« 2007 March | Main | 2007 January »
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
A Little Irony
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Prayer and Fasting
Monday, February 19, 2007
Forgiveness
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Prayer and Fasting - an Integral Part of Christianity
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Judging
Today is the Sunday of the Last Judgment . It is the third Sunday in the Lenten Triodion - or the runup to the beginning of Great Lent. I would heartily recommend following the link and read all about it at the Archdiocesan website. I'll just share a few thoughts of my own, for whatever they're worth.
The last two Sundays have been focused on repentance, humility, and frankly a host of other things which keep priests in good sermons for year after year. One aspect of both Sundays is that there was an element of judgement of one individual by another. First the pharisee stands in judgment of the publican , then the older brother stands in judgment of the prodigal . Today however, is a bit different. Now judgment is come from the Lord. No longer is the penitent sinner being judged by the self-righteous, now all are judged by the Great Judge. Interestingly enough, next week is Forgiveness Sunday, which hopefully I'll have an opportunity to address next week. One key I noticed about the judgement story we heard today is that the people are being judged precisely by how they treated the poor, sick, and the sinners (read prisoners, although at the time the poor were seen as sinners too, ISTR as their state reflected a lack of God's favor upon them). Treat them well, and the judgement goes well. Treat them poorly (like the pharisee and the older brother), and well...
All of this is meant to prepare us for Lent, put us in the right state of mind. The main focus of Lent is our purification in preparation for the coming of Pascha. This is done through fasting and increased devotion to prayer. One of the risks that comes with this process of prayer and fasting (particularly the fasting) is to find ourselves sitting in judgment on other people. We find that they don't fast properly or enough, or maybe too much, or whatever. We also find ourselves at risk for being less tolerant of others in general, as we deprive ourselves of all of the fat, meat, etc. that we normally consume. In other words, we discover that its easy to be loving to others as long as all of our desires are being met. Note how self-centered that sounds. Lent can be a time to have a bright light shone on the state of our soul. Is it a soul of self-centeredness, or a soul of other-centeredness?
Now, none of this is meant to say that we should never "judge" in the sense of discerning false teachings, or correcting our brethren. Scripture and the Church Fathers speak extensively on this. The issue here is the sitting in judgement phenomenon of condemning others. That is not our job. If we see someone sinning, our job is not say "they'll burn in hell," but rather "what can I do to help them." Even this latter statement should only follow something akin to "gee, what is it that I'm doing wrong."
Finally, today is also known as Meatfare Sunday. The day we say farewell to meat until Pascha. Similar to what in the West is known as Carnival or Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday, as the Lenten fast - but not Lent itself - begins on Ash Wednesday in the West). Lent hasn't quite started yet, but we need to train a bit. So this week, we go without meat. Starting next week (the day after Cheesefare Sunday), Great Lent begins and we say farewell to dairy products as well, along with fish, wine (and anything stronger than wine), and oil except on some special days. So, tonight we'll go out for dinner as part of what may become a new tradition for us. One last big steak dinner to tide us over.
- the icon is a Russian Icon of the Last Judgement from the Novgorod school. Click on the picture to visit the gallery where this icon is on display.
Interfaith Blooper
Friday, February 09, 2007
Solving that DRM Issue
From our Archbishop
GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF AMERICA
8-10 East 79th St. New York, NY 10021
Tel: (212) 570-3530 Fax: (212) 774-0215
Web: http://www.goarch.org
Email: communications@goarch.org
Protocol 10/07
February 19, 2007
Great and Holy Lent
To the Most Reverend Hierarchs, the Reverend Priests and Deacons, the Monks and Nuns, the Presidents and Members of the Parish Councils of the Greek Orthodox Communities, the Distinguished Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Day, Afternoon, and Church Schools, the Philoptochos Sisterhoods, the Youth, the Hellenic Organizations, and the entire Greek Orthodox Family in America
Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Once again the most inspiring season of Great and Holy Lent is upon us, a time in the life of our Church in which we anticipate remarkable opportunities to grow spiritually in Christ. Before all other matters, we are thankful to God for the gracious extension of time that He has given to each of us to live on this, His Earth, that He created out of His love for us. We are thankful for the gracious addition of one more Lenten season to our life, a season that enables us to experience the unique blessings associated with our identity as Orthodox Christians.
The opportunities afforded to us by the Lenten season as a time for spiritual growth in Christ are replete with multiple elements. The first of these is the spiritual discipline of fasting. In our Orthodox Church, the discipline of fasting throughout the period of Lent is accorded special prominence. This ancient practice of regulating our intake of food and drink according to prescribed measures by the Church allows us to participate in a communal act that sharpens our focus upon the internal disposition of our mind and soul. By focusing on the disposition of our souls, and by exercising control over our bodily desires, we can come closer to a real communion with Christ. This is what is expressed by the hymn from the Matins Service of Tuesday in the first week of Lent: "Come, let us enter the inner chamber of our soul offering prayers to the Lord."
Another element of the season of Great and Holy Lent is the opportunity during this time to enlighten our minds with the divine mysteries and saving truths of our Orthodox Christian faith. During this sacred period, we consider the unprecedented significance of the person of Jesus Christ as Lord and God living among us. We ponder the reality of His continued presence today in our midst, the truly life-altering things that He has done for us, the challenge of living a life of authentic faith in Him, and the obligation each and all of us have as Orthodox Christians to glorify His name by our acts of love and philanthropy to others, which is also a central element of this Lenten period.
The period of Great and Holy Lent is also a precious time for us to strengthen our prayer life, as we are provided with a number of additional services for worship in our Church. Some of these special services throughout the Lenten period include the weekly Liturgies of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts, the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil on each of the Sundays of Lent, the insightful prayer of repentance known as the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian, the Lenten service of the Great Compline, and the traditional hymns of Salutation to the Theotokos that we chant on each Friday of Lent. Additionally, the occasion for increased Bible study is replete throughout the Lenten season as the services themselves include longer passages from the Old and the New Testaments. These valuable opportunities for worship and for encounter with the Holy Scriptures strengthen our prayer to God, which is an indispensable source of strength and wisdom on our journey in this life and toward eternal salvation.
The culmination of the period of Lent finds its expression in the very special time of the Holy Week, a unique period of time in our Church that presents us with even more opportunities for worship and spiritual growth. During Holy Week, when we meditate on the Holy and saving Passion of Christ, we observe within us a developing spiritual intensity. In Lent, such a spiritual intensity has been constantly growing with the passing of successive weeks, culminating in the saving Passion of Jesus Christ and in the ultimate explosion of joy, namely His Resurrection from the dead. We appreciate the building of spiritual intensity over a delineated period of time since it confirms to us that we as human beings are created by God primarily as creatures of worship. Worship is an advanced mental and spiritual activity that distinguishes human beings alone from all the other creatures that God has created on this earth. In this regard, the period of Great and Holy Lent, culminating in Holy Week, is the most appropriate time to appreciate the tremendous privilege of being human, which means to be a God worshipping being.
My beloved Christians,
As we begin this period of Lent, let us be mindful of the huge blessings that God gives to us each day of this life. Let us express our appreciation for these blessings through fasting, through our spiritual growth, through our increased prayer to God, and through our awareness that He has created us as creatures capable of worshipping Him as our Immortal King and our God. May His infinite love and protection sustain all of you throughout this very holy season, and may your Lenten journey be one filled with opportunities for coming closer and closer to an everlasting communion with Christ our Lord.
With paternal love in Christ,
+ DEMETRIOS
Archbishop of America
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Of Whales and Such
Fr. Freeman has once again posted a great article. This has become expected (at least on my part), but this one I thought worth linking more than usual. I could make my entire blog about just providing links to Fr. Freeman's writings, but then that would be sort of silly.
I don't really have much to add (other than a photo). There was one quote worth dwelling on for a few moments:
"Neither should we seek to make Church “easier” or more conformed to the age. We’re in the belly of a whale. What we need is to be spewed up onto the land, and not a program for the improvement of whale bellies."
I have spent much of my adult life, as have most Christians, I imagine, hearing about the need to make Church "relevant" to the times. Reading Fr. Freeman's words, I was thinking that yes, the Church should be made relevant - and it has. The difficulty lies in the fact that the only prayers that the Church has that are relevant to the whale's belly are prayers aimed at getting us out of it. The highest form of those prayers, the Divine Liturgy, is entirely focused on leaving that belly, and residing back on dry land (heaven). Any efforts aimed at making the Liturgy more relevant are inevitably focused on allowing us to remain in the belly - at declaring the belly a nice place.
I wish I had a readily available photo of our oldest sitting in a muddy pool of water in our back yard many years ago. He was enjoying it, but I suspect that today he wouldn't think that to still be sitting in that pool would be so grand at all. In our desire to conform the Church to our current state - make it say that what we are doing is okay, make it do the things that make us feel comfortable (like we're at home), all we do is tell it that we want to spend all eternity in that mudhole. Not very appealing, really.
- The picture is of a California Grey Whale "footprint", a calm spot of water formed when the whale dives. Unfortunately, in our lives, the footprint of the whale is anything but calm.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Behold the Bridegroom Cometh
The Middle?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Repost
Its the Values
Monday, February 05, 2007
Schizophrenia
Rot Cause Analysis
Sunday, February 04, 2007
The Sunday of the Prodigal Son
I may repost this later, as I'm waiting to see if my usual suspect bloggers post anything about todays feast. In the meantime, as a neophyte, I'll make a few comments.
Today, everyone but Catherine has some sort of disease. A spate of viruses have been invading the house throughout the week. So, we're going to miss out on attending the Divine Liturgy, on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son (here is the Gospel reading for today). We will, however, experience it virtually, which raises all sorts of interesting questions, but no it is really not the same thing as being there. This morning, we did gather for morning prayers, and we read the canticles from the Lenten Triodion for today. Here is one such:
Miracles
There's sort of a story behind this one. A friend sent along a quote left at the Getty museum site about their exhibit of icons. I may blog on that separately, as I'm a bit conflicted about the show. A female priest (Episcopalian, of course), was the poster, so I googled her and discovered that she belongs to supposedly AngloCatholic parish in San Francisco. I say supposedly, because what they have are the pretty ceremony without being bothered by the doctrine that comes with AngloCatholicism.
I decided to read one of her sermons, and was struck by something that I had commented to others about before. You'll have to read here sermon in its entirety yourself, but here is a couple of paragraphs:
She is commenting on how the miracle stories in the Bible don't really "grab" her. The reason that they don't is largely because she hasn't witnessed such miracles. I can understand that, as I've not had the opportunity to witness such things either. On the other hand, I know people who have, and yet her entire sermon, and particularly these paragraphs, is predicated on the notion that, in the West, and particularly within Protestantism, miracles have largely ceased. At least miracles of this magnitude. She does go on to discuss other meanings - perfectly valid meanings - that we should draw from the Gospels. A willingness to be open to the presence of God, among those.
But her main thesis appears to be that miracles largely don't happen in the Church anymore, and that saddened me in a profound way. It did because I heard many of these excuses when I was an Anglican. To be sure, you would hear of the occasional miraculous healing (rare) - mostly coming out of the charismatic movement - a movement I'm highly suspicious of for a lot of reasons. However, this was not something "normal" within Anglicanism or most other Protestant bodies. I don't know that the presence of miracles testifies to something being "the Church". After all, Benny Hinn and others can come up with a combination of sham miracles and perhaps a couple of real ones to bolster their claims of being anointed or doing God's work, or whatever. On the other hand, the absence of miracles, by and large, should be of some concern, shouldn't it? There really is not foundation, in either Scripture or the Church Fathers, for asserting that miracles would cease. Certain specific things, like the famed speaking in tongues, were addressed, but not the general occurrence of miracles. In fact, these sorts of miracles are found throughout the history of the Church, and to this very day. The stories are told all the time - especially if you hang around Monastics, who have either experienced them or have in turn been told the stories. Certainly, these are not all well documented (unlike the Holy Fire ), and maybe some aren't true. However, these stories are not told for any material gain. When Gerontissa Markella, at the Monastery of the Theotokos, the Life Giving Spring, told us some stories of miraculous events in the Holy Land, she didn't have her hand out asking for money for a miracle. No, she was merely using these stories to help encourage us, some pilgrims, in our daily walk. Or when she gives us some myrrh from the relics of St. Demetrius , it is so that this myrrh can potentially heal us.
So, as Orthodox Christians, we can unashamedly believe in miracles. We hear about them, and we expect them. We don't have to come up with a bunch of excuses and rationale for why they have stopped, because they haven't.
Picture is of the relics of St. Demetrios.
Divided They Stand, For a Time
Modifying the Liturgy
Another response to another show :
I admit, I didn't get too far in. This professor should be a bit embarrassed. He, himself, doesn't understand the liturgical basis for the actions which Luther jettisoned. On top of it, he doesn't know his scripture: Jesus breathed on the man born blind? He made clay with his spittle and anointed his eyes with the clay. Pretty sad.
