teachings appear as unrelated and arbitrary restrictions on our conduct. 

I can remember only two names.   One was Father Hugo Rahner S.J., the elder brother of Father Karl Rahner S.J., who wrote about it.   He also wrote a ground breaking book on "Our Lady and the Church", which said that the first treatises on Our Lady were really ecclesiology, because Our Lady personifies the Church in its relationship to Christ.  This argument resulted in the Council treating Our Lady in a chapter of the Constitution on the Church. The other name is Father Johannes Hofinger S.J. from the University of Innesbruck, who was a liturgist by training.   He was a pupil of Father Josef Jungmann S.J. and helped to write the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy.   However, he was best known for his work in Catholic catechesis.   I once had the privilege of sitting at his feet for a week.   This approach to theology and teaching became part of the accepted Vatican II legacy.  This is an exerpt from "The Kerygmatic Enigma":


Bl. John Paul II, in his 1979 apostolic exhortation Catechesi Tradendae, describes how catechesis builds upon the kerygma:  

Thus through catechesis the Gospel kerygma (the initial ardent proclamation by which a person is one day overwhelmed and brought to the decision to entrust himself to Jesus Christ by faith) is gradually deepened, developed in its implicit consequences, explained in language that includes an appeal to reason, and channeled towards Christian practice in the Church and the world (CT 25).Thus, the initial kerygmatic proclamation and catechesis are two necessary and mutually enriching components of evangelization. However, in my experience I have found that there is general imbalance in the Church (on the diocesan and parochial levels), which unfortunately tends to place a much greater emphasis on catechesis at the expense of initial proclamation. 


In his 1990 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, Bl. John Paul II underscored how essential kerygma is in the life and mission of the Church:


Proclamation is the permanent priority of mission. The Church cannot elude Christ's explicit mandate, nor deprive men and women of the "Good News" about their being loved and saved by God. "Evangelization will always contain—as the foundation, center, and at the same time the summit of its dynamism—a clear proclamation that, in Jesus Christ . . . salvation is offered to all people, as a gift of God's grace and mercy." All forms of missionary activity are directed to this proclamation, which reveals and gives access to the mystery hidden for ages and made known in Christ (cf. Eph 3:3-9; Col 1:25-29), the mystery which lies at the heart of the Church's mission and life, as the hinge on which all evangelization turns.... The vital core of the new evangelization must be a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the person of Jesus Christ, that is, the preaching of his name, his teaching, his life, his promises and the Kingdom, which he has gained for us by his Paschal Mystery.


The final group among   the "progressives", as we have already noted, were the already mentioned "liberals" who sought to adapt the Church to the modern world where mankind, they believe, has "come of age" They regarded the dominant characteristics of the modern, secular world as permanent because the 20th century was, they believed, the height of a long process of social evolution, and they were very optimistic about the future of a world in which man (and woman) had become mature. There was much quotation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to this effect.  If the average modern man feels no need for the sacred, then liturgy must reflect human solidarity which he does value; but "with God" would be added as a hidden dimension of any human solidarity, so that he could go on being a practising Catholic, even if he has difficulty having contact with God.   The Church must become really modern, which means accepting the values of modern secular humanity.   In its dialogue with the world, it would strive to show to secular society that Christian  teaching is a better guarantee of modern values than any other, but it must be ready to jettison as outmoded what "modern" human beings do not appreciate.   

If, by ecumenism, the ressourcement theologians saw unity with the Orthodox as their main goal, the liberals looked to the Anglican Church as best embodying their ideals, certainly more than the Vatican!

Although this group had very little representation among those who drew up the Council documents, nor among the voting bishops, they had enormous influence in the media. Because they had a typically 20th Century outlook on so many things, the journalists understood them and could identify with them without difficulty.   Later, because so many priests and religious had learnt  about the Council principally through the media, if they read the documents of the Council at all, they read them through liberal spectacles.  A simple test: remember a "new mass" celebrated in the  nineteen sixties or seventies or, if your memory is dim, attend a Mass "in the spirit of Vatican II" now, and then compare it with the document on the liturgy.  Discover how many insights of the Council document have been simply forgotten.  The problem is not the texts of Vatican II, nor of the "new Mass" liturgy- it can be and often is celebrated beautifully - but lies in the lack of rubrics, so that it can be given any sort of emphasis you want; and too many priests who learnt their Vatican II from the media, came to celebrate "in the spirit of Vatican II", which often means, "according to the interpretation of Vatican II that belonged to that group in the Council with which the media could identify." It means, the kind of celebration where vertical relationships with God are sacrificed to horizontal relationships with "our brothers and sisters." It means the elimination of the "sacred".  I do not believe it was deliberate: it was done unconsciously.  

The "nouvelle theologie" theologians were devastated.  The situation was far worse than before!   The hi-jacking by the liberals of the "spirit of Vatican II", which had nothing to do with the documents, except where quoted out of context, was a disaster in many places, especially the way so many celebrations of the "new Mass" were celebrated with every whiff of the sacred eliminated in favour the celebration of togetherness. It must also be said that many priests celebrated in a very befitting manner; and when that happened, it was a wonderful success.

   The ressourcement theologians had explained the loss of Catholic practice among Catholic workers by the fact that they had been cut off from opportunities to experience holiness.   Their explanation was confirmed as popular attendance at the new Mass fell sharply, as vocations dropped, and as priests and religious left in droves.   The document on the liturgy is so rich, the celebration of the liturgy that was supposed to be based on the document was, so often, so banal.   An opportunity had been lost, and the results were catastrophic.   The result was that two popes, who had associated themselves in the Council with the nouvelle theologie group, postponed putting into eeffect the main decision of the Council to re-organise the church structure in favour of episcopal collegiality and de-centralisation, in order to counter-act the effects of this liberalism in the Church.



In his disappointment and hurt at what happened to the liturgy,   Joseph Ratzinger as cardinal made some criticisms of the new Mass that showed little respect for the good intentions and professional competence of those who did the work.   In fact, there is nothing unorthodox or even liberal about the texts which were well thought out; and each change had its reasons, was debated by people who knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. Moreover, Pope Paul VIth was closely involved, and is even personally involved in some of the changes.  Cardinal Ratzinger ignored the fact that there are many places where the new Mass is celebrated beautifully, that there was much to be said in favour of many of the changes, and that it had received the enthusiastic approval of Pope Paul and the majority of the bishops, and of a very great number of faithful.   However, after he became Pope, he put much of that right.   Of the new liturgy, he says in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum:


In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that 'this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.

The Pope leaves aside his barbed criticisms that he made as Cardinal and accepts that the new Mass was  approved by Pope Paul VIth in 1970, and the new books were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful.  In other words, the new liturgy is a valid, and in many places, a popular expression of the Tradition of the Church, having as much right to the adjective "traditional" as has the missal of Pius VIth, even if it is new.   Nevertheless, in accordance with eucharistic ecclesiology, even though the process through  “traditioning” has a long way to go.   (Further discussion of this is discovered here.)