What he says, that the basic structure of the liturgy dates back to at least 150 AD, and probably before, is quite correct. That is why the Lutheran service, ECUSA, service, Roman mass, and the various Eastern Liturgies are structurally rather similar. There is, even, a Wester rite Orthodox liturgy which is Sarum in origin, and thus looks much like the Anglican liturgy. However, the key is not the structure nearly as much as the content. We were at a family retreat/camp this weekend and were discussing preservation of the faith(here are some photos of the weekend). Interestingly enough, the day before the speaker left to come to the camp, an Episcopal lay bible study leader came in because they had been discussing how the ECUSA was losing people left and right, including the children and they began to wonder how to preserve the faith and pass it down. Someone in the group said that the Orthodox did that, and hadn't changed much at all in millennia. There's a longer story there, but the thrust of our conversation was that the West undid the understanding of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Where the law of belief was driven by the law of prayer - that is, the faith was passed down through the liturgy, the West adopted the habit of revising its belief, and then revising the liturgy accordingly. Unfortunately, as TMatt discovered , this permits all sorts of novel liturgies. If you believe in Gaia, adopt a new liturgy that reflects it.
Luther, and the other reformers, of course, asserted that all belief was clearly spelled out in Scripture, and so need not have worried about changing the Liturgy. That they couldn't agree amongst themselves as to what Scripture teaches would, I would think, make one nervous about changing the liturgy on that basis. Two things that the theology professor said early on were particularly troubling:
1. Luther discarded those thing which he felt were unclear or might lead to confusion. Another testament to the Lutheran ego. I suppose it never occurred to him that maybe he was unclear?
2. It seems that the professor was asserting that the presence of evil spirits was no longer culturally relevant. He sounds like a fine Episcopalian. Christianity is supposed to be about truth, not cultural relevance. I think C.S. Lewis, in the Screwtape letters addressed the idea of Satan succeeding best when he gets men to stop believing either in him or his actions in the world. Sounded a bit like where this professor was going. Perhaps if I listen further, I will realize I misunderstood him, so I will attempt to do so soon.
The photo is of the Monastery of the Theotokos, the Life Giving Spring, in Dunlap, CA. It is next to ranch where the retreat was held.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Frequent Reception of Communion
A Little Irony
A report has recently been published indicating
both that college students are more narcissistic than ever, and that narcissism
can be very damaging. A group of psychologists believes that the self esteem
movement of the '80s is largely responsible for where we have arrived at, and
that we need to stop. The irony here is, of course, centered around the fact
that I'm writing about this on my blog, blogs being fairly narcissistic things.
It certainly is a question I have wrestled with. Should an Orthodox Christian
really blog?
Why wouldn't an Orthodox Christian blog, I suppose some would ask. The answer lies deep within Orthodox Christianity, and so only being fairly new to the whole thing, the best I can do is give a somewhat superficial answer to the question. I am hesitant to ever say that Orthodoxy can be summed up by "...", or is best known for "...". However, it is safe to say that two key elements in Orthodox Christianity are the Incarnation and the Trinity. The Incarnation, that fact that God became man, and thus brought about the restoration of human nature, drives our understanding of our personal salvation. As St. Athanasius is noted for saying, God became man so that man might become God. In this sense, we each are unique and special and are called to a very high calling - to become united to God - to partake of His Divine Nature. At the same time, part of the Incarnation is the notion of the Hypostatic Union. It is not a singular sort of thing. It is God assuming flesh, becoming united to humanity. In turn, we are called to be united to God. We do this in communion with Him and with others within the Church, or Assembly (Ekklesia). This reflects the other piece of the puzzle, which is the Trinity. The Orthodox Church holds to a Trinitarian Anthropology . Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we are called to reflect in our lives a unity of persons. We do not even make sense in isolation. We have no meaning. The Fall is understood as man, having retained God's image, losing His likeness as we become singularities. The Incarnation, and the Crucifixion, and Resurrection are all events aimed at restoring that likeness. Narcissism is movement against that.
The article points out that narcissism leads to people being quite miserable. Much of what makes people miserable in this case is precisely what the Church has always told us is wrong with mankind - an inability to form solid relationships, the inability to live out a trinitarian world view. It is fascinating that, once again, in our "enlightened" society, we have to go off and pursue that which the Church has always taught against, in order to discover that the Church was really right all along. And I'll need to keep reminding myself of that every time I fire up my blogging tool .
Why wouldn't an Orthodox Christian blog, I suppose some would ask. The answer lies deep within Orthodox Christianity, and so only being fairly new to the whole thing, the best I can do is give a somewhat superficial answer to the question. I am hesitant to ever say that Orthodoxy can be summed up by "...", or is best known for "...". However, it is safe to say that two key elements in Orthodox Christianity are the Incarnation and the Trinity. The Incarnation, that fact that God became man, and thus brought about the restoration of human nature, drives our understanding of our personal salvation. As St. Athanasius is noted for saying, God became man so that man might become God. In this sense, we each are unique and special and are called to a very high calling - to become united to God - to partake of His Divine Nature. At the same time, part of the Incarnation is the notion of the Hypostatic Union. It is not a singular sort of thing. It is God assuming flesh, becoming united to humanity. In turn, we are called to be united to God. We do this in communion with Him and with others within the Church, or Assembly (Ekklesia). This reflects the other piece of the puzzle, which is the Trinity. The Orthodox Church holds to a Trinitarian Anthropology . Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we are called to reflect in our lives a unity of persons. We do not even make sense in isolation. We have no meaning. The Fall is understood as man, having retained God's image, losing His likeness as we become singularities. The Incarnation, and the Crucifixion, and Resurrection are all events aimed at restoring that likeness. Narcissism is movement against that.
The article points out that narcissism leads to people being quite miserable. Much of what makes people miserable in this case is precisely what the Church has always told us is wrong with mankind - an inability to form solid relationships, the inability to live out a trinitarian world view. It is fascinating that, once again, in our "enlightened" society, we have to go off and pursue that which the Church has always taught against, in order to discover that the Church was really right all along. And I'll need to keep reminding myself of that every time I fire up my blogging tool .
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Prayer and Fasting
I had mentioned earlier that prayer and fasting
go together. It is understood that in Orthodoxy, when we enter the great fast
of Lent, we similarly increase the amount of prayer. Some of this increase in
prayer is to take place within our personal devotions, but a significant amount
of the additional prayer is within the common life of the Church. For instance,
we switch from the Divine LIturgy of St. John Chrysostom, to that of St. Basil . Granted, clever priests can keep
the Liturgy of St. Basil at the same time as that of St. John, but it is a
longer liturgy (the difference in length is due to the additional length of
prayers by the priest - if there is a second priest available, the extra prayers
can be added with little impact on overall time). We also add at least one
Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified, although in the Russian traditions, this tends to
be a daily service. We also add the Akathist and Small Compline on Friday
nights.
This past week I was able to experience my first Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified. As the name suggests, this is a Liturgy without the normal consecration. I was used to such a service on Good Friday in the Episcopal Church, and was expecting much the same. In fact, in some ways it was similar, but where I expected a simple Liturgy without the consecration, I received a much more extensive service - with plenty of psalms and other prayers. I figured I'd be done in about 45 minutes, and instead the service took 90 minutes. Some of the reason for the length is that the service is really structured to be a Vespers and Liturgy.
Since we've become Orthodox, I still struggle to re-establish the prayer rule I had as an Anglican. Shortly before we decided to become Orthodox I finally became consistent with doing the daily cycle of Prayers. Personally, I suspect that keeping this prayer rule had something to do with the intensity of the call to become Orthodox. Part of the struggle is that the Matins prayer service takes at least an hour to complete during the regular year, and longer during Lent. The Anglican Breviary service, while lengthy, wasn't nearly as long. At any rate, I do miss reading all of the psalms, and the Pre-sanctified Liturgy provides an opportunity to hear a great number of Psalms.
Of particular interest at this first Pre-sanctified Liturgy was the homily given by our Priest. The main focus he had was on the beginning of the Fast. A few days after the formal beginning of Lent, but since he was out of town the previous Sunday, it was his first chance to provide some instruction and encouragement regarding the fast. His main focus was on the necessity of keeping the spiritual fast as being more important than the physical fast. He was quick to point out that the physical fast is very important - having been prescribed by the Church. However, he noted that if we accidentally eat a piece of meat, it is okay, as God has created all things. On the other hand, if we utter evil against another, that can be soul-killing.
As challenging as the fast, and the extra services may be, it is fantastic to have the opportunity to take a deep dive into the healing process that is Orthodoxy. I'm already a couple of posts behind, as I would like to post some brief comments on the Akathist we had on Friday, and on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, so forgive me if I don't start the dive into this healing process now. I believe I've mentioned it before, so this will be no great loss. If you would like some suggested reading on the topic. please let me know.
This past week I was able to experience my first Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified. As the name suggests, this is a Liturgy without the normal consecration. I was used to such a service on Good Friday in the Episcopal Church, and was expecting much the same. In fact, in some ways it was similar, but where I expected a simple Liturgy without the consecration, I received a much more extensive service - with plenty of psalms and other prayers. I figured I'd be done in about 45 minutes, and instead the service took 90 minutes. Some of the reason for the length is that the service is really structured to be a Vespers and Liturgy.
Since we've become Orthodox, I still struggle to re-establish the prayer rule I had as an Anglican. Shortly before we decided to become Orthodox I finally became consistent with doing the daily cycle of Prayers. Personally, I suspect that keeping this prayer rule had something to do with the intensity of the call to become Orthodox. Part of the struggle is that the Matins prayer service takes at least an hour to complete during the regular year, and longer during Lent. The Anglican Breviary service, while lengthy, wasn't nearly as long. At any rate, I do miss reading all of the psalms, and the Pre-sanctified Liturgy provides an opportunity to hear a great number of Psalms.
Of particular interest at this first Pre-sanctified Liturgy was the homily given by our Priest. The main focus he had was on the beginning of the Fast. A few days after the formal beginning of Lent, but since he was out of town the previous Sunday, it was his first chance to provide some instruction and encouragement regarding the fast. His main focus was on the necessity of keeping the spiritual fast as being more important than the physical fast. He was quick to point out that the physical fast is very important - having been prescribed by the Church. However, he noted that if we accidentally eat a piece of meat, it is okay, as God has created all things. On the other hand, if we utter evil against another, that can be soul-killing.
As challenging as the fast, and the extra services may be, it is fantastic to have the opportunity to take a deep dive into the healing process that is Orthodoxy. I'm already a couple of posts behind, as I would like to post some brief comments on the Akathist we had on Friday, and on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, so forgive me if I don't start the dive into this healing process now. I believe I've mentioned it before, so this will be no great loss. If you would like some suggested reading on the topic. please let me know.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Forgiveness
Part of the traditions leading up to the
beginning of Lent (which is today), is Forgiveness Vespers. This service, not
done as frequently in all jurisdictions unfortunately, is, as the name suggests,
focused on forgiveness. Much of the service is a standard Vespers service, but
with the selection of psalms and hymns focused on our need for
forgiveness.
At the end of the service is something I've never experienced before, and I have to say, is quite powerful. We attended an Antiochian Parish not far from Grandma's house as our parish wasn't offering Vespers, and we were expected at Grandma's for dinner. At the end of the service, everyone approaches the priest, bows, and says, "Please forgive me" (or words to that effect). After that, the Priest says "God forgives, and I forgive." A sign of what is to come is when he then says "Please forgive me, a sinner." To this we are to respond, "God forgives, and I forgive." The first person then stands over to the side, and the next person approaches the priest, and goes through the same sequence as the previous person. What is interesting is that this person then goes to the previous person and does the same thing. This continues on until everyone in the community has asked the other's forgiveness. The forgiveness here is mostly centered around the sorts of insensitive things we do that offend those around us. The priest at this parish, Fr. Braun , wanted to ensure that families, and husbands/wives, came up together so that they all asked for forgiveness of one another at about the same time - as we are very much in need of forgiveness for the many ways in which we offend our children, our spouses, and our parents.
We're hoping we can convince our priest to re-establish this practice at our parish next year, as the Archdiocese considers this something that should be done, and it would only increase in power as we ask forgiveness of the various members of our community, whom we have undoubtedly offended throughout the year.
At the end of the service is something I've never experienced before, and I have to say, is quite powerful. We attended an Antiochian Parish not far from Grandma's house as our parish wasn't offering Vespers, and we were expected at Grandma's for dinner. At the end of the service, everyone approaches the priest, bows, and says, "Please forgive me" (or words to that effect). After that, the Priest says "God forgives, and I forgive." A sign of what is to come is when he then says "Please forgive me, a sinner." To this we are to respond, "God forgives, and I forgive." The first person then stands over to the side, and the next person approaches the priest, and goes through the same sequence as the previous person. What is interesting is that this person then goes to the previous person and does the same thing. This continues on until everyone in the community has asked the other's forgiveness. The forgiveness here is mostly centered around the sorts of insensitive things we do that offend those around us. The priest at this parish, Fr. Braun , wanted to ensure that families, and husbands/wives, came up together so that they all asked for forgiveness of one another at about the same time - as we are very much in need of forgiveness for the many ways in which we offend our children, our spouses, and our parents.