To carry on his campaign to improve the liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI postponed the restructuring of the Church that would re-emphasise collegiality as the Council and he had wanted , and began to govern by decree. He even gave a theological justification for this, saying that the only place where the bishops govern with the Pope by divine right is an ecumenical council, and that, if they do meet, their authority comes from the Pope: a bit of a turn-around which cannot be squared with his previous interpretation of the Council.

      Nevertheless, it is clear that he hadn’t thought things through.   Ten years before he became Pope, he lamented the terrible bureaucracy in the Church, saying that  "The saints were people of creativity, not bureaucratic functionaries," and he wrote as Pope  that the Church bureaucracy is “old and tired”.  He also said that any reform of the Church must reduce the bureaucracy, This is the old Fr Joseph speaking!! He did not seem to realise that this over heavy bureaucracy is the inevitable result of centralisation, and that, by supporting centralisation, he was inevitably supporting a large bureaucracy.

   Moreover, it was not consistent with at least one other decision.  In 2001, the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith issued a decree while he was in charge that was initialled by the Pope which said that” the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession”, in spite of the fact it has rejected every ecumenical council since Ephesus.   This implies that local churches are true churches of orthodox faith, not because of their connection with Rome or their relationship with the other local churches: they gain their authenticity from their fidelity to their own Apostolic Tradition, even though it is Catholic teaching that communion with Rome should be a consequence of their orthodoxy. This fidelity makes them identical to all other true churches of orthodox faith, and hence,  one body with all others, including Rome that presides in charity..   That this identity with all other local churches springs from the fullness of its own sacramental life is the truth that justifies both collegiality and de-centralisation. It is what eucharistic ecclesiology is all about.   

It must be remember that this Assyrian Church is not a single diocese, but a communion of local churches under a patriarch, the equivalent of a national or regional church   Although the unity of this communion of local churches does not come from the Pope, nor is it ecclesiastically related to the Pope in any way  , as a union of churches it still functions as a " true particular church built on orthodox faith..."  This view is not consistent with Pope Benedict's view that local and regional synods get their authority from the Pope. 

Also, it goes directly against ecumenical relations with the Orthodox who never recognised nor were even called to recognise, nor ever will recognise that their own patriarchal synods receive their jurisdiction from the Pope.

   However, Catholic teaching requires us to state that the Pope has universal jurisdiction in synergy with with all other episcopal jurisdictions, whether regional, national or diocesan.   This is possible because what truly unites us at the various levels is ecclesial charity, not the domination of power. This is what distinguishes canon law from all types of civil law.  There is no divinely instituted police force, no prisons, nor have the authorities power to put people into hell.  What is left is ecclesial love, sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is invoked at the epiclesis in every local celebration, but who does not allow any grouping of Christians at any level to be closed in on itself.   Christian love, in its perfection as a reflection of Christ's love, is universal, and thus has no borders.   For this love to work habitually at all levels, including the universal one, there is need for the papacy.

Another factor in which Pope Francis shows himself in continuity with his two predecessors and with the ressourcement group, especially with Hans Urs von Balthazar,  is the place of beauty as a transcendental leading to God.   He writes in Evangelii Gaudium


’167. Every form of catechesis would do well to attend to the “way of beauty” (via pulchritudinis). Proclaiming Christ means showing that to believe in and to follow him is not only something right and true, but also something beautiful, capable of filling life with new splendour and profound joy, even in the midst of difficulties. Every expression of true beauty can thus be acknowledged as a path leading to an encounter with the Lord Jesus. This has nothing to do with fostering an aesthetic relativism which would downplay the inseparable bond between truth, goodness and beauty, but rather a renewed esteem for beauty as a means of touching the human heart and enabling the truth and goodness of the Risen Christ to radiate within it. If, as Saint Augustine says, we love only that which is beautiful, the incarnate Son, as the revelation of infinite beauty, is supremely lovable and draws us to himself with bonds of love. So a formation in the via pulchritudinis ought to be part of our effort to pass on the faith. Each particular Church should encourage the use of the arts in evangelization, building on the treasures of the past but also drawing upon the wide variety of contemporary expressions so as to transmit the faith in a new “language of parables”. We must be bold enough to discover new signs and new symbols, new flesh to embody and communicate the word, and different forms of beauty which are valued in different cultural settings, including those unconventional modes of beauty which may mean little to the evangelizers, yet prove particularly attractive for others.’

Pope Francis is a bit of a mystery for some people, a worry for others, even as his approval ratings reach record heights.   The problem is the same one that the Council had.   The journalists interpret his"off the cuff" remarks  in the light of their own agenda or to create an interesting story.   They  look for drama, for contrast, for a narrative worth telling; and, if what he says can be interpreted  as a contradiction against the words of Pope Benedict, for example, then that is what they do because then there is narrative. Then, when he says something that contradicts this interpretation, it is worth another article that theorises why he has changed his mind.   In this way, they end up misinforming the public.

Let us take the example of S. Magister and the affair of the Friars of the Immaculate Conception. S. Magister's articles are all the more significant because he is a first class journalist, one that we can normally read when seeking information; but, in the case of the Friars of the Immaculate, he seems to have caught journalitis very badly.

  This highly successful new congregation, with lots of vocations and excellent work in evangelising, accepted the wish of Pope Benedict XVI to celebrate both the new mass and the old.   There was a majority in favour of the old Mass and a minority in favour of the new; though the common practice was to celebrate either according to the circumstances: so far, so good.

  Unfortunately, the minority were made to  feel under attack. It seems that there were those among the majority who regarded the new Mass as sub-Catholic. So bitter did it become that the minority appealed to the Vatican, back in the time of Pope Benedict XVI.  As is usual in these cases, the Vatican sent in people to investigate and, as a result of this investigation, the Vatican removed the general superior, put in a Capuchin administrator, and forbade the celebration of the old Latin Mass.

What was the Vatican trying to do?   It is obvious to any religious.   The Vatican was trying to save the unity of the congregation; and the measures they decreed would only remain in force until the problem was resolved.   However, a rather sordid quarrel and a Vatican patch-up isn't news.   S.Magister and others said this was the first time that the present Pope had gone against Pope Benedict's policy that all may celebrate the old Mass without restriction.   Some gave the impression the Pope Francis was showing his true colours: a wonderful story for a journalist to discover if it were true; but it isn’t.   

Every religious knows, from stories handed down, how, with a religious community, a storm in a tea cup can transform itself into a tempest.   The problem had nothing to do with the Pope, but much to do with the preservation of an excellent congregation that is worth preserving.

  It isn't always going to have a Capuchin superior; nor will the ban on the old Mass last for ever.   For a community to give witness to the Catholicity of both ways of celebrating Mass, more is required than the simple celebration of both uses: they must treat both as equal.   It was they who chose to accept the task to bear witness in this fashion, so that the oath that they must accept both uses, old and new, as equal in status, as equally Catholic, is a simple and logical requirement in the light of the obviously bitter disagreement they have had within the community.   It would never have become public, and the public would never have been misled, if journalists had not been looking for a story, which they distorted to make it worth publishing.   How often has this happened before?.

We shall now look for the news behind the news; and we shall sum up the evidence and ask whether Pope Francis is truly in continuation with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, or whether he is ploughing a furrow independent of theirs.