We're hoping we can convince our priest to re-establish this practice at our parish next year, as the Archdiocese considers this something that should be done, and it would only increase in power as we ask forgiveness of the various members of our community, whom we have undoubtedly offended throughout the year.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Prayer and Fasting - an Integral Part of Christianity
So, the question has arisen as to whether or not
fasting, in particular, although you could broaden it on Scriptural grounds to
be prayer and fasting (since they often occur together), is really just an
interesting external, or whether it is integral to the
faith.
I'm going to attempt to avoid making any comparisons between Orthodoxy and other "Christian Confessions" on this point. I think that is not necessarily relevant. Rather, I'm going to attempt to address this from an Orthodox perspective entirely. Please forgive the mistakes I'm sure to make, as I am only in the process of learning this in the first place. This is deep stuff, and I'm unlikely to do it justice.
Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning...
So we read in the prophet Joel . Why is it that the Lord commands that we are turn to Him with fasting? Isn't that just some sort of an external rule that has little significance with regard to a true, saving faith? This begs not only the question of what is "the faith", as in that which was once delivered unto the Saints, but also what is the point of Christianity?
So, I'll address the second question first, as I think it answers the first question quite nicely. Is it simply to get to heaven? Sort of a "get out of hell free" card? That is sort of the simple modern answer. The question seems to be, "am I going to hell or not?" This, in turn, leads to the situation where any effort to imply that somebody else's belief system might be erroneous is equivalent of telling them that they are going to hell. The Orthodox view of salvation depends on a great number of things, but most prominently on the incarnation and crucifixion, and the resurrection. One very challenging issue to tackle is that of the incarnation. In a nutshell, Orthodoxy sees the incarnation as being a necessary step in order that humanity can attain to a place where it is able to partake of the divine nature. As the Church Fathers put it, become God (not become a God, but rather become united with God - partake of his uncreated energies). Keep this in mind, for a brief moment, and I shall return to it.
I became aware a number of years ago, of the correlation between leprosy and sin in the Old Testament. This becomes readily apparent in a couple of places, and particularly so if you are used to having your confession heard. The first place that this becomes apparent is in Leviticus, where the priest is given the responsibility of examining lepers and determining whether or not they are healthy (or clean) and may return to the assembly (aka Church). If you think about it, this is what priests do in confession - especially in the case of notorious sinners - where they may need to restore the penitent sinner to communion. The second place where this becomes obvious is in the story of Naaman , the Syrian general who is a leper. He seeks healing from God's prophet, and is, in turn, directed to bathe in the river Jordan - foreshadowing the Baptism of our Lord. Of course, the New Testament is filled with healing miracles. For the longest time, I thought they were interesting metaphors, but I don't think it dawned on me until fairly recently that these stories were more than simply metaphors. It is well known in Orthodoxy (but apparently not so well known even by those of us who thought we knew Orthodoxy from the outside), that Christianity is about having our souls healed .
Having our souls healed is a necessary action in order for us to be fully restored to what we should have been before the fall, united with God and partakers of His nature . Note how St. Peter says that the corruption we have escaped is in the world through lust.
The process by which this happens begins with our baptism and chrismation. In the first case becoming united with Christ, in the second receiving the Holy Spirit. From there on out, we undergo a life of asceticism and prayer, receiving grace through the Sacraments (most notably the Eucharist and Confession). We look to confession both as a means of receiving God's forgiveness for our ongoing transgressions and as a place to receive counsel on overcoming our sinful tendencies. The asceticism, which was my focus here, anyways, is all about learning to govern our passions. St. Paul refers to this in several locations. It is basically overcoming the desires of the flesh - as this dying to self is what allows us to grow closer to God.
So, if this is what Christianity is about, then faith, the belief that this healing is what we're about, would demand that we engage in the ascetical struggle. So rather than being some superficial thing we do, it is, rather, quite integral.
I'm going to attempt to avoid making any comparisons between Orthodoxy and other "Christian Confessions" on this point. I think that is not necessarily relevant. Rather, I'm going to attempt to address this from an Orthodox perspective entirely. Please forgive the mistakes I'm sure to make, as I am only in the process of learning this in the first place. This is deep stuff, and I'm unlikely to do it justice.
Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning...
So we read in the prophet Joel . Why is it that the Lord commands that we are turn to Him with fasting? Isn't that just some sort of an external rule that has little significance with regard to a true, saving faith? This begs not only the question of what is "the faith", as in that which was once delivered unto the Saints, but also what is the point of Christianity?
So, I'll address the second question first, as I think it answers the first question quite nicely. Is it simply to get to heaven? Sort of a "get out of hell free" card? That is sort of the simple modern answer. The question seems to be, "am I going to hell or not?" This, in turn, leads to the situation where any effort to imply that somebody else's belief system might be erroneous is equivalent of telling them that they are going to hell. The Orthodox view of salvation depends on a great number of things, but most prominently on the incarnation and crucifixion, and the resurrection. One very challenging issue to tackle is that of the incarnation. In a nutshell, Orthodoxy sees the incarnation as being a necessary step in order that humanity can attain to a place where it is able to partake of the divine nature. As the Church Fathers put it, become God (not become a God, but rather become united with God - partake of his uncreated energies). Keep this in mind, for a brief moment, and I shall return to it.
I became aware a number of years ago, of the correlation between leprosy and sin in the Old Testament. This becomes readily apparent in a couple of places, and particularly so if you are used to having your confession heard. The first place that this becomes apparent is in Leviticus, where the priest is given the responsibility of examining lepers and determining whether or not they are healthy (or clean) and may return to the assembly (aka Church). If you think about it, this is what priests do in confession - especially in the case of notorious sinners - where they may need to restore the penitent sinner to communion. The second place where this becomes obvious is in the story of Naaman , the Syrian general who is a leper. He seeks healing from God's prophet, and is, in turn, directed to bathe in the river Jordan - foreshadowing the Baptism of our Lord. Of course, the New Testament is filled with healing miracles. For the longest time, I thought they were interesting metaphors, but I don't think it dawned on me until fairly recently that these stories were more than simply metaphors. It is well known in Orthodoxy (but apparently not so well known even by those of us who thought we knew Orthodoxy from the outside), that Christianity is about having our souls healed .
Having our souls healed is a necessary action in order for us to be fully restored to what we should have been before the fall, united with God and partakers of His nature . Note how St. Peter says that the corruption we have escaped is in the world through lust.
The process by which this happens begins with our baptism and chrismation. In the first case becoming united with Christ, in the second receiving the Holy Spirit. From there on out, we undergo a life of asceticism and prayer, receiving grace through the Sacraments (most notably the Eucharist and Confession). We look to confession both as a means of receiving God's forgiveness for our ongoing transgressions and as a place to receive counsel on overcoming our sinful tendencies. The asceticism, which was my focus here, anyways, is all about learning to govern our passions. St. Paul refers to this in several locations. It is basically overcoming the desires of the flesh - as this dying to self is what allows us to grow closer to God.
So, if this is what Christianity is about, then faith, the belief that this healing is what we're about, would demand that we engage in the ascetical struggle. So rather than being some superficial thing we do, it is, rather, quite integral.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Judging
Today is the Sunday of the Last Judgment . It is the third Sunday in the Lenten Triodion - or the runup to the beginning of Great Lent. I would heartily recommend following the link and read all about it at the Archdiocesan website. I'll just share a few thoughts of my own, for whatever they're worth.
The last two Sundays have been focused on repentance, humility, and frankly a host of other things which keep priests in good sermons for year after year. One aspect of both Sundays is that there was an element of judgement of one individual by another. First the pharisee stands in judgment of the publican , then the older brother stands in judgment of the prodigal . Today however, is a bit different. Now judgment is come from the Lord. No longer is the penitent sinner being judged by the self-righteous, now all are judged by the Great Judge. Interestingly enough, next week is Forgiveness Sunday, which hopefully I'll have an opportunity to address next week. One key I noticed about the judgement story we heard today is that the people are being judged precisely by how they treated the poor, sick, and the sinners (read prisoners, although at the time the poor were seen as sinners too, ISTR as their state reflected a lack of God's favor upon them). Treat them well, and the judgement goes well. Treat them poorly (like the pharisee and the older brother), and well...
All of this is meant to prepare us for Lent, put us in the right state of mind. The main focus of Lent is our purification in preparation for the coming of Pascha. This is done through fasting and increased devotion to prayer. One of the risks that comes with this process of prayer and fasting (particularly the fasting) is to find ourselves sitting in judgment on other people. We find that they don't fast properly or enough, or maybe too much, or whatever. We also find ourselves at risk for being less tolerant of others in general, as we deprive ourselves of all of the fat, meat, etc. that we normally consume. In other words, we discover that its easy to be loving to others as long as all of our desires are being met. Note how self-centered that sounds. Lent can be a time to have a bright light shone on the state of our soul. Is it a soul of self-centeredness, or a soul of other-centeredness?
Now, none of this is meant to say that we should never "judge" in the sense of discerning false teachings, or correcting our brethren. Scripture and the Church Fathers speak extensively on this. The issue here is the sitting in judgement phenomenon of condemning others. That is not our job. If we see someone sinning, our job is not say "they'll burn in hell," but rather "what can I do to help them." Even this latter statement should only follow something akin to "gee, what is it that I'm doing wrong."
Finally, today is also known as Meatfare Sunday. The day we say farewell to meat until Pascha. Similar to what in the West is known as Carnival or Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday, as the Lenten fast - but not Lent itself - begins on Ash Wednesday in the West). Lent hasn't quite started yet, but we need to train a bit. So this week, we go without meat. Starting next week (the day after Cheesefare Sunday), Great Lent begins and we say farewell to dairy products as well, along with fish, wine (and anything stronger than wine), and oil except on some special days. So, tonight we'll go out for dinner as part of what may become a new tradition for us. One last big steak dinner to tide us over.
- the icon is a Russian Icon of the Last Judgement from the Novgorod school. Click on the picture to visit the gallery where this icon is on display.
Interfaith Blooper
Young master Daniel
, over at GetReligion, posted a piece about a piece of on interfaith dialogue, with an
interesting blooper as the headline (caught immediately by the firs commenter, I
might add). He called the piece about Interfaith Communion. While that
certainly comes close to happening, depending on your definition of interfaith,
its not what the piece is really
about.
The piece isn't particularly deep, but it does make an interesting assertion: that all of the world's conflicts are religious in nature. The question came up, at least peripherally, as to whether or not the writer really would like to achieve some Unitarian Utopia or not. However, this assertion is of the type more often heard out of the mouths of atheists. Religion is seen as the cause of all world hatred and death. While it can certainly be argued that the majority of current conflicts are religious in nature - most notably, of course, the war on terror, that really isn't the case historically. List, if you will, the major conflicts of the last 100 years that come to mind. Was World War I really religious, or merely a war born out of the collapse of various world empires? World War II? In what sense was the Korean War religious? Vietnam? No, these were a number of things, but calling them religious is a bit of a stretch. The religion related casualties of most of these conflicts are there, but they are usually the victims. 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany, as many as 20 million people under Stalin - many for being Orthodox or Jewish. Both Hitler and Stalin were only about the religion of themselves. They were only after power and controlling others. What about all of the people killed during the WWII conflict with Japan? Or between Japan and China? Religious or ethnic?
How many people have been killed by violence incited exclusively because of the religion of the attacker vs. the religion of the victim? A large number, to be sure, but does it really compare to deaths entirely over power? I don't think so. So, is this piece really barking up the right tree? To be sure, it would be nice if people would stop killing one another over religious issues. Frankly it would be nice if people would stop killing each other period. If the goal of this piece, and many of the efforts it refers to, seems to be the creation of a religious environment where none of the religions really believe anything. As beliefs fall, what is the basis for the morality of ours society? The risk here is two fold. One, is that you compromise the salvation of all concerned (sorry, I know that is a horribly traditional belief), and the second is that with no foundation to your morality other than perhaps a perfectly utilitarian approach which is more reminiscent of the "freedom" under communism than under a liberal religious structure.
The piece isn't particularly deep, but it does make an interesting assertion: that all of the world's conflicts are religious in nature. The question came up, at least peripherally, as to whether or not the writer really would like to achieve some Unitarian Utopia or not. However, this assertion is of the type more often heard out of the mouths of atheists. Religion is seen as the cause of all world hatred and death. While it can certainly be argued that the majority of current conflicts are religious in nature - most notably, of course, the war on terror, that really isn't the case historically. List, if you will, the major conflicts of the last 100 years that come to mind. Was World War I really religious, or merely a war born out of the collapse of various world empires? World War II? In what sense was the Korean War religious? Vietnam? No, these were a number of things, but calling them religious is a bit of a stretch. The religion related casualties of most of these conflicts are there, but they are usually the victims. 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany, as many as 20 million people under Stalin - many for being Orthodox or Jewish. Both Hitler and Stalin were only about the religion of themselves. They were only after power and controlling others. What about all of the people killed during the WWII conflict with Japan? Or between Japan and China? Religious or ethnic?
How many people have been killed by violence incited exclusively because of the religion of the attacker vs. the religion of the victim? A large number, to be sure, but does it really compare to deaths entirely over power? I don't think so. So, is this piece really barking up the right tree? To be sure, it would be nice if people would stop killing one another over religious issues. Frankly it would be nice if people would stop killing each other period. If the goal of this piece, and many of the efforts it refers to, seems to be the creation of a religious environment where none of the religions really believe anything. As beliefs fall, what is the basis for the morality of ours society? The risk here is two fold. One, is that you compromise the salvation of all concerned (sorry, I know that is a horribly traditional belief), and the second is that with no foundation to your morality other than perhaps a perfectly utilitarian approach which is more reminiscent of the "freedom" under communism than under a liberal religious structure.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Solving that DRM Issue
Over at Open IT
Strategies, there is a discussion on Steve Jobs challenge to the
industry about DRM. Magnatune , I think, has a great solution. Sign
artists directly, give them 50% of the proceeds, and let the customer determine
(within limits) the pricepoint. Seems to be working so far. Most folks don't
mind paying artists. They just have a problem paying the execs who have a
reputation for greed.
In the meantime, if this link works, have a listen
to some music I bought from them yesterday. Worth every penny and then
some.
From our Archbishop
GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF AMERICA
8-10 East 79th St. New York, NY 10021
Tel: (212) 570-3530 Fax: (212) 774-0215
Web: http://www.goarch.org
Email: communications@goarch.org
Protocol 10/07
February 19, 2007
Great and Holy Lent
To the Most Reverend Hierarchs, the Reverend Priests and Deacons, the Monks and Nuns, the Presidents and Members of the Parish Councils of the Greek Orthodox Communities, the Distinguished Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Day, Afternoon, and Church Schools, the Philoptochos Sisterhoods, the Youth, the Hellenic Organizations, and the entire Greek Orthodox Family in America
Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Once again the most inspiring season of Great and Holy Lent is upon us, a time in the life of our Church in which we anticipate remarkable opportunities to grow spiritually in Christ. Before all other matters, we are thankful to God for the gracious extension of time that He has given to each of us to live on this, His Earth, that He created out of His love for us. We are thankful for the gracious addition of one more Lenten season to our life, a season that enables us to experience the unique blessings associated with our identity as Orthodox Christians.
The opportunities afforded to us by the Lenten season as a time for spiritual growth in Christ are replete with multiple elements. The first of these is the spiritual discipline of fasting. In our Orthodox Church, the discipline of fasting throughout the period of Lent is accorded special prominence. This ancient practice of regulating our intake of food and drink according to prescribed measures by the Church allows us to participate in a communal act that sharpens our focus upon the internal disposition of our mind and soul. By focusing on the disposition of our souls, and by exercising control over our bodily desires, we can come closer to a real communion with Christ. This is what is expressed by the hymn from the Matins Service of Tuesday in the first week of Lent: "Come, let us enter the inner chamber of our soul offering prayers to the Lord."
Another element of the season of Great and Holy Lent is the opportunity during this time to enlighten our minds with the divine mysteries and saving truths of our Orthodox Christian faith. During this sacred period, we consider the unprecedented significance of the person of Jesus Christ as Lord and God living among us. We ponder the reality of His continued presence today in our midst, the truly life-altering things that He has done for us, the challenge of living a life of authentic faith in Him, and the obligation each and all of us have as Orthodox Christians to glorify His name by our acts of love and philanthropy to others, which is also a central element of this Lenten period.
The period of Great and Holy Lent is also a precious time for us to strengthen our prayer life, as we are provided with a number of additional services for worship in our Church. Some of these special services throughout the Lenten period include the weekly Liturgies of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts, the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil on each of the Sundays of Lent, the insightful prayer of repentance known as the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian, the Lenten service of the Great Compline, and the traditional hymns of Salutation to the Theotokos that we chant on each Friday of Lent. Additionally, the occasion for increased Bible study is replete throughout the Lenten season as the services themselves include longer passages from the Old and the New Testaments. These valuable opportunities for worship and for encounter with the Holy Scriptures strengthen our prayer to God, which is an indispensable source of strength and wisdom on our journey in this life and toward eternal salvation.
The culmination of the period of Lent finds its expression in the very special time of the Holy Week, a unique period of time in our Church that presents us with even more opportunities for worship and spiritual growth. During Holy Week, when we meditate on the Holy and saving Passion of Christ, we observe within us a developing spiritual intensity. In Lent, such a spiritual intensity has been constantly growing with the passing of successive weeks, culminating in the saving Passion of Jesus Christ and in the ultimate explosion of joy, namely His Resurrection from the dead. We appreciate the building of spiritual intensity over a delineated period of time since it confirms to us that we as human beings are created by God primarily as creatures of worship. Worship is an advanced mental and spiritual activity that distinguishes human beings alone from all the other creatures that God has created on this earth. In this regard, the period of Great and Holy Lent, culminating in Holy Week, is the most appropriate time to appreciate the tremendous privilege of being human, which means to be a God worshipping being.
My beloved Christians,
As we begin this period of Lent, let us be mindful of the huge blessings that God gives to us each day of this life. Let us express our appreciation for these blessings through fasting, through our spiritual growth, through our increased prayer to God, and through our awareness that He has created us as creatures capable of worshipping Him as our Immortal King and our God. May His infinite love and protection sustain all of you throughout this very holy season, and may your Lenten journey be one filled with opportunities for coming closer and closer to an everlasting communion with Christ our Lord.
With paternal love in Christ,
+ DEMETRIOS
Archbishop of America
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Of Whales and Such
Fr. Freeman has once again posted a great article. This has become expected (at least on my part), but this one I thought worth linking more than usual. I could make my entire blog about just providing links to Fr. Freeman's writings, but then that would be sort of silly.
I don't really have much to add (other than a photo). There was one quote worth dwelling on for a few moments:
"Neither should we seek to make Church “easier” or more conformed to the age. We’re in the belly of a whale. What we need is to be spewed up onto the land, and not a program for the improvement of whale bellies."
I have spent much of my adult life, as have most Christians, I imagine, hearing about the need to make Church "relevant" to the times. Reading Fr. Freeman's words, I was thinking that yes, the Church should be made relevant - and it has. The difficulty lies in the fact that the only prayers that the Church has that are relevant to the whale's belly are prayers aimed at getting us out of it. The highest form of those prayers, the Divine Liturgy, is entirely focused on leaving that belly, and residing back on dry land (heaven). Any efforts aimed at making the Liturgy more relevant are inevitably focused on allowing us to remain in the belly - at declaring the belly a nice place.
I wish I had a readily available photo of our oldest sitting in a muddy pool of water in our back yard many years ago. He was enjoying it, but I suspect that today he wouldn't think that to still be sitting in that pool would be so grand at all. In our desire to conform the Church to our current state - make it say that what we are doing is okay, make it do the things that make us feel comfortable (like we're at home), all we do is tell it that we want to spend all eternity in that mudhole. Not very appealing, really.
- The picture is of a California Grey Whale "footprint", a calm spot of water formed when the whale dives. Unfortunately, in our lives, the footprint of the whale is anything but calm.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Behold the Bridegroom Cometh
I was enjoying another post by Fr. Freeman about the Bridegroom
services during Holy Week. I find myself, perhaps catching it from some of the
bloggers I read, but some of it I think is my own, growing increasingly excited
at the approach of Lent. On the one hand, I know it will be challenging to go
through the fasting, both on a personal level, and with the children. OTOH,
I've now experienced, at least once, the power of going through Great Lent with
all of its discipline and focus on repentance, the staggering depth of Holy
Week, all culminating with the glorious celebration of Pascha, and I relish the
thought.
It is, as Fr. Freeman notes, a process of uniting ourselves with Christ. Only a little bit each Lent/Pascha, and perhaps that is what is so incredible. Knowing that to be utterly united with Christ will be so much more than the little bit we experience each year. So much more that it really is beyond our comprehension. Taste and see that the Lord is good, indeed.
As a side note, this Sunday represents, in a way, our liturgical "anniversary" with Orthodoxy. It was on the Sunday of the Last Judgment of 2006 that we first attended an Orthodox church as a family. I think I've posted that previously, but I repeat it here, because I think another element of the significance that Lent holds for me this year is just that. It now represents for me the time when we joined Christ's Church. That will always, I pray, be a significant time for me to remember and celebrate.
It is, as Fr. Freeman notes, a process of uniting ourselves with Christ. Only a little bit each Lent/Pascha, and perhaps that is what is so incredible. Knowing that to be utterly united with Christ will be so much more than the little bit we experience each year. So much more that it really is beyond our comprehension. Taste and see that the Lord is good, indeed.
As a side note, this Sunday represents, in a way, our liturgical "anniversary" with Orthodoxy. It was on the Sunday of the Last Judgment of 2006 that we first attended an Orthodox church as a family. I think I've posted that previously, but I repeat it here, because I think another element of the significance that Lent holds for me this year is just that. It now represents for me the time when we joined Christ's Church. That will always, I pray, be a significant time for me to remember and celebrate.
The Middle?
There's a new program being run in Episcopal
Parishes around the country. In some cases, it is the first Adult Education
program that has been offered at these parishes in a long time. That's a good
thing, right?
Well, it seems like a good idea. The program, however, is concerning. Like the organization, the program has the name "Via Media" , a reference to the Elizabethan compromise which attempted to steer Anglicanism down a middle road between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Unfortunately, this new Via Media isn't really about a middle-road at all. The people behind Via Media, and this program in particular, are from what used to be considered the far left of the Episcopal Church. For instance, Susan Russell, who is the executive directory of "Claiming the Blessing" , an organization whose goal is to promote same-sex blessings and full inclusion of active gays and lesbians in all orders of priesthood and aspects of Church life, and Michael Hopkins, former president of Integrity , the well known gay and lesbian lobby of the ECUSA. The rest of the list pretty much rounds out the usual suspects, including several people associated with "The Witness", a progressive religious publication, with folks like Barbara Harris and John Chane on the Board of Directors.
Now this agenda, decidedly not in what was the mainstream of the Episcopal Church (leaving aside what is mainstream Anglican) the last time I was there, is being marketed to well meaning Episcopalians as Via Media - the middle way. 25 dioceses are currently using this program, now. It pains me to know that there are many good, decent folk being led astray by this. Whatever happened to truth in advertising?
Well, it seems like a good idea. The program, however, is concerning. Like the organization, the program has the name "Via Media" , a reference to the Elizabethan compromise which attempted to steer Anglicanism down a middle road between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Unfortunately, this new Via Media isn't really about a middle-road at all. The people behind Via Media, and this program in particular, are from what used to be considered the far left of the Episcopal Church. For instance, Susan Russell, who is the executive directory of "Claiming the Blessing" , an organization whose goal is to promote same-sex blessings and full inclusion of active gays and lesbians in all orders of priesthood and aspects of Church life, and Michael Hopkins, former president of Integrity , the well known gay and lesbian lobby of the ECUSA. The rest of the list pretty much rounds out the usual suspects, including several people associated with "The Witness", a progressive religious publication, with folks like Barbara Harris and John Chane on the Board of Directors.
Now this agenda, decidedly not in what was the mainstream of the Episcopal Church (leaving aside what is mainstream Anglican) the last time I was there, is being marketed to well meaning Episcopalians as Via Media - the middle way. 25 dioceses are currently using this program, now. It pains me to know that there are many good, decent folk being led astray by this. Whatever happened to truth in advertising?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Repost
As I noted earlier , I suspected one of my favorite bloggers would post about the Sunday of the
Prodigal Son. So, here is the link . Enjoy.
Its the Values
I often have pictures of Terry Mattingly and is
colleagues at GetReligion banging their collective heads against a wall. One of
the latest challenges has been to try and cajole the media
into covering the faith of the two Superbowl coaches. Tony Dungy has gone on
record that he and Lovie Smith would like to better be known as two Christian
coaches who won the Superbowl (or words to that effect). While not denying the
civic and historical significance of their race, they seem to perceive their
faith and their actions (both are known for not being prone to the foul-mouthed
histrionics of many other coaches in both the NFL and elsewhere - Bobby Knight being one of the most egregious
examples) as transcending their race. In other words, it is the character that
makes the man, not the color of his skin. You know, a mere few weeks after
Martin Luther King day, Coach Dungy's statements are much more reminiscent of
the message I think the Rev. King was trying to get across. I know its silly to
pretend to be color blind, but didn't the Rev. King once say , "I have a dream that my four little
children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the
color of their skin but by the content of their
character."?