There are important differences.   The last two popes were important participants in the Council who joined the French group, along with others, and had had a voice in drawing up the documents.   Pope Francis was a student at the time, but, most probably, highly interested in what was going on.      

One quality he has in common with the ressourcement theologians is contact with and admiration for the Byzantine Tradition, and this influence is clear in what he says and writes.  It began when he regularly served as acolyte at Byzantine Masses as a boy.  He believes the Catholic Church should learn what the Holy Spirit has taught our separated brethren down the ages, especially the tradition of the Orthodox churches on regional government. His belief that the Holy Spirit acts in and through Orthodox tradition is clear and unequivocal. His acceptance of eucharistic ecclesiology was made clear from his very first days because his preferred title is not "Pope" but "Bishop of Rome" who presides in charity - using the language of St Ignatius of Antioch.   When wanting to show the difference between prosyletism and evangelisation, he said in a recent talk that evangelisation is the product of the Holy Spirit and the evangelist working in synergy.   This use of the word “synergy” is an Orthodox theological term of immense importance.   It appears in the Catholic Catechism weakly translated as “co-operation”.   His use of the word accurately shows his closeness to Orthodox thought. I shall bring up another field where, I believe, he may be looking  for guidance, but I will do this nearer the end of this article.

As a Latin American Catholic, he shares with the Orthodox a similar understanding of images.   For example, the Brazilian Marian shrine of Aparecida has that name because finding a small statue of Our Lady in a river was hailed as equivalent to a surprise apparition: images manifest the presence of the saint depicted.   In all this he shows his theology to be very close to that of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.


Another sign that he learned from the "progressive" side of Vatican II to which Archbishop Wojtyla and Fr Joseph Ratzinger belonged, is his conviction that his first task is to confront the modern world with the kerygma, with the love of God in Jesus, to allow the other teachings of the Church, which he fully accepts and regards as important, to enjoy second place to the preaching of the kerygma, and to invite from us our personal response.   He preaches the kerygma at every opportunity.  This has led many people to misunderstand him; though people who have read Johannes Hofinger would recognise what he is doing.   Unless we have this personal relationship to Jesus, the pro-life,  anti-divorce stances of the Catholic Church are out of their true context and lack conviction; and we can no longer take for granted that people have had the Gospel preached to them.   Without knowledge of the Good News, our morality seems to be nothing more than out-of-date opinion.

Pope Francis has more in common with Father Joseph Ratzinger, the theological expert of Cardinal Frings at the Council, than with Pope Benedict XVI.   Read this excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter.   The words in inverted commas are the words of Fr Ratzinger:
Although the first session of the council produced no concrete results, it was, according to Ratzinger, of outstanding importance for two reasons. In the first place, in refusing to endorse the materials prepared by the Roman curia, “the body of bishops” demonstrated that it “was a reality in its own right.” The preparatory schema on revelation, for example, was “utterly a product of the ‘antimodernist’ mentality,” according to Ratzinger. Would the “almost neurotic denial of all that was new” be continued? Or would the church “turn over a new leaf, and move on into a new and positive encounter with its own origins, with its brothers, and with the world of today? Since a clear majority of the fathers opted for the second alternative, we may even speak of the council as a new beginning.”In rejecting the schema on revelation “the council had asserted its own teaching authority. And now, against the curial congregations which serve the Holy See and its unifying functions, the council had caused to be heard the voice of the episcopate -- no, the voice of the universal church.”In the second place, the first chapter of the Constitution on the Liturgy “contains a statement that represents for the Latin church a fundamental innovation.” The statement in question is the stipulation that, within certain limits, episcopal conferences “possess in their own right a definite legislative function.” Ratzinger sees this as of outstanding importance: “Perhaps one could say that this small paragraph, which for the first time assigns to the conferences of bishops their own canonical authority, has more significance for the theology of the episcopacy and for the long desired strengthening of episcopal power than anything in the Constitution on the Church itself.”Whereas previous popes had “regarded the curia as their personal affair on which a council had no right to encroach,” as a result of Pope Paul VI’s opening address to the second session, “the theme of curial reform was ... in a sense officially declared open for council debate.” At the heart and center of debates on the schema on the church was the notion of collegiality: “Just as Peter belonged to the community of the Twelve, so the pope belongs to the college of bishops, regardless of the special role he fills, not outside but within the college.” Later discussion of the schema on bishops sought concretely to implement the concept of collegiality by decentralizing power to bishops and episcopal conferences, and by proposing appropriate forms of centralization through the creation of “an episcopal council in Rome.”


Ratzinger’s reflections on the debates on ecumenism, the schema on which may be seen as “a pastoral application of the doctrine in the schema on the church,” contain an interesting discussion on the relationship between “churches” and “the church” in the form of a detailed response to the Protestant ecclesiology laid out in October 1963 in a lecture in Rome by Edmund Schlink of Heidelberg, Germany.

This session saw the promulgation of the first two conciliar texts, the Constitution on the Liturgy and the Decree on the Media of Social Communication. Paul VI’s formula of approbation broke with the custom, since the late Middle Ages, of regarding conciliar decisions being put into effect as papal law: “Paul, bishop, servant of the servants of God, together with the council fathers” (my stress).

On the other hand, for Pope Benedict XVI, the Synod of Bishops only had a consultative voice, as was laid down by Pope Paul who founded them, because cum Petro must necessarily mean sub Petro.   Really, everybody agrees that the bishops have the duty, received at ordination, to govern the whole Church with the Pope; but it is not so easy to put all the different threads together, either in theory or in practice, especially as Pope Francis is charged with a task for which there is no precedent.  

Towards the end of the Council, it is said that Father Ratzinger was already worried that people were seeing the  bishops as a future parliament.   In his vision of the Church, the relationship that the bishops have among themselves, and the relationship between the Pope and the college of bishops have nothing to do with any model taken from secular politics.   It seems that any attempt to express this these relationships in legal terms is fraught with difficulties.   It seems that the only thing to do is to work out a modus vivendi and put that in legal terms, while knowing that the ecclesial reality of the Church is a Christian Mystery too big to be adequately expressed in a legal vocabulary.   Apophatic theology also has its place when describing the reality of the Church.

In fact, in spite of efforts on the part of journalists and the jibes from some right-wing bloggers,   Pope Francis's theology is not very different from his two predecessors.   He is a straight down the middle, orthodox Catholic who has been greatly influenced by Vatican II and by the same theological influences that were important to the last two popes.

However, there is one enormous difference.   He has several academic degrees, but is not an academic.   The university which had most influence on his life he found on the streets of Buenos Aires. Although I live in Peru, it is not so different among the poor.  Once he became Archbishop, he began to walk the streets in the poorest barrios, talking to the people, sharing their worries, listening to their woes, learning about people living and caring for their children, and making ends meet, in spite of almost impossible odds.  He would have discovered that a large proportion of the families exist without the sacrament of marriage; there are many divorced, many women are bringing up children whose father is married to someone else; and many are living in conditions which make any change from their present situation virtually impossible.   He will have also found that, living among all this hardship and sin and ignorance, many examples of heroism and even of sanctity.   He will have discovered people "living in sin" who show heroic virtues, a self-sacrificing generosity that has made him feel very small; and he will have discovered people living in the state of grace under conditions which make their virtue seem miraculous.  He will be surprised how, under these condirions so many people are so kind, to one another, and to people less fortunate than themselves.   There is also cruelty and vice, sheer evil that does not hide its face.