I think there are two factors at work. The first is that the media, which tend to lean to the left on most issues, suffers from the modern form of racism that says that the only thing that matters is a person's race, in contradiction to the civil rights movement who said that a person's race should be just about the last thing that matters. Yes, the race of these coaches is important in that it indicates how far we have come as a nation. But what is most important here is that these two men, espousing Christian values, are examples of the kind of men we'd like our children to be. They are examples of the kind of coaches we'd like our children to have. However, to go down that road, the press would have to talk about faith - and specifically the Christian faith. And we know we can't have that. The media has to be embarrassed about Christianity, or so it appears. If these two coaches were Muslim, you could expect that this would be splashed all over the press. And this is a sad statement.
I have to say that we see this now in public education. Today, my oldest will be turning in the illuminated manuscript he had to do about the life of Muhammed. He didn't have to do a project like this about the emperor Constantine, or about Jesus Christ. What is interesting is that underlying this attitude we see among the left, is not some sort of acknowledgment that Islam is the correct religion, but rather that any religion is better than that evil Christianity. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, are all better.
Well, its frustrating, but on the other hand Christianity does better when it is the religion of the catacombs. The message of God as the lover of mankind will more easily be heard when the day comes that only those willing to suffer for being Christian call themselves Christian. I occasionally make time, not nearly enough time, mind you, to read the lives of the Saints in the Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church. Many of these Saints suffered and/or died greatly for their faith, and in the example of their lives I hear the message of the great Philanthropist much more clearly than I do coming from people like me, who get to enjoy their faith in luxury. So maybe it is better for Christianity that the press attempts to ignore it. I can't say that its better for the race relations.
I think there are two factors at work. The first is that the media, which tend to lean to the left on most issues, suffers from the modern form of racism that says that the only thing that matters is a person's race, in contradiction to the civil rights movement who said that a person's race should be just about the last thing that matters. Yes, the race of these coaches is important in that it indicates how far we have come as a nation. But what is most important here is that these two men, espousing Christian values, are examples of the kind of men we'd like our children to be. They are examples of the kind of coaches we'd like our children to have. However, to go down that road, the press would have to talk about faith - and specifically the Christian faith. And we know we can't have that. The media has to be embarrassed about Christianity, or so it appears. If these two coaches were Muslim, you could expect that this would be splashed all over the press. And this is a sad statement.
I have to say that we see this now in public education. Today, my oldest will be turning in the illuminated manuscript he had to do about the life of Muhammed. He didn't have to do a project like this about the emperor Constantine, or about Jesus Christ. What is interesting is that underlying this attitude we see among the left, is not some sort of acknowledgment that Islam is the correct religion, but rather that any religion is better than that evil Christianity. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, are all better.
Well, its frustrating, but on the other hand Christianity does better when it is the religion of the catacombs. The message of God as the lover of mankind will more easily be heard when the day comes that only those willing to suffer for being Christian call themselves Christian. I occasionally make time, not nearly enough time, mind you, to read the lives of the Saints in the Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church. Many of these Saints suffered and/or died greatly for their faith, and in the example of their lives I hear the message of the great Philanthropist much more clearly than I do coming from people like me, who get to enjoy their faith in luxury. So maybe it is better for Christianity that the press attempts to ignore it. I can't say that its better for the race relations.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Schizophrenia
Over at GetReligion, TMatt continues in his
Quixotic (in the idealist sense of the word) quest
for journalists to actually get the timeline of events leading to the current
crisis in the ECUSA correct. I actually applaud his efforts to do so, as I'm
always quite interested in root cause (interesting typo - I almost wrote rot
cause, which in this case might be more appropriate)
analysis.
I think the timeline is particularly instructive, and the errors of the LA times most egregious. Especially regarding Spong. It is quite instructive that Spong has been denying Christianity for a very long time, and the ECUSA as well as the Anglican Communion have effectively done nothing about it. Now, Spong is at best a spiritual child of Pike (I had to link this Time story again! ), and perhaps we can hope for him to arrange a visit to Israel sometime soon. Seriously, though, what would be best would be for Spong to repent and demonstrate to his fan club that he was really wrong all this time. So, if it is the case that the problems in the ECUSA predate 2003 a bit (and I'd refer you to this Newsweek column, written in 2003, for more evidence), exactly how far back does it go? Is it back to Spong, or Pike? Or is it further back than that.
I think the aforementioned Newsweek column, with its Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: "The gospel it preaches is, ‘By taste are ye saved’... It is not inquisitorial, not even inquisitive, is perfectly well-bred, and can shut its eyes on all proper occasions..." is probably quite accurate. While Anglicanism doesn't much like change, it will shut its eyes, and over time tolerate more and more. This leads to the sort of schizophrenia I referred to in the last entry. In response to this, I was asked if I felt that the "schizophrenia" I cited was something that would be noticeable in an stalwart conservative Anglican diocese like San Joaquin . A brief survey of the parishes of the diocese would be in order, but unfortunately, most of the parishes do not appear to have websites, which make such investigations difficult.
One parish I looked at was St. Paul's , Bakersfield. This is an interesting parish. If I had to peg it, I'd say traditonal, high church Anglican. They are decidedly not AngloCatholic. Why do I say this? Well, there are a variety of clues, but the killer is this statement, "five optional sacramental rites of Confirmation, Ordination, Unction, Confession, and Holy Matrimony." Now, I agree that not everyone should be married, nor is everyone called to the priesthood, but declaring Confession, in particular, to be an optional rite wouldn't sit well with most AngloCatholics I know. Now, certainly, this may not be the sort of doctrinal dispute you would expect to divide a Church (as opposed to the real presence, Eucharistic sacrifice vs. symbolic only, no sacrifice debate), but Confession and one's view of it, tends to go to the whole notion of being prepared to receive properly. So, at the very least, if there is a parish that firmly believes in Confession in this diocese, you have the beginning of a fault line.
There are any number of parishes like St. John's in Lodi. Again, they come across sort of High Church Anglican. Except that all of the critical doctrinal issues that are driving San Joaquin to consider leaving the ECUSA, are apparently not nearly as important to these parishes, as they are having meetings with the president of the House of Deputies to discuss how they can continue in the ECUSA.
So, I think there may be some element of schizophrenia in that diocese - especially between the should we stay and the should we go crowd. I was looking for a solid, somewhat spikey AngloCatholic parish , but with the dearth of websites to explore, just couldn't. At the same time, I didn't see any overtly liberal parishes either. So, it could well be that the potential confession conflict I listed above may not exist. Even if there were a solid AngloCatholic parish like St. Mary's which I linked to, where they find Confession "formative in Anglo-Catholic identify and spirituality", my finding a conflict may be more imagined than real.
So, its hard to say. I suspect that with just a superficial look at a limited number of parishes, that there is some potential for significant conflicts and significant diversity in doctrinal views. At the same time, without more data, it also may be the Bp. Schofield is doing his job well (which wouldn't be terribly surprising) by maintaining a significant degree of doctrinal unity within his diocese. Perhaps if people more familiar with the diocese wander by here, they can chime in. Perhaps there are no serious Anglo-Catholics, and perhaps no serious low-church Evangelicals who can't stand all of the talk of Masses and Sacrifice. If that is the case, there would be a model for a unified Church. I could debate doctrine endlessly with such a Church, but at least you would know what you were debating against. As I said long ago , it is very hard to determine what passes for doctrine in the ECUSA, and I think that same problem exists in the continuing churches and various breakaways as well.
I should note that at first I had listed San Joaquin as an AngloCatholic diocese. It may well be - its just a bit hard to tell from the websites visited. Especially when there are such things as Charismatic services being held at the Cathedral on a weekly basis. However, it may also be that I had developed an increasingly Romish view of what AngoCatholicism should be, so my opinions may not count. So, I relabeled it above as a conservative Anglican diocese.
I think the timeline is particularly instructive, and the errors of the LA times most egregious. Especially regarding Spong. It is quite instructive that Spong has been denying Christianity for a very long time, and the ECUSA as well as the Anglican Communion have effectively done nothing about it. Now, Spong is at best a spiritual child of Pike (I had to link this Time story again! ), and perhaps we can hope for him to arrange a visit to Israel sometime soon. Seriously, though, what would be best would be for Spong to repent and demonstrate to his fan club that he was really wrong all this time. So, if it is the case that the problems in the ECUSA predate 2003 a bit (and I'd refer you to this Newsweek column, written in 2003, for more evidence), exactly how far back does it go? Is it back to Spong, or Pike? Or is it further back than that.
I think the aforementioned Newsweek column, with its Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: "The gospel it preaches is, ‘By taste are ye saved’... It is not inquisitorial, not even inquisitive, is perfectly well-bred, and can shut its eyes on all proper occasions..." is probably quite accurate. While Anglicanism doesn't much like change, it will shut its eyes, and over time tolerate more and more. This leads to the sort of schizophrenia I referred to in the last entry. In response to this, I was asked if I felt that the "schizophrenia" I cited was something that would be noticeable in an stalwart conservative Anglican diocese like San Joaquin . A brief survey of the parishes of the diocese would be in order, but unfortunately, most of the parishes do not appear to have websites, which make such investigations difficult.
One parish I looked at was St. Paul's , Bakersfield. This is an interesting parish. If I had to peg it, I'd say traditonal, high church Anglican. They are decidedly not AngloCatholic. Why do I say this? Well, there are a variety of clues, but the killer is this statement, "five optional sacramental rites of Confirmation, Ordination, Unction, Confession, and Holy Matrimony." Now, I agree that not everyone should be married, nor is everyone called to the priesthood, but declaring Confession, in particular, to be an optional rite wouldn't sit well with most AngloCatholics I know. Now, certainly, this may not be the sort of doctrinal dispute you would expect to divide a Church (as opposed to the real presence, Eucharistic sacrifice vs. symbolic only, no sacrifice debate), but Confession and one's view of it, tends to go to the whole notion of being prepared to receive properly. So, at the very least, if there is a parish that firmly believes in Confession in this diocese, you have the beginning of a fault line.
There are any number of parishes like St. John's in Lodi. Again, they come across sort of High Church Anglican. Except that all of the critical doctrinal issues that are driving San Joaquin to consider leaving the ECUSA, are apparently not nearly as important to these parishes, as they are having meetings with the president of the House of Deputies to discuss how they can continue in the ECUSA.
So, I think there may be some element of schizophrenia in that diocese - especially between the should we stay and the should we go crowd. I was looking for a solid, somewhat spikey AngloCatholic parish , but with the dearth of websites to explore, just couldn't. At the same time, I didn't see any overtly liberal parishes either. So, it could well be that the potential confession conflict I listed above may not exist. Even if there were a solid AngloCatholic parish like St. Mary's which I linked to, where they find Confession "formative in Anglo-Catholic identify and spirituality", my finding a conflict may be more imagined than real.
So, its hard to say. I suspect that with just a superficial look at a limited number of parishes, that there is some potential for significant conflicts and significant diversity in doctrinal views. At the same time, without more data, it also may be the Bp. Schofield is doing his job well (which wouldn't be terribly surprising) by maintaining a significant degree of doctrinal unity within his diocese. Perhaps if people more familiar with the diocese wander by here, they can chime in. Perhaps there are no serious Anglo-Catholics, and perhaps no serious low-church Evangelicals who can't stand all of the talk of Masses and Sacrifice. If that is the case, there would be a model for a unified Church. I could debate doctrine endlessly with such a Church, but at least you would know what you were debating against. As I said long ago , it is very hard to determine what passes for doctrine in the ECUSA, and I think that same problem exists in the continuing churches and various breakaways as well.
I should note that at first I had listed San Joaquin as an AngloCatholic diocese. It may well be - its just a bit hard to tell from the websites visited. Especially when there are such things as Charismatic services being held at the Cathedral on a weekly basis. However, it may also be that I had developed an increasingly Romish view of what AngoCatholicism should be, so my opinions may not count. So, I relabeled it above as a conservative Anglican diocese.
Rot Cause Analysis
Yes, the typo was intentional this time. So, in
the ongoing discussion about the beginnings of the problem in the ECUSA, it has
been said that Bp. James Pike was really the start of all/most of the current
problems, or at least really got the ball rolling. This is a commonly held
belief in conservative circles within the ECUSA. Along with that, is a feeling
among some, that if only the ECUSA or Canterbury had something akin to Rome's
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(formerly known as the Inquisition ), this whole mess wouldn't have
happened. This could be the beginning of two separate and equally interesting
discussions, so let's see where this
goes.