It was his job to show these people the love of God, to tell them of Christ who died for them, to preach the resurrection where there only seems room for death. 

Then he had to celebrate Mass for them, perhaps during a fiesta.   He sees the fervour of so many, with devotion in their eyes, as they accompany the image of the feast, feeling God's presence through the image, in the midst of the jostling crowd.   Then comes communion; and they surge forward like hungry dogs - the description by Graham Greene of peasants in Mexico, but it is true - as they approach the Lord.

I am now projecting onto Pope Francis my own experience and that of countless other priests, but I suspect that I am not far from the truth.   Archbishop Bergoglio was a very correct and orthodox in his beliefs.   From his conversation with the people, he knows the highly irregular situations of so many who are pressing forward to receive communion.   He knows the rules and agrees with them.   He doesn't want to see them changed because they are true to how things should be.   But, somehow, he thinks, deep down, that, on this occasion, if he really wishes that they should know that God loves them, if he really wants these wounded, broken people to meet the Lord and be healed, if he wants to feed the very real and profound goodness in so many of them, he should put aside the rules and feel the multitude with Christ's body.  That does not mean he believes the rules are wrong, just that there is something more pressing than observance of the rules, specially among people who know only vaguely what the rules are or do not know how to get out of the situation they are in.   There are situations where even good and true rules can be obstacles between the sinner and the love of God. Gradually, as the Church became more and more present, he would introduce order, and, with the order would come the rules; but,looking back, he would know that, those early Masses gave the Church in the poor barrio a kick-start. Rules are for those who are capable of obeying them: manifesting God's mercy is a constant in our pastoral behaviour.. That mercy sometimes has priority over the rules, and that usually, it is best served working through the rules is recognised in Orthodox pastoral theology, and I wonder if this isn't one of the areas where Pope Francis might be looking for ideas from them.

Pope Francis believes what Pope Benedict believes, and he follows the same line, but they do it in very different ways.   But their way of living the same faith is coloured by their very different formations.   It would be silly to say that one is right and the others is wrong: they are different.   They also came to be Pope under very different circumstances and have different gifts, given them by God, to fulfil different roles in the implimentation of Vatican II.   The "reform of the reform" is still underway - we are having the publication of all the documents concerning the Constitution on the Liturgy, and there have been at least two Graduale's published in English; but it will probably be others, rather than the present Pope, who will continue the task.  Pope Francis has set himself the task of implementing collegiality, as well as putting the emphasis on the kerygma, on the love of God in Christ, and he is trying always to put the teaching of the Church in that context.   In this, his theology is in agreement with Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, but he is doing so much more emphatically.

   





 .



Article 0

$
0
0
HERMITS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY OF MOUNT CARMEL
Mt. Carmel Hermitage
P.O. Box 337
Christoval, Texas 76935-0337 
My Introduction

As far as I understand, there are two Carmelite monasteries of hermits and one cenobitical community in the United States, beside a number of solitaries, men and women.   They are modern communities.   The Carmelite hermits show some of the characteristics of the monks and nuns of Bethlehem in France and elsewhere who follow the Rule of St Bruno, and also many other monastic communities founded either just before of after Vatican II, notably a strong devotion to the Blessed Sacrament exposed and a strong influence of Eastern Orthodox spirituality.   In this they are contemplative witnesses to the compatibility of the two traditions which really belong to each other, even when they differ.

Between the years of 1206 and 1214, there existed a group of hermits living in Mt. Carmel in Palestine that had formed themselves into a group under the leadership of a man named Brocard.

This group proceeded to ask Albert, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to provide them with a "formula vitae" or rule of life which became the Carmelite rule.

Because of the association of Mt. Carmel with the Prophet Elijah, these first Carmelite hermits took him as their "Dux et Pater", or leader and father.

They also had a particular devotion to Our Lady, building an oratory dedicated to her, and by doing so pledged themselves to her service and placed their community under her patronage and protection. Hence they later became known as "the Brothers of St Mary of Mount Carmel."

Hermits, belonging to ancient Orders or New Institutes, or being directly dependent on the Bishop, bear witness to the passing nature of the present age by the inward and outward separation, from the world. By fasting and Penance, they show that man does not live by bread alone but by the work of God. Such a life "In the Desert" is an invitation to their contemporaries and to the ecclesial community itself, never to lose sight of the supreme vocation, which is to be always with the Lord.  



"From the rising of the sun to its setting..." 

3:30
A.M.
RISE
3:50
 VIGILS in Church 


4:30

MEDITATION WITH EUCHARISTIC ADORATION in Church 
5:30
LAUDS in Church, GRAND SILENCE ENDS


6:00 ANGELUS, HOLY ROSARY & LITANY B.V.M.



6:30

CONVENTUAL MASS, THANKSGIVING


7:15

BREAKFAST, LECTIO DIVINA in Cell



8:45

TERCE in Cell, WORK OR CLASSES
11:45
END OF WORK, SEXT, EXAM OF CONSCIENCE in Cell
12:00 
P.M. 


ANGELUS, DINNER, REST in Cell

1:30 
NONE in Cell 
1:45


MERCY CHAPLET & PRAYERS in Church, WORK

4:00  END OF WORK, Return to Cell
4:30
MEDITATION in Cell
5:30
VESPERS in Church
6:00
ANGELUS, COLLATION, CARMELITE READING in Cell
7:00
CHAPTER, COMPLINE,  
GRAND SILENCE BEGINS
8:00
RETIRE TO BED


"...may the name of the Lord be praised."



This hermitage is obviously respected in monastic circles and received a visit from the Prior of the Camaldolese monastery of Monte Corona a couple of years ago.



HERMITS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY OF MOUNT CARMEL

Carmelite Hermitage
of the Blessed Virgin Mary 
8249 de Montreville Trail 
Lake Elmo, MN 55042-9545


the Divine Liturgy

This community is obviously more influenced by Orthodox spirituality than the one above.   The very shape of their chapel interior shows this, calling the Mass the "Divine Liturgy", together with their strong emphasis on icons.  Yet they are Latin Rite, using the Carmelite use that was the liturgy of the Latin Rite Christians in Jerusalem at the time the Carmelites were forced to leave Mount Carmel.   They brought it to England where they settled at Aylesford Priory in Kent under St Simon Stock.   The hermits sing the Mass in English, but use Gregorian Chant on Sundays and feastdays.

OUR CALLING

The Hermits of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel were founded in 1987 as an eremitical Carmelite Shield community of Carmelites within the ancient Order of Carmel. We lead a semi-eremitical, semi-communal form of life, based upon the Carmelite Rule and the spiritual teaching of the saints of Carmel.

By means of prayer and silence, stillness and solitude, we seek a participation in the life of the indwelling Holy Trinity. Gathering the faculties of the soul to employ them in the unceasing remembrance of God and the work of love, we attempt to fulfill the admonition of Sacred Scripture to pray always (Lk. 18:1 and 1 Thes. 5:17).

Our Lady of Mount Carmel The Blessed Virgin Mary is the principal patroness of the Order of Carmel and of our monastic community. The goal of our life is to be pure of heart, as she, the Immaculate Virgin, is pure of heart, in order that our life may be given over completely to the service and worship of Christ, her Son. The maternal tenderness and transfigured beauty of the Mother of God compel us to place ourselves beneath her protection.

As far as possible, we support ourselves by the labor of our hands and minds. We lead a simple life; our treasures are spiritual not material, yet our life is wholesome, nourishing body, mind, and spirit. Monastery Cloister

We are mindful of the living reality of the Body of Christ which is the Communion of Saints. We desire to strengthen this Communion and hasten the Kingdom of God by acting as a hidden leaven in the Church (Mt. 13:33). Although hidden from the world, we are at the same time silent witnesses and living signs of the future glory which was once revealed in the Resurrection of Christ and is to be fully revealed at His return. For the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this world, while we await our blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Tit. 2:1 1-13).

Strive to preserve your heart in peace and let no event of this world disturb it. Reflect that all must come to an end.   + Keep spiritually tranquil in a loving attentiveness to God and when it is necessary to speak, let it be with the same calm and peace. + Let Christ crucified be enough for you, and with Him suffer and rest.

+ St. John of the Cross



OUR LIFE




Monastery Cloister

Aspirants to our life must be between the ages of 20 and 40. After initial correspondence, a visit to the hermitage is arranged. A simple application process precedes postulancy, which begins on the day of entrance and lasts for six months to one year. At the end of this period, the postulant receives the Carmelite habit and a new name. He then begins a two year novitiate. Upon successful completion of this program of formation, the novice makes vows of obedience, chastity and poverty, first for three years, and then for life.


Our Community is composed both of priests and brothers. We do not engage in priestly ministry outside of our monastery with the exception that we offer assistance to the Carmelite Nuns by way of retreats, conferences and spiritual direction.



All of us who wear this sacred habit of Carmel are called to prayer and contemplation, because that was the first principle of our Order and because we are descended from the line of those Holy Fathers of ours from Mount Carmel who sought in such great solitude this treasure, this precious pearl of which we speak.



Brother reading

+ St. Teresa of Jesus


Our life is composed of prayer and study, manual and intellectual labor. Both liturgical and personal prayer are important to us. Most important of all is that our prayer spring from a pure heart and lead us back into the heart, the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.



Carmelite Monastery The study of sacred things is a source of nourishment for the spirit. Particular emphasis is given to Carmelite and monastic spirituality and to the liturgy. We occasionally author books and articles in these and related fields. Manual labor provides an important balance to the work of the mind and helps to sustain the hermitage. We have an extensive garden, carpentry and leather shops, as well as a studio of sacred art. The studio makes available reproductions of the original iconographic art created by us for use in worship in our private monastery chapel. Friends of the monastery fulfill many of the business requirements of the studio, leaving us free to pursue our first vocation,which is prayer.


Monastery Hermitages


 Each member of our community spends part of his day in the solitude of his hermitage. We come together as a community for the liturgy, meals and an hour of recreation during which the silence is lifted and we enjoy the company and conversation of one another. A greater degree of solitude is permitted to experienced members of the community.






Carmelite Rule


The Rule of Saint Albert


[1]  Albert, called by God's favour to be patriarch of the church of Jerusalem, bids health in the Lord and the blessing of the Holy Spirit to his beloved sons in Christ, B. and the other hermits under obedience to him, who live near the spring on Mount Carmel. 

[2] Many and varied are the ways in which our saintly forefathers laid down how everyone, whatever his station or the kind of religious observance he has chosen, should live a life of allegiance to Jesus Christ -- how, pure in heart and stout in conscience, he must be unswerving in the service of his Master. 

[3] It is to me, however, that you have come for a rule of life in keeping with your avowed purpose, a rule you may hold fast to henceforward; and therefore: 

[4] The first thing I require is for you to have a prior, one of yourselves, who is to be chosen for the office by common consent, or that of the greater and maturer part of you; each of the others must promise him obedience -- of which, once promised, he must try to make his deeds the true reflection -- and also chastity and the renunciation of ownership. 

[5] If the prior and brothers see fit, you may have foundations in solitary places, or where you are given a site that is suitable and convenient for the observance proper to your Order. 

[6] Next, each one of you is to have a separate cell, situated as the lie of the land you propose to occupy may dictate, and allotted by disposition of the prior with the agreement of the other brothers, or the more mature among them. 

[7] However, you are to eat whatever may have been given you in a common refectory, listening together meanwhile to a reading from Holy Scripture where that can be done without difficulty. 

[8] None of the brothers is to occupy a cell other than that allotted to him or to exchange cells with another, without leave or whoever is prior at the time.

[9] The prior's cell should stand near the entrance to your property, so that he may be the first to meet those who approach, and whatever has to be done in consequence may all be carried out as he may decide and order. 

[10] Each one of you is to stay in his own cell or nearby, pondering the Lord's law day and night and keeping watch at his prayers unless attending to some other duty. 

[11]  Those who know how to say the canonical hours with those in orders should do so, in the way those holy forefathers of ours laid down, and according to the Church's approved custom. Those who do not know the hours must say twenty-five Our Fathers for the night office, except on Sundays and solemnities when that number is to be doubled so that the Our Father is said fifty times; the same prayer must be said seven times in the morning in place of Lauds, and seven times too for each of the other hours, except for Vespers when it must be said fifteen times. 

[12] None of the brothers must lay claim to anything as his own, but you are to possess everything in common; and each is to receive from the prior -- that is from the brother he appoints for the purpose -- whatever befits his age and needs. 

[13] You may have as many asses and mules as you need, however, and may keep a certain amount of livestock or poultry. 

[14] An oratory should be built as conveniently as possible among the cells, where, if it can be done without difficulty, you are to gather each morning to hear Mass. 

[15] On Sundays too, or other days if necessary, you should discuss matters of discipline and your spiritual welfare; and on this occasion the indiscretions and failings of the brothers, if any be found at fault, should be lovingly corrected. 

[16] You are to fast every day, except Sundays, from the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross until Easter Day, unless bodily sickness or feebleness, or some other good reason, demand a dispensation from the fast; for necessity overrides every law. 

[17] You are to abstain from meat, except as a remedy for sickness or feebleness. But as, when you are on a journey, you more often than not have to beg your way; outside your own houses you may eat foodstuffs that have been cooked with meat, so as to avoid giving trouble to your hosts. 
At sea, however, meat may be eaten. 

[18] Since man's life on earth is a time of trial, and all who would live devotedly in Christ must undergo persecution, and the devil your foe is on the prowl like a roaring lion looking for prey to devour, you must use every care to clothe yourselves in God's armour so that you may be ready to withstand the enemy's ambush.

[19] Your loins are to be girt with chastity, your breast fortified by holy meditations, for, as Scripture has it, holy meditation will save you. Put on holiness as your breastplate, and it will enable you to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength, and your neighbour as yourself. Faith must be your shield on all occasions, and with it you will be able to quench all the flaming missiles of the wicked one: there can be no pleasing God without faith; [and the victory lies in this -- your faith]. On your head set the helmet of salvation, and so be sure of deliverance by our only Saviour, who sets his own free from their sins. The sword of the spirit, the word of God, must abound in your mouths and hearts. Let all you do have the Lord's word for accompaniment. 