We'll address the best approach to defending the faith first. Rome is somewhat unique in this regard as it has established a strict heirarchy, with one bishop at the head of everything. They've created various organizations, most notably the Inquisition, whose job is to clearly delineate doctrine. I imagine that would be doctrine that is not clearly defined by papal decree or ecumenical council? I'm not too sure, but I think that is it. The difficulty I have with that notion is the actual efficacy of this form of government. It is a popular notion that Rome is, and always has been, rock solid with doctrine because they have the Pope. One authority, no question on doctrine. They will argue that this allows them to uphold the faith "once received." Of course, they now have papal infallibility (a 19th century innovation that, although never heard of during the first millenia of Christianity is somehow part of that initial deposit of faith), which makes everything absolutely clear. However, a survey of American Catholics and American parishes will establish that this surety of faith has little impact on the faithful. Many, if not most, are exposed to all manner of clearly heretical teachings (beyond the pale of the usual Roman/Orthodox debates), such as a relativistic salvation (Jesus isn't the only way), and many more teachings which are at odds with "official" Roman doctrine. Very little is usually done to correct such things, and it is frankly the case that there are a large number of conservative AngloCatholic parishes which would do better at Catechizing Roman faithful than many Roman parishes. I know, I've had a few members of my Catechumenate classes return to Rome after they were done. There are a couple of hot button issues that you can use if you want to watch Roman apologists go into gyrations. One is the validity of Anglican Orders. There are some who will swear that Apostolica Curae is infallible, and others that will argue it isn't, and so Anglican orders might be valid - and spin away they go. The other really fun issue is over salvation outside the Church - where the older document, Unam Sanctam appears to be superseded by the more recent Ut Unum Sint , which seems to indicate that you can be saved outside of the Roman Church. Some linguistic sleight of hand is required to make both documents not contradict one another, and you can get traditionalist Catholics, and more mainline conservative Catholics really fired up with this one. Let me discuss another form of government, before I bring up a couple of examples that are worth both noting and following with regard to this topic.
I will say without defense, in part because I know of nobody familiar with the Orthodox Church, who would deny this, that Orthodox is most well known for having zealously preserved the faith. Change in matters of doctrine is effectively unheard of. How is it that this has happened in a body with no single head, save Christ himself, and no version of the Inquisition? I think the answer is two-fold. The first is that Tradition - the teachings of the Church - have never been taught as something that develops, so that we don't expect to see the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos contradicting the teachings of, say St. John Chrysostom. No Orthodox would be tolerant of such a thing. In fact, Ecumenical Councils, which are another mechanism of defending the faith, must, themselves, be received by the Church at large in order to be deemed Ecumenical. Finally, the monastics, or spiritual fathers, of the Church, have long played a role, both through prayer, and spiritual direction, in maintaining the Orthodoxy of the Church. In many ways, the Anglican Church sought a similar sort of structure, where Tradition, along with Scripture would be the guarantee of retaining the faith and of protecting the Church from innovations of which Rome was guilty. In what ways did Anglicanism stray from the Orthodox model? Well, first we need to look back at the famous 39 articles again. While acknowledging that they are a bit of a fudge, two things jump out. The first is that there is not exactly a high view of Church councils (see Article 21). Nor is there a particularly high view of Tradition (see Article 34). Both are to be subject to those things which are either plainly in Scripture, or can be proved from there. In other words, they are of no worth as the exegetical preference of some undefined individual could supersede the Councils by claiming that something they taught is at odds with something they can prove from Scripture. I've heard a great many interesting things "proved" from Scripture, so I cannot accept that this is a reasonable approach to things. In fact, the homosexual movement in the ECUSA has become quite adept at "re-interpreting" Scripture to find an alternative view to the Traditional one on homosexuality. So in a Church that largely turns its back on Tradition and Church Councils, and which has a limited confessional basis, you would expect that anything goes, and it appears to. As an aside, I should note that Henry VIII did away with the religious orders, and they didn't return until after the rise of the Oxford movement in the 19th century, and at that only in a small way. One wonders where Anglicanism would be if they had remained intact.
I want to address the other question before I look at some recent historical examples from Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch which should hopefully be a little bit enlightening. This issue is the one of whether or not James Pike started the whole mess. I would contend that he was merely the first flare up of a long incubating disease. After all, the problem wasn't that he denied pretty much the entire Creed, it was that the Church largely didn't care. Think about the response. A bishop denies the entire creed and its not worth a trial, simply a censure. A millenium before that, a Pope allowed the introduction of some additional words to the creed and the result was a series of excommunications which forever changed the landscape of the Christian world. Clearly, for the Episcopal church to be so blasé about Pike's teaching there must have been quite a buildup over time to get there. I grant you that what Pike is sometimes accused of is merely revealing the disease, and that I would agree with. But did it really start with him? No, I would say it merely became more obvious.
Finally, in comparing Rome and Orthodoxy there were some recent events, centering around the Pope's visit to Turkey that I think are enlightening. During the visit, and certainly in the context of a very hostile Muslim world, the Pope visited the Blue Mosque, faced Mecca with the Imam, and engaged in what many have called a prayer . The Vatican is spinning it as simply a momentary meditation while the Imam prayed, but if it looks like a duck... So what did the Inquisition have to say about this? It didn't. How could it? Can you imagine for one moment a group of bishops (or monks for that matter) censuring the Pope over his behavior? Ever since the declaration of infallibility in the 19th century, the Pope has enjoyed an effective infallibility where he can quite literally do no wrong. What was interesting was that shortly after this event, the Pope visits the Patriarch, and attends a Divine LIturgy where he is treated like a visiting heirarch in virtually every way except that he wasn't permitted to actually consecrate the gifts. This, even though the teachings of Rome clearly place them among the what would be deemed heretics in an historical context. The reaction? Well, nothing from Rome. The Pope can pray with whomever he likes. However, on the Orthodox side, the monks of Mt. Athos have had a great deal to say . From a spiritual perspective, removing the Patriarch from their prayers may be the worst thing that could happen to him, and they are not shy about taking such steps. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. Of course, this is Orthodoxy, and things do tend to move slowly. So, watch this space for more.
We'll address the best approach to defending the faith first. Rome is somewhat unique in this regard as it has established a strict heirarchy, with one bishop at the head of everything. They've created various organizations, most notably the Inquisition, whose job is to clearly delineate doctrine. I imagine that would be doctrine that is not clearly defined by papal decree or ecumenical council? I'm not too sure, but I think that is it. The difficulty I have with that notion is the actual efficacy of this form of government. It is a popular notion that Rome is, and always has been, rock solid with doctrine because they have the Pope. One authority, no question on doctrine. They will argue that this allows them to uphold the faith "once received." Of course, they now have papal infallibility (a 19th century innovation that, although never heard of during the first millenia of Christianity is somehow part of that initial deposit of faith), which makes everything absolutely clear. However, a survey of American Catholics and American parishes will establish that this surety of faith has little impact on the faithful. Many, if not most, are exposed to all manner of clearly heretical teachings (beyond the pale of the usual Roman/Orthodox debates), such as a relativistic salvation (Jesus isn't the only way), and many more teachings which are at odds with "official" Roman doctrine. Very little is usually done to correct such things, and it is frankly the case that there are a large number of conservative AngloCatholic parishes which would do better at Catechizing Roman faithful than many Roman parishes. I know, I've had a few members of my Catechumenate classes return to Rome after they were done. There are a couple of hot button issues that you can use if you want to watch Roman apologists go into gyrations. One is the validity of Anglican Orders. There are some who will swear that Apostolica Curae is infallible, and others that will argue it isn't, and so Anglican orders might be valid - and spin away they go. The other really fun issue is over salvation outside the Church - where the older document, Unam Sanctam appears to be superseded by the more recent Ut Unum Sint , which seems to indicate that you can be saved outside of the Roman Church. Some linguistic sleight of hand is required to make both documents not contradict one another, and you can get traditionalist Catholics, and more mainline conservative Catholics really fired up with this one. Let me discuss another form of government, before I bring up a couple of examples that are worth both noting and following with regard to this topic.
I will say without defense, in part because I know of nobody familiar with the Orthodox Church, who would deny this, that Orthodox is most well known for having zealously preserved the faith. Change in matters of doctrine is effectively unheard of. How is it that this has happened in a body with no single head, save Christ himself, and no version of the Inquisition? I think the answer is two-fold. The first is that Tradition - the teachings of the Church - have never been taught as something that develops, so that we don't expect to see the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos contradicting the teachings of, say St. John Chrysostom. No Orthodox would be tolerant of such a thing. In fact, Ecumenical Councils, which are another mechanism of defending the faith, must, themselves, be received by the Church at large in order to be deemed Ecumenical. Finally, the monastics, or spiritual fathers, of the Church, have long played a role, both through prayer, and spiritual direction, in maintaining the Orthodoxy of the Church. In many ways, the Anglican Church sought a similar sort of structure, where Tradition, along with Scripture would be the guarantee of retaining the faith and of protecting the Church from innovations of which Rome was guilty. In what ways did Anglicanism stray from the Orthodox model? Well, first we need to look back at the famous 39 articles again. While acknowledging that they are a bit of a fudge, two things jump out. The first is that there is not exactly a high view of Church councils (see Article 21). Nor is there a particularly high view of Tradition (see Article 34). Both are to be subject to those things which are either plainly in Scripture, or can be proved from there. In other words, they are of no worth as the exegetical preference of some undefined individual could supersede the Councils by claiming that something they taught is at odds with something they can prove from Scripture. I've heard a great many interesting things "proved" from Scripture, so I cannot accept that this is a reasonable approach to things. In fact, the homosexual movement in the ECUSA has become quite adept at "re-interpreting" Scripture to find an alternative view to the Traditional one on homosexuality. So in a Church that largely turns its back on Tradition and Church Councils, and which has a limited confessional basis, you would expect that anything goes, and it appears to. As an aside, I should note that Henry VIII did away with the religious orders, and they didn't return until after the rise of the Oxford movement in the 19th century, and at that only in a small way. One wonders where Anglicanism would be if they had remained intact.
I want to address the other question before I look at some recent historical examples from Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch which should hopefully be a little bit enlightening. This issue is the one of whether or not James Pike started the whole mess. I would contend that he was merely the first flare up of a long incubating disease. After all, the problem wasn't that he denied pretty much the entire Creed, it was that the Church largely didn't care. Think about the response. A bishop denies the entire creed and its not worth a trial, simply a censure. A millenium before that, a Pope allowed the introduction of some additional words to the creed and the result was a series of excommunications which forever changed the landscape of the Christian world. Clearly, for the Episcopal church to be so blasé about Pike's teaching there must have been quite a buildup over time to get there. I grant you that what Pike is sometimes accused of is merely revealing the disease, and that I would agree with. But did it really start with him? No, I would say it merely became more obvious.
Finally, in comparing Rome and Orthodoxy there were some recent events, centering around the Pope's visit to Turkey that I think are enlightening. During the visit, and certainly in the context of a very hostile Muslim world, the Pope visited the Blue Mosque, faced Mecca with the Imam, and engaged in what many have called a prayer . The Vatican is spinning it as simply a momentary meditation while the Imam prayed, but if it looks like a duck... So what did the Inquisition have to say about this? It didn't. How could it? Can you imagine for one moment a group of bishops (or monks for that matter) censuring the Pope over his behavior? Ever since the declaration of infallibility in the 19th century, the Pope has enjoyed an effective infallibility where he can quite literally do no wrong. What was interesting was that shortly after this event, the Pope visits the Patriarch, and attends a Divine LIturgy where he is treated like a visiting heirarch in virtually every way except that he wasn't permitted to actually consecrate the gifts. This, even though the teachings of Rome clearly place them among the what would be deemed heretics in an historical context. The reaction? Well, nothing from Rome. The Pope can pray with whomever he likes. However, on the Orthodox side, the monks of Mt. Athos have had a great deal to say . From a spiritual perspective, removing the Patriarch from their prayers may be the worst thing that could happen to him, and they are not shy about taking such steps. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. Of course, this is Orthodoxy, and things do tend to move slowly. So, watch this space for more.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
The Sunday of the Prodigal Son
I may repost this later, as I'm waiting to see if my usual suspect bloggers post anything about todays feast. In the meantime, as a neophyte, I'll make a few comments.
Today, everyone but Catherine has some sort of disease. A spate of viruses have been invading the house throughout the week. So, we're going to miss out on attending the Divine Liturgy, on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son (here is the Gospel reading for today). We will, however, experience it virtually, which raises all sorts of interesting questions, but no it is really not the same thing as being there. This morning, we did gather for morning prayers, and we read the canticles from the Lenten Triodion for today. Here is one such:
The wealth of grace that Thou has
given me, in my wretchedness I have wasted sinfully; all to no purpose. I have
left my true home, and as the Prodigal I have scattered my riches deceitfully
among the demons. But now on my return accept me as the Prodigal, merciful
Father, and save me.