[20] You must give yourselves to work of some kind, so that the devil may always find you busy; no idleness on your part must give him a chance to pierce the defences of your souls. In this respect you have both the teaching and the example of Saint Paul the Apostle, into whose mouth Christ put his own words. God made him preacher and teacher of faith and truth to the nations: with him as your leader you cannot go astray. We lived among you, he said, labouring and wary, toiling night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you; not because we had no power to do otherwise but so as to give you, in your own selves, an example you might imitate. For the charge we gave you when we were with you was this: that whoever is not willing to work should not be allowed to eat either. For we have heard that there are certain restless idlers among you. We charge people of this kind, and implore them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they earn their own bread by silent toil. This is the way of holiness and goodness: see that you follow it. 

[21] The Apostle would have us keep silence, for in silence he tells us to work. As the Prophet also makes known to us: Silence is the way to foster holiness. Elsewhere he says: Your strength will lie in silence and hope. For this reason I lay down that you are to keep silence from after Compline until after Prime the next day.

At other times, although you need not keep silence so strictly, be careful not to indulge in a great deal of talk, for, as Scripture has it -- and experience teaches us no less -- sin will not be wanting where there is much talk, and he who is careless in speech will come to harm; and elsewhere: The use of many words brings harm to the speaker's soul. And our Lord says in the Gospel: Every rash word uttered will have to be accounted for on judgment day. Make a balance then, each of you, to weigh his words in; keep a tight rein on your mouths, lest you should stumble and fall in speech, and your fall be irreparable and prove mortal. Like the Prophet, watch your step lest your tongue give offence, and employ every care in keeping silent, which is the way to foster holiness. 

[22] You, brother B., and whoever may succeed you as prior, must always keep in mind and put into practice what our Lord said in the Gospel: Whoever has a mind to become a leader among you must make himself servant to the rest, and whichever of you would be first must become your bondsman. 

[23] You, other brothers too, hold your prior in humble reverence, your minds not on him but on Christ who has placed him over you, and who, to those who rule the Churches, addressed the words: Whoever pays you heed pays heed to me, and whoever treats you with dishonour dishonours me; if you remain so minded you will not be found guilty of contempt, but will merit life eternal as fit reward for your obedience. 

[24] Here then are the few points I have written down to provide you with a standard of conduct to live up to; but our Lord, at his second coming will reward anyone who does more than he is obliged to do. See that the bounds of common sense are not exceeded, however, for common sense is the guide of the virtues.






A HAPPY AND HOLY CHRISTMAS!!

$
0
0
A HAPPY AND HOLY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL

MAY CHRIST AND HIS BLESSED MOTHER BLESS YOU ALL


 A Nativity Sermon by Pope St Leo the Great

 Dearly beloved, today our Savior is born; let us rejoice. Sadness should have no place on the birthday of life. The fear of death has been swallowed up; life brings us joy with the promise of eternal happiness. No one is shut out from this joy; all share the same reason for rejoicing. Our Lord, victor over sin and death, finding no man free from sin, came to free us all. Let the saint rejoice as he sees the palm of victory at hand. Let the sinner be glad as he receives the offer of forgiveness. Let the pagan take courage as he is summoned to life. In the fullness of time, chosen in the unfathomable depths of God's wisdom, the Son of God took for himself our common humanity in order to reconcile it with its Creator. He came to overthrow the devil, the origin of death, in that very nature by which he had overthrown mankind. And so at the birth of our Lord the angels sing in joy: Glory to God in the highest, and they proclaim peace to men of good will as they see the heavenly Jerusalem being built from all the nations of the world. When the angels on high are so exultant at this marvelous work of God's goodness, what joy should it not bring to the lowly hearts of men? Beloved, let us give thanks to God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit, because in his great love for us he took pity on us, and when we were dead in our sins he brought us to life with Christ, so that in him we might be a new creation. Let us throw off our old nature and all its ways and, as we have come to birth in Christ, let us renounce the works of the flesh. Christian, remember your dignity, and now that you share in God's own nature, do not return by sin to your former base condition. Bear in mind who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Do not forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of God's kingdom. Through the sacrament of baptism you have become a temple of the Holy Spirit. Do not drive away so great a guest by evil conduct and become again a slave to the devil, for your liberty was bought by the blood of Christ.

Christmas by John Betjeman

The bells of waiting Advent ring,
The Tortoise stove is lit again
And lamp-oil light across the night
Has caught the streaks of winter rain
In many a stained-glass window sheen
From Crimson Lake to Hookers Green.

The holly in the windy hedge
And round the Manor House the yew
Will soon be stripped to deck the ledge,
The altar, font and arch and pew,
So that the villagers can say
'The church looks nice' on Christmas Day.

Provincial Public Houses blaze,
Corporation tramcars clang,
On lighted tenements I gaze,
Where paper decorations hang,
And bunting in the red Town Hall
Says 'Merry Christmas to you all'.

And London shops on Christmas Eve
Are strung with silver bells and flowers
As hurrying clerks the City leave
To pigeon-haunted classic towers,
And marbled clouds go scudding by
The many-steepled London sky.

And girls in slacks remember Dad,
And oafish louts remember Mum,
And sleepless children's hearts are glad.
And Christmas-morning bells say 'Come!'
Even to shining ones who dwell
Safe in the Dorchester Hotel.

And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window's hue,
A Baby in an ox's stall ?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me ?

And is it true ? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant,

No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare -
That God was man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine.

DECEMBER 25th; CHRISTMAS DAY

$
0
0






URBI ET ORBI MESSAGE 
OF POPE FRANCIS

CHRISTMAS 2013

Wednesday, 25 December 2013




Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he favours (Lk 2:14)

Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the whole world, Greetings and Happy Christmas!

I take up the song of the angels who appeared to the shepherds in Bethlehem on the night when Jesus was born. It is a song which unites heaven and earth, giving praise and glory to heaven, and the promise of peace to earth and all its people.

I ask everyone to share in this song: it is a song for every man or woman who keeps watch through the night, who hopes for a better world, who cares for others while humbly seeking to do his or her duty.

Glory to God!

Above all else, this is what Christmas bids us to do: give glory to God, for he is good, he is faithful, he is merciful. Today I voice my hope that everyone will come to know the true face of God, the Father who has given us Jesus. My hope is that everyone will feel God’s closeness, live in his presence, love him and adore him.

May each of us give glory to God above all by our lives, by lives spent for love of him and of all our brothers and sisters.

Peace to mankind

True peace - we know this well - is not a balance of opposing forces. It is not a lovely “façade” which conceals conflicts and divisions. Peace calls for daily commitment, but making peace is an art, starting from God’s gift, from the grace which he has given us in Jesus Christ.

Looking at the Child in the manger, Child of peace, our thoughts turn to those children who are the most vulnerable victims of wars, but we think too of the elderly, to battered women, to the sick… Wars shatter and hurt so many lives!