Most of the Matins prayers for today are of this sort. Definitely of a penitential flavor. As of last week, the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee , which was focused on a proper repentant attitude by virtue of the comparison between the two characters in the parable, we entered into the Lenten Triodion, or the three Sundays before Great Lent. Next week continues the theme of repentance by focusing on the Last Judgement. The whole theme of Lent, of course, is a time of preparation for Pascha (Easter), and the Resurrection of Our Lord. This greatest of all events, and greatest of all Christian Holydays (regardless of Hallmark or pop culture's view), is our only means of attaining to eternal life, and a blessed life in the presence of God. Lent is about repentance, fasting, really focusing on reigning in our passions. The ascetical life, which all Christians are called to, is the process of our sanctification, such that being in the presence of God will be a good thing. Many Fathers of the Church understand that, while all Christians, and maybe all people, will be in the presence of God throughout eternity, it won't necessarily be a good thing for all. Consider the response of the Israelites to the Pillar of Fire. They needed Moses to go be with God, because they understood that they would die if He spoke with them:
Most of the Matins prayers for today are of this sort. Definitely of a penitential flavor. As of last week, the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee , which was focused on a proper repentant attitude by virtue of the comparison between the two characters in the parable, we entered into the Lenten Triodion, or the three Sundays before Great Lent. Next week continues the theme of repentance by focusing on the Last Judgement. The whole theme of Lent, of course, is a time of preparation for Pascha (Easter), and the Resurrection of Our Lord. This greatest of all events, and greatest of all Christian Holydays (regardless of Hallmark or pop culture's view), is our only means of attaining to eternal life, and a blessed life in the presence of God. Lent is about repentance, fasting, really focusing on reigning in our passions. The ascetical life, which all Christians are called to, is the process of our sanctification, such that being in the presence of God will be a good thing. Many Fathers of the Church understand that, while all Christians, and maybe all people, will be in the presence of God throughout eternity, it won't necessarily be a good thing for all. Consider the response of the Israelites to the Pillar of Fire. They needed Moses to go be with God, because they understood that they would die if He spoke with them:
And all the people saw the
thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain
smoking: and when the people saw it , they removed, and stood afar off. And
they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God
speak with us, lest we die (Exodus 20:18-19).
So, the less pure you are, the more dangerous and painful being in God's presence will be. I am reminded of a statement by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom: "...a meeting face to face with God is always a moment of judgment for us. We cannot meet God in prayer or in meditation or in contemplation and not be either saved or condemned". The consuming fire will either be warmth to bask in, or unbearable torture, or somewhere in between, based on our state.
So, we spend Lent purifying ourselves. We fast to help us learn to govern our passions. It is not that food is evil, Scripture prevents that interpretation, or that merely eating less somehow purifies us. It is through the governing of our passions that we become purified. Volumes have been written on this subject, and by people who know of what they speak, and who have experienced this (i.e., not me).
So, we prepare for Lent by focusing on repentance for three Sundays. Interestingly, the first Sunday of Lent is Forgiveness Sunday, where we seek to forgive, and be forgiven by, those around us.
To those who might be reading this who belong to Western Churches, a blessed Septuagesima (or 70 days before Easter). Although this is mostly forgotten in the West, there are three Sundays of preparation before Lent begins in the West as well. Unfortunately, since the discipline of a full Lenten fast has long since disappeared, there is little point in preparing for it. But, for those who are preparing, be blessed.
The icon is from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and is of the Prodigal Son.
So, the less pure you are, the more dangerous and painful being in God's presence will be. I am reminded of a statement by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom: "...a meeting face to face with God is always a moment of judgment for us. We cannot meet God in prayer or in meditation or in contemplation and not be either saved or condemned". The consuming fire will either be warmth to bask in, or unbearable torture, or somewhere in between, based on our state.
So, we spend Lent purifying ourselves. We fast to help us learn to govern our passions. It is not that food is evil, Scripture prevents that interpretation, or that merely eating less somehow purifies us. It is through the governing of our passions that we become purified. Volumes have been written on this subject, and by people who know of what they speak, and who have experienced this (i.e., not me).
So, we prepare for Lent by focusing on repentance for three Sundays. Interestingly, the first Sunday of Lent is Forgiveness Sunday, where we seek to forgive, and be forgiven by, those around us.
To those who might be reading this who belong to Western Churches, a blessed Septuagesima (or 70 days before Easter). Although this is mostly forgotten in the West, there are three Sundays of preparation before Lent begins in the West as well. Unfortunately, since the discipline of a full Lenten fast has long since disappeared, there is little point in preparing for it. But, for those who are preparing, be blessed.
The icon is from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and is of the Prodigal Son.
Miracles
There's sort of a story behind this one. A friend sent along a quote left at the Getty museum site about their exhibit of icons. I may blog on that separately, as I'm a bit conflicted about the show. A female priest (Episcopalian, of course), was the poster, so I googled her and discovered that she belongs to supposedly AngloCatholic parish in San Francisco. I say supposedly, because what they have are the pretty ceremony without being bothered by the doctrine that comes with AngloCatholicism.
I decided to read one of her sermons, and was struck by something that I had commented to others about before. You'll have to read here sermon in its entirety yourself, but here is a couple of paragraphs:
"And this same disconnect has led
churches over the centuries to respond in several different ways. A hallmark of
some protestant responses during and after the 16 th century was to
differentiate between what God did in Jesus the Christ and through the apostles
and what God does now. They would tell us that God does not engage with us now
in the same way – the Holy Spirit is removed just a bit from us – we
should not expect miracles. That was then, this is now. Even less hopeful was
the response that we do not experience a plethora of miraculous healing because
of defect in ourselves – because we are simply not praying hard enough,
because we are simply not holy enough, not deserving enough – that this is
somehow dependent on us, not God.
And there is a contemporary explanation
too – one that I have crossed paths with again and again in research and
study that comes out of the more catholic traditions that have restored the
anointing of the sick in the 20 th century. This approach emphasizes the
difference between healing and curing – that while we may not see or know
or experience a physical cure, the sacramental ministry of healing –
particularly the anointing of the sick – heals, heals our relationship
with our own body and brings wholeness to an individual human being, heals our
relationships with others, relationships broken through the alienation that
sickness brings, and heals our relationship with God, broken through anger,
pain, feelings of rejection. Sacramental healing gives us strength – if
not physically, then spiritually, emotionally, mentally to resist despair and
feeling abandoned. I do not in any way want to suggest that these are not
important or worthy effects – I believe in them, I believe that the
sacrament of anointing does do all this and more. "
She is commenting on how the miracle stories in the Bible don't really "grab" her. The reason that they don't is largely because she hasn't witnessed such miracles. I can understand that, as I've not had the opportunity to witness such things either. On the other hand, I know people who have, and yet her entire sermon, and particularly these paragraphs, is predicated on the notion that, in the West, and particularly within Protestantism, miracles have largely ceased. At least miracles of this magnitude. She does go on to discuss other meanings - perfectly valid meanings - that we should draw from the Gospels. A willingness to be open to the presence of God, among those.
But her main thesis appears to be that miracles largely don't happen in the Church anymore, and that saddened me in a profound way. It did because I heard many of these excuses when I was an Anglican. To be sure, you would hear of the occasional miraculous healing (rare) - mostly coming out of the charismatic movement - a movement I'm highly suspicious of for a lot of reasons. However, this was not something "normal" within Anglicanism or most other Protestant bodies. I don't know that the presence of miracles testifies to something being "the Church". After all, Benny Hinn and others can come up with a combination of sham miracles and perhaps a couple of real ones to bolster their claims of being anointed or doing God's work, or whatever. On the other hand, the absence of miracles, by and large, should be of some concern, shouldn't it? There really is not foundation, in either Scripture or the Church Fathers, for asserting that miracles would cease. Certain specific things, like the famed speaking in tongues, were addressed, but not the general occurrence of miracles. In fact, these sorts of miracles are found throughout the history of the Church, and to this very day. The stories are told all the time - especially if you hang around Monastics, who have either experienced them or have in turn been told the stories. Certainly, these are not all well documented (unlike the Holy Fire ), and maybe some aren't true. However, these stories are not told for any material gain. When Gerontissa Markella, at the Monastery of the Theotokos, the Life Giving Spring, told us some stories of miraculous events in the Holy Land, she didn't have her hand out asking for money for a miracle. No, she was merely using these stories to help encourage us, some pilgrims, in our daily walk. Or when she gives us some myrrh from the relics of St. Demetrius , it is so that this myrrh can potentially heal us.
So, as Orthodox Christians, we can unashamedly believe in miracles. We hear about them, and we expect them. We don't have to come up with a bunch of excuses and rationale for why they have stopped, because they haven't.
Picture is of the relics of St. Demetrios.
Divided They Stand, For a Time
A number of years ago, a book was published
detailing the history of the continuing Anglican movement here in the U.S.
called Divided We Stand . Its a good book, although
I'm a bit challenged to recommend it. If you're Anglican, it will depress you,
if you're anything else, you risk getting puffed up by it. The book is
basically a survey of the history of the various breakaway groups who, for
various reasons, could no longer stand to be part of the Episcopal Church. A
friend of mine is entering the world of these breakaways, as are other friends,
as they seek new Church homes. It goes without saying that looking within the
ECUSA is largely a fruitless exercise. I'm indebted to this friend (can I refer
to you by name in my blog?) for this link to the Time article in 1966 about former
Bishop Pike, heresiarch of the Episcopal Church (I've linked to the cover, but
definitely read the cover story ). This was the warning siren for
the disaster that was about to befall the
ECUSA.
So this friend visited St. Lukes in Los Altos, looking for a new Church home for his family. He described it as frozen in time - which to this Orthodox, seems like a good thing. In many ways, it embodies the Episcopal Church of the early 1900's. This might seem like a good thing, as ideas such as adherence to Scripture and Tradition would be what comes with that. However, the tradition is, at best, the tradition of the English Reformation , so I would disagree with that. However, there are a few other details which point to the schizophrenia which the Via Media, so lauded by the Anglican Church, has led to. Most notable is that they do the old Reformed Communion one Sunday a month at the 10 a.m. service, then switch to weekly, which is more AngloCatholic at the 12 a.m. service. This tension wouldn't be so noticeable if it weren't for the fact that this church belongs to the APA , which has entered into an intercommunion agreement with the REC . This would be all well and good, except for this group, which has discovered that within the APA closet are a number of very AngloCatholic folks.
Now, this anti-union group are absolutely correct, if you ask me, to question the conflict in rather significant doctrinal matters between AngloCatholics and Reformed folks. The answer within Anglicanism has largely been, not to ask, nor to bother about such things. I found this site, which is for some other continuing Church where the claim that "We do not compromise on matters of Faith, Order, Doctrine, Discipline, or Morality", while declaring that "The core statements of the Faith contained in the Creeds -- Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian -- are necessary to belief for Christians, but in peripheral issues we are not to judge one another (as St. Paul said)." So, given that morality is not expressed in any of the creeds, what does that mean? The problem with creeds is that they tend to be reactionary - addressing particular heresies - and not comprehensive. In Orthodoxy, we refer to the Nicene Creed as the symbol of faith. While we adhere to all of its statements, we also understand that the faith is deeper than just the creed itself.
Now, to be fair, one thing that all of these groups have in common, is that they claim the 39 articles as their statement of faith. The difficulty with this, as addressed here , is that these articles have been routinely interpreted in many different ways over the years, from Catholic to Reformed, and many places in between. This is the very definition of Via Media. While oft proclaimed to be the strength of Anglicanism, it is, in fact, its very weakness. If it is okay to for members of the same Church to hold absolutely contradictory views on such things as the nature of the Eucharist, and Sacraments in general, on which book belong in Scripture, on how many Sacraments there are, on Salvation (Sola Fide or not?), on how doctrine is established (Sola Scriptura or not?), why is it not okay to question such things as the Incarnation, and the Virgin Birth. Okay, these two items are addressed in the creed, but as noted before, morality really isn't. Why is homosexuality such a bad thing? Why are women priests not okay? Why is it necessary to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation? There is nothing within the realm of the 39 articles, nor Via Media, which really helps us with these questions.
Edit: I must add, that it was this sort of thing which led to my departure from the Anglican Church, in general. I finally realized that is was me that wasn't a good Anglican, not that the ECUSA or my parish were not being good Anglicans.
So this friend visited St. Lukes in Los Altos, looking for a new Church home for his family. He described it as frozen in time - which to this Orthodox, seems like a good thing. In many ways, it embodies the Episcopal Church of the early 1900's. This might seem like a good thing, as ideas such as adherence to Scripture and Tradition would be what comes with that. However, the tradition is, at best, the tradition of the English Reformation , so I would disagree with that. However, there are a few other details which point to the schizophrenia which the Via Media, so lauded by the Anglican Church, has led to. Most notable is that they do the old Reformed Communion one Sunday a month at the 10 a.m. service, then switch to weekly, which is more AngloCatholic at the 12 a.m. service. This tension wouldn't be so noticeable if it weren't for the fact that this church belongs to the APA , which has entered into an intercommunion agreement with the REC . This would be all well and good, except for this group, which has discovered that within the APA closet are a number of very AngloCatholic folks.
Now, this anti-union group are absolutely correct, if you ask me, to question the conflict in rather significant doctrinal matters between AngloCatholics and Reformed folks. The answer within Anglicanism has largely been, not to ask, nor to bother about such things. I found this site, which is for some other continuing Church where the claim that "We do not compromise on matters of Faith, Order, Doctrine, Discipline, or Morality", while declaring that "The core statements of the Faith contained in the Creeds -- Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian -- are necessary to belief for Christians, but in peripheral issues we are not to judge one another (as St. Paul said)." So, given that morality is not expressed in any of the creeds, what does that mean? The problem with creeds is that they tend to be reactionary - addressing particular heresies - and not comprehensive. In Orthodoxy, we refer to the Nicene Creed as the symbol of faith. While we adhere to all of its statements, we also understand that the faith is deeper than just the creed itself.
Now, to be fair, one thing that all of these groups have in common, is that they claim the 39 articles as their statement of faith. The difficulty with this, as addressed here , is that these articles have been routinely interpreted in many different ways over the years, from Catholic to Reformed, and many places in between. This is the very definition of Via Media. While oft proclaimed to be the strength of Anglicanism, it is, in fact, its very weakness. If it is okay to for members of the same Church to hold absolutely contradictory views on such things as the nature of the Eucharist, and Sacraments in general, on which book belong in Scripture, on how many Sacraments there are, on Salvation (Sola Fide or not?), on how doctrine is established (Sola Scriptura or not?), why is it not okay to question such things as the Incarnation, and the Virgin Birth. Okay, these two items are addressed in the creed, but as noted before, morality really isn't. Why is homosexuality such a bad thing? Why are women priests not okay? Why is it necessary to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation? There is nothing within the realm of the 39 articles, nor Via Media, which really helps us with these questions.
Edit: I must add, that it was this sort of thing which led to my departure from the Anglican Church, in general. I finally realized that is was me that wasn't a good Anglican, not that the ECUSA or my parish were not being good Anglicans.
Modifying the Liturgy
Another response to another show :
I admit, I didn't get too far in. This professor should be a bit embarrassed. He, himself, doesn't understand the liturgical basis for the actions which Luther jettisoned. On top of it, he doesn't know his scripture: Jesus breathed on the man born blind? He made clay with his spittle and anointed his eyes with the clay. Pretty sad.
What he says, that the basic structure of the liturgy dates back to at least 150 AD, and probably before, is quite correct. That is why the Lutheran service, ECUSA, service, Roman mass, and the various Eastern Liturgies are structurally rather similar. There is, even, a Wester rite Orthodox liturgy which is Sarum in origin, and thus looks much like the Anglican liturgy. However, the key is not the structure nearly as much as the content. We were at a family retreat/camp this weekend and were discussing preservation of the faith(here are some photos of the weekend). Interestingly enough, the day before the speaker left to come to the camp, an Episcopal lay bible study leader came in because they had been discussing how the ECUSA was losing people left and right, including the children and they began to wonder how to preserve the faith and pass it down. Someone in the group said that the Orthodox did that, and hadn't changed much at all in millennia. There's a longer story there, but the thrust of our conversation was that the West undid the understanding of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Where the law of belief was driven by the law of prayer - that is, the faith was passed down through the liturgy, the West adopted the habit of revising its belief, and then revising the liturgy accordingly. Unfortunately, as TMatt discovered , this permits all sorts of novel liturgies. If you believe in Gaia, adopt a new liturgy that reflects it.
Luther, and the other reformers, of course, asserted that all belief was clearly spelled out in Scripture, and so need not have worried about changing the Liturgy. That they couldn't agree amongst themselves as to what Scripture teaches would, I would think, make one nervous about changing the liturgy on that basis. Two things that the theology professor said early on were particularly troubling:
1. Luther discarded those thing which he felt were unclear or might lead to confusion. Another testament to the Lutheran ego. I suppose it never occurred to him that maybe he was unclear?
2. It seems that the professor was asserting that the presence of evil spirits was no longer culturally relevant. He sounds like a fine Episcopalian. Christianity is supposed to be about truth, not cultural relevance. I think C.S. Lewis, in the Screwtape letters addressed the idea of Satan succeeding best when he gets men to stop believing either in him or his actions in the world. Sounded a bit like where this professor was going. Perhaps if I listen further, I will realize I misunderstood him, so I will attempt to do so soon.
The photo is of the Monastery of the Theotokos, the Life Giving Spring, in Dunlap, CA. It is next to ranch where the retreat was held.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Frequent Reception of Communion
A friend sent me a link to an LCMS radio show about Luther and
frequent reception of communion. I had the following
comments:
Of course, he fails to qualify his statements with the fact that he is referring to the Western Church.
That being said, he is correct with the statement that people started receiving the Eucharist less often. This would actually be true throughout the entire Church (East and West). That lowering the frequency of reception was due to some new concept that this was simply a priestly sacrifice, is a bit off. There was likely some element of this, in that the people in the West began to view this as merely something the priests did, but the sense that this was a sacrifice is very ancient*. It is clearly present in the Eastern Liturgies, as well as the West, long before the 6th century. That Luther removed this language is, uh, a bit cheeky on his part.
Throughout both East and West, there have been struggles with a bit of clericalism, where people began to participate less. Unfortunate, and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been pushing over the years to have people re-engage.
One of the elements in less frequent participation is an interesting problem. That is, there is an understanding that one needs to prepare, and to be in a proper state to receive the mysteries in a worth manner (per St. Paul). This included regular confession, fasting before reception, etc. etc. So, people would be lax in preparing and so wouldn't present themselves to receive. This is good, in the sense that they are not eating and drinking to their condemnation, but bad in the sense that they are not participating in that which gives us eternal life. The solution is to focus more on preparation. Still a problem to this day (you'll have people who will only show up for Easter/Pascha, just like the C&E Christians in the Protestant/Catholic Churches). The best solution is for everyone to have a spiritual Father, part of whose job is to help them work through the issues around the readiness to receive. Some of the bits I've heard from Athonite Elders is that they stress frequent reception, but also ensure that their spiritual children are participating in fasting, prayer, and confession on a regular basis.
The multiple masses in a day is a uniquely Catholic silliness. In the East, the rule is 1 priest/1 altar/ 1 day/ 1 liturgy. To do 2 liturgies in a day requires a separate altar (there are other ways around this, I believe it is a canon) and a separate priest, so it is largely not done. You certainly could not do several in a day. Also, a Priest is not permitted to say the Liturgy if he is alone. No such thing as a private Liturgy. Hard to have the work of the people be done by 1 person :). Our previous priest on a couple of occasions switched to a Matins service if he thought nobody was going to be present (and between the Greek need to be late for everything and traffic, sometimes we'd all show up 5 or 10 minutes late).
So, in a rare case of defending Luther, I think he was quite correct in pushing for much more frequent celebration, reception, and participation by the people - provided proper preparation was involved. Its too bad he didn't go further and fix the multiple Masses in a day problem (or maybe he did, and it just reappeared for other reasons).
I just think the historian was being a bit simplistic, as can easily happen if you're trying to discuss 1000 years in 10 minutes.
I didn't listen very long to the Luther vs. Zwingli elements. I think Luther in some ways was being Eastern in his view. However, he couldn't resist the Western urge to clearly delineate so he came up with really present along with the bread and wine. The Eastern view is more really present, don't know how :). Its a mystery!:
*From the Liturgy of St. Mark. Rarely celebrated now, but was the Liturgy of Alexandria. In 1928 a late 4th century copy of this was found. I believe that this is the basis of the following translation:
O Master, Lord our God, Who didst elect the twelve Apostles as it were a
lamp of twelve lights, and didst send them forth into the whole world to preach and teach the
Gospel of Thy kingdom, and to heal every sickness and infirmity in the people: and didst
breathe into their faces, and didst say to them: Receive ye the Holy Spirit, the Comforter:
whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.
Thus do Thou also upon us Thy servants as we enter the holy ministry, together with the
Bishops, Priests, Deacons, subdeacons, chanters, laity, and all the fullness of Thy Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church. Preserve us, O Lord, from curse, and ban, and
excommunication, and from the part of the adversary, and make pure our lips and heart from
all pollution and iniquity; that with a pure heart and conscience we may offer to Thee this
sacrifice as a sweet-smelling fragrance, and for the remission of our sins and the sins of all
Thy people: Through the grace and compassion and love towards mankind of Thine
only-begotten Son, through Whom and with Whom be to Thee glory and majesty, with
Thine all-holy and good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Of course, he fails to qualify his statements with the fact that he is referring to the Western Church.
That being said, he is correct with the statement that people started receiving the Eucharist less often. This would actually be true throughout the entire Church (East and West). That lowering the frequency of reception was due to some new concept that this was simply a priestly sacrifice, is a bit off. There was likely some element of this, in that the people in the West began to view this as merely something the priests did, but the sense that this was a sacrifice is very ancient*. It is clearly present in the Eastern Liturgies, as well as the West, long before the 6th century. That Luther removed this language is, uh, a bit cheeky on his part.
Throughout both East and West, there have been struggles with a bit of clericalism, where people began to participate less. Unfortunate, and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been pushing over the years to have people re-engage.
One of the elements in less frequent participation is an interesting problem. That is, there is an understanding that one needs to prepare, and to be in a proper state to receive the mysteries in a worth manner (per St. Paul). This included regular confession, fasting before reception, etc. etc. So, people would be lax in preparing and so wouldn't present themselves to receive. This is good, in the sense that they are not eating and drinking to their condemnation, but bad in the sense that they are not participating in that which gives us eternal life. The solution is to focus more on preparation. Still a problem to this day (you'll have people who will only show up for Easter/Pascha, just like the C&E Christians in the Protestant/Catholic Churches). The best solution is for everyone to have a spiritual Father, part of whose job is to help them work through the issues around the readiness to receive. Some of the bits I've heard from Athonite Elders is that they stress frequent reception, but also ensure that their spiritual children are participating in fasting, prayer, and confession on a regular basis.
The multiple masses in a day is a uniquely Catholic silliness. In the East, the rule is 1 priest/1 altar/ 1 day/ 1 liturgy. To do 2 liturgies in a day requires a separate altar (there are other ways around this, I believe it is a canon) and a separate priest, so it is largely not done. You certainly could not do several in a day. Also, a Priest is not permitted to say the Liturgy if he is alone. No such thing as a private Liturgy. Hard to have the work of the people be done by 1 person :). Our previous priest on a couple of occasions switched to a Matins service if he thought nobody was going to be present (and between the Greek need to be late for everything and traffic, sometimes we'd all show up 5 or 10 minutes late).
So, in a rare case of defending Luther, I think he was quite correct in pushing for much more frequent celebration, reception, and participation by the people - provided proper preparation was involved. Its too bad he didn't go further and fix the multiple Masses in a day problem (or maybe he did, and it just reappeared for other reasons).
I just think the historian was being a bit simplistic, as can easily happen if you're trying to discuss 1000 years in 10 minutes.
I didn't listen very long to the Luther vs. Zwingli elements. I think Luther in some ways was being Eastern in his view. However, he couldn't resist the Western urge to clearly delineate so he came up with really present along with the bread and wine. The Eastern view is more really present, don't know how :). Its a mystery!:
*From the Liturgy of St. Mark. Rarely celebrated now, but was the Liturgy of Alexandria. In 1928 a late 4th century copy of this was found. I believe that this is the basis of the following translation:
O Master, Lord our God, Who didst elect the twelve Apostles as it were a
lamp of twelve lights, and didst send them forth into the whole world to preach and teach the
Gospel of Thy kingdom, and to heal every sickness and infirmity in the people: and didst
breathe into their faces, and didst say to them: Receive ye the Holy Spirit, the Comforter:
whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.
Thus do Thou also upon us Thy servants as we enter the holy ministry, together with the
Bishops, Priests, Deacons, subdeacons, chanters, laity, and all the fullness of Thy Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church. Preserve us, O Lord, from curse, and ban, and
excommunication, and from the part of the adversary, and make pure our lips and heart from
all pollution and iniquity; that with a pure heart and conscience we may offer to Thee this
sacrifice as a sweet-smelling fragrance, and for the remission of our sins and the sins of all
Thy people: Through the grace and compassion and love towards mankind of Thine
only-begotten Son, through Whom and with Whom be to Thee glory and majesty, with
Thine all-holy and good and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.