Too many lives have been shattered in recent times by the conflict in Syria, fueling hatred and vengeance. Let us continue to ask the Lord to spare the beloved Syrian people further suffering, and to enable the parties in conflict to put an end to all violence and guarantee access to humanitarian aid. We have seen how powerful prayer is! And I am happy today too, that the followers of different religious confessions are joining us in our prayer for peace in Syria. Let us never lose the courage of prayer! The courage to say: Lord, grant your peace to Syria and to the whole world. And I also invite non-believers to desire peace with that yearning that makes the heart grow: all united, either by prayer or by desire. But all of us, for peace.

Grant peace, dear Child, to the Central African Republic, often forgotten and overlooked. Yet you, Lord, forget no one! And you also want to bring peace to that land, torn apart by a spiral of violence and poverty, where so many people are homeless, lacking water, food and the bare necessities of life. Foster social harmony in South Sudan, where current tensions have already caused too many victims and are threatening peaceful coexistence in that young state.

Prince of Peace, in every place turn hearts aside from violence and inspire them to lay down arms and undertake the path of dialogue. Look upon Nigeria, rent by constant attacks which do not spare the innocent and defenseless. Bless the land where you chose to come into the world, and grant a favourable outcome to the peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Heal the wounds of the beloved country of Iraq, once more struck by frequent acts of violence.

Lord of life, protect all who are persecuted for your name. Grant hope and consolation to the displaced and refugees, especially in the Horn of Africa and in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Grant that migrants in search of a dignified life may find acceptance and assistance. May tragedies like those we have witnessed this year, with so many deaths at Lampedusa, never occur again!

Child of Bethlehem, touch the hearts of all those engaged in human trafficking, that they may realize the gravity of this crime against humanity. Look upon the many children who are kidnapped, wounded and killed in armed conflicts, and all those who are robbed of their childhood and forced to become soldiers.

Lord of heaven and earth, look upon our planet, frequently exploited by human greed and rapacity. Help and protect all the victims of natural disasters, especially the beloved people of the Philippines, gravely affected by the recent typhoon.

Dear brothers and sisters, today, in this world, in this humanity, is born the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. Let us pause before the Child of Bethlehem. Let us allow our hearts to be touched, let us not fear this. Let us not fear that our hearts be moved. We need this! Let us allow ourselves to be warmed by the tenderness of God; we need his caress. God’s caresses do not harm us. They give us peace and strength. We need his caresses. God is full of love: to him be praise and glory forever! God is peace: let us ask him to help us to be peacemakers each day, in our life, in our families, in our cities and nations, in the whole world. Let us allow ourselves to be moved by God’s goodness.

Christmas greetings after the Urbi et Orbi Message:

To you, dear brothers and sisters, gathered from throughout the world in this Square, and to all those from different countries who join us through the communications media, I offer my cordial best wishes for a merry Christmas!

On this day illumined by the Gospel hope which springs from the humble stable of Bethlehem, I invoke the Christmas gift of joy and peace upon all: upon children and the elderly, upon young people and families, the poor and the marginalized. May Jesus, who was born for us, console all those afflicted by illness and suffering; may he sustain those who devote themselves to serving our brothers and sisters who are most in need. Happy Christmas to all!


© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana


Christmas Day 2013: Abbot Paul's homily

                                Abbot Paul                                

            “From his fullness we have all received grace in return for grace, for grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” With this powerful image, St John ends the Prologue to his Gospel. But it is far more than an image: it is the reality that Christians live each day of their lives as, through grace, Jesus makes known to us his Father’s love and teaches us the truth which sets us free from the tyranny of sin, purifies our hearts and prepares us to see God face to face. This is the mystery of Christmas: this is the Christmas story.

            This morning we come together to thank God for the birth in human flesh of his Only Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before time began, born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, a man like us in all things but sin. We have prepared for today by faithfully keeping Advent, the season of hope and consolation. We have heard the message of the prophets. We have prayed earnestly for his Second Coming at the end of time. We have longed to celebrate this memorial of his Nativity, praying that he prepare in our hearts a manger in which he can lie and there fill our hearts with grace and truth. Today, as the Letter to the Hebrews says, we see lying in the manger “the radiant light of God’s glory, the perfect copy of his nature,” he who “sustains the universe by his powerful command,” who having “destroyed sin, has gone to take his place in heaven at the Father’s right hand.”

The new-born babe we kneel before and adore, Mary’s son, is God incarnate, God made man, in the words of Charles Wesley’s famous hymn, “Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the’incarnate Deity, pleased as Man with man to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel.” In Jesus, God is with us as never before. He is not simply with us but in us. St Irenaeus wrote, "The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." God’s vocation for us is far greater than we can imagine or understand. What can we do but accept it with humility and thanksgiving, with awe and rapture, as an act of faith, love and surrender to his Divine will? That God should become what we are in order that we might become what he himself is, shows us the unfathomable riches of the poverty and humility of God. In the Incarnation God opens his heart to man and lays himself bare before us, for Jesus reveals to us the naked truth about God, that God is love and that God’s love for us is absolute and all-embracing.

Obviously, at Christmas, a lot is made of the details of the Christmas story, and that’s not surprising: they’re quite irresistible. What with Christmas cards, Nativity plays and carol services, it’s easy to get sidetracked into a romantic rereading of the events of Christmas without any real theological basis: well-intentioned, no doubt, but ignorant of the very truth that Christ came to teach us and of the faith which is the gift of grace. This is no criticism, because God works in a mysterious way and looks for those who truly seek him with a sincere heart. But the real poverty of the Child in the manger has little to do with the picturesque circumstances surrounding his birth. Rather it is the fact that this Child is God, God who lays aside his divinity to take upon himself the condition of sinful humanity, the Lord who becomes a servant, the Creator who enters fully into the fragility of creation, God who throughout his life on earth will know the vulnerability and precariousness of human life, from being a foetus in his mother’s womb and a new-born baby in swaddling bands to being taken prisoner, tried and scourged, condemned to death by crucifixion and buried in a tomb. All this he did for love of us, wretched and sinful as we are; all this to save us from hell and eternal damnation; all this to reconcile us with himself; all this to open for us the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven; all this to wrap us eternally in his embrace. In 2nd Corinthians St Paul writes, “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.”

The truth of Christmas is not above and beyond us: Mary and Joseph, the shepherds and the angels, the ox and the ass, the Wise Men with their gifts, the star of Bethlehem, the sun and moon, indeed the whole of creation, worship and adore the Infant Jesus and recognize in him their Lord and God, their Saviour and their King, the Word through whom all things were made, the Light that darkness cannot overpower, the Source of grace and truth. Let us join with them as we celebrate our Christmas Mass this morning.

On behalf of Fr Prior and the Monastic Community, I wish you all a very happy and a holy Christmas.

The Byzantine Origins of the Christmas Tree

By John Sanidopoulos

The idea behind the Christmas tree and its decoration, does not have Northwest European roots, as many believe. In fact there was a similar ancient custom that began with the Greeks and adopted by the Romans of the East. Evidence suggests that this is the origin of the custom of the Christmas tree as we know it today.

While today we know a Christmas tree to be usually an evergreen conifer such as spruce, pine or fir, in ancient Greece it was something called "Eiresioni" (είρος = wool). Eiresioni was an olive branch or laurel decorated with garlands of red and white wool as well as early winter fruits (figs, walnuts, almonds, chestnuts, grains, etc. besides apples and pears). This was done as an expression of thanksgiving for the harvest and fertility of the past year and so that it would continue into the next. Usually they were dedicated to a pagan god such as Apollo, Athena, or the Horae (Eunomia, Diké, and Eirene).

Homer mentions the ancient Greek custom of Eiresioni, which he associated with caroling children. In Samos he put together several songs which a group of children would sing in the homes of the wealthy wishing them continued wealth, joy and peace. This was celebrated twice a year, once in spring in order for the people to request from the gods, especially from Apollo, sun and the seasons to protect the seed, and once in autumn, to thank the gods for the good harvesting of their fruits. Along with their thanks to the gods, they gave good wishes to their fellow brethren also.

During the period of September 22 - October 20 children would go from house to house, holding the Eirosioni, singing carols and receiving gifts from those pleased by their performance. Many of the children would bring home the laurel and olive twigs and hang them on their doors where they stayed the whole year (something which some Greeks still do to this day). The Eirosioni of the previous year would be taken down and burned. The entrance to the Temple of Apollo also had Eirosioni.

This is a traditional Eiresioni carol from the Homeric period:

To this house we came of the rich-landlord
May its doors open for the wealth to roll in
That wealth and happiness and desired peace should enter
And may its clay jugs fill with honey, wine and oil
And the kneading tub with rising dough.



The Christmas Tree in Byzantium

The ancient custom of Eirosioni was not forbidden in Byzantium, but it was Christianized to be a way to thank God for all the goods He provided. In fact, this custom was usually encouraged, as the ruler of each local city would order the local streets be cleaned and decorated at certain intervals with poles of rosemary, myrtle branches and blossoms of the season.1

The custom of decorating a pole with rosemary still survives in the memory of the Greek people, when they sing one of the most popular carols for the New Year: Αρχιμηνιά κι αρχιχρονιά ψηλή μου δενδρολιβανιά (Beginning of the Month and Beginning of the Year oh my dear tall Rosemary).

It is believed that the custom of Eirosioni together with the later custom of decorating the streets with poles of rosemary travelled to Northwest Europe, though there they adorned the trees and branches that were local to them, which are the evergreens we know today.

This transfer of customs may have been done by the Royal Cavalcade Battalion, who were the palace guards of Byzantium. Among others they played a ritual role in official imperial ceremonies - including that of Christmas. They were divided into three companies - the Small, the Medium and the Great Company. The Small Company consisted of those who were of another religion (eg. Pagans, Muslims, etc.), the Medium Company consisted of the heterodox and foreign Christians (eg. Scandinavians, Germans, Russians, British, etc.), and the Great Company consisted of Orthodox Christian Romans. Perhaps it was the foreigners among them who brought these Roman customs of Byzantium to their respective countries.


CHRISTMAS WITH THE  POOR
Quotes from Pope Francis

  I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person's life. God is in everyone's life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else -- God is in this person's life." -- Interview with Jesuit Catholic journals around the world.   

Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor.


It is truly an article of faith that poverty is central to the theology of Christmas. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states it thus: “Jesus shares the life of the poor, from the cradle to the cross.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church 544.] Blessed John Paul II reiterated this doctrine, preaching that “Christ who was rich became freely poor, was born in a lowly manger, preached liberation to the poor, identified with the poor, made them his disciples and promised them his kingdom.” Benedict XVI has pointed to the fact that Jesus was born into a poor family surrounded by “the poor, and anonymous shepherds ... The little ones, the poor in spirit: they are the key figures of Christmas, in the past and in the present.” Pope Francis explains the implications from this fact: “to be like Him we must not put ourselves above others, but rather lower ourselves, putting ourselves at the service, making ourselves little with the little and poor with the poor.”
Archbishop Óscar A. Romero of El Salvador was even more succinct in his formulation: “the Christ of Bethlehem is the divine summation of my entire Gospel preaching,” said Romero. [«Orientación» Weekly, December 25, 1977.] Explaining in more detail, Romero states that, “based on Bethlehem Christians can no longer invent another Christ or another liberating doctrine apart from the authentic Gospel: the Gospel of poverty and austerity, detachment and obedience to the will of the Father, of humility and of the path to the beatitudes and to the cross.”  Id. From poverty and humility to the cross, there is only one step, announced Ab. Romero: the rejection of a world not ready to accept the scandal of a lowly, humble Lord and God.  “Like Christ the Church grows during the darkness of night. The Gospel of Saint John says: ‘He came into the world but the world did not know him’,” preached Romero.
To avoid this ignorance, this lack of understanding, Romero announced the “good news” in the most concrete and urgent language of which he was capable and proclaimed, “Christ was not born twenty centuries ago; Christ is born today in the midst of our people.” He says this to give greater effect to his words not to “look for God among the opulence of the world, or among the idolatries of wealth or among those eager for power or among the intrigues of the powerful.”  To do so would be wasted effort: “God is not there. Let us look for God with the sign announced by the angels: resting in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes made by the humble peasant woman of Nazareth—poor swaddling clothes and a little hay on which this God-made-man rested, on which this King of the ages becomes accessible to humankind as a poor child.” In today’s world, we should “look for him among the children lacking proper nutrition who have gone to sleep this evening with nothing to eat. Let us look for him among the poor newspaper boys who sleep in the doorways wrapped in today’s paper. Let us look for him in the shoeshine boy who perhaps has earned enough to buy a small gift for his mother. Let us look for him in the newspaper boy who, because he did not sell enough papers, is severely reprimanded by his stepfather or stepmother.”
In a famous and widely quoted phrase, Romero said that “no one can celebrate an authentic Christmas unless they are truly poor.” Applying the social doctrine to what the Catechism says, the Martyr Bishop explained that, “The self-sufficient, the proud of heart, those who despise others because they do not possess the material goods of this earth, those who do not need or want God—for these people there is no Christmas. Only the poor, the hungry, and those who need someone to come to them because they have need of someone, someone who is God, someone who is Emmanuel, God-with-us—only these people are able to celebrate Christmas.” And in words astonishingly laden with common sense, he explained, “people have no desire to eat when they are not hungry. People also have no need for God when they are proud and/or self-sufficient. Only the poor, only those who are hungry can be satisfied.”  And he gives us this Christmas beatitude: “Blessed are those who see the coming of Christmas in the same way that those who are hungry see the gift of food. People cannot desire liberation or freedom unless they are conscious of being enslaved.”
When Benedict XVI inaugurated a 2009 Christmas lunch with the poor, recognizing this important note of the social doctrine at Christmas, he said, “I have come to you precisely on the Feast of the Holy Family because, in a certain way, you resemble it.” The Pope Emeritus’ words remind us of what Archbishop Romero had said thirty years earlier: “Tonight the people of El Salvador are very much like Jesus in Bethlehem, for we are a poor people and we present ourselves to God in the same way that Mary and Joseph and Jesus presented their poverty to God.”

Archbishop Romero reminds us that the poor draw us closer to Christmas and to God.

Posted by Carlos X 

Viewing all 948 articles
Browse latest View live