« 2008 March | Main | 2008 January »
Friday, February 29, 2008
Original Thought?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Church as Organism
Single Payer Healthcare - Grand idea
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Branch Theory and Intellectualism
Monday, February 25, 2008
Ascetic
Sunday, February 24, 2008
So, What's the Big Deal?
Yes, Its True, There is No Bible in the Orthodox Church
Friday, February 22, 2008
Why Kosovo Matters to Serbia
Liberal Christianity
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A Speech on Kosovo
Remarks Before the Foreign Affairs Committee of
the European Parliament
by H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremić
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia,
Strasbourg, 20 February 2008
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished MEPs,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I stand before you this afternoon as a proud European, and as an ashamed European.
Proud because my heritage, my culture, my beliefs, and my history bind me to a constellation of nations that, at the onset of the 21st century, reconciled themselves, and created something so magnificent that one could say: ‘there has truly never been anything else like it in the history of the world.’
Winston Churchill equated the feeling I am trying to describe to you with a “sense of enlarged patriotism.” That was his vision of Europe, and Jean Monet’s vision of Europe, and Konrad Adenauer’s vision of Europe. It is a vision I proudly share. For the peoples of Europe, between whom rivers of blood have flowed without mercy, chose to end the feuds of a thousand years. And they sought to eliminate from their shores a zero-sum approach to the conduct of regional politics.
How could I not be proud? How could I not, until just a few days ago, without the faintest shadow of a doubt, support the aspirations of my country to join the European Union, and therefore welcome the EU’s commitment to the incorporation of Serbia and all the Western Balkans within its welcoming boundaries?
But I am also a deeply ashamed European. Tacitus wrote: Deserta faciunt et pacem appellant: “They create a desolation and they call it peace.” That is what some European Union countries have done to the Republic of Serbia, to a small, peace-loving, democratic country in Europe, a founding member of the United Nations, an original signatory to the Helsinki Final Act, and a pillar of stability in Southeast Europe.
Creating desolation out of the promise of a European future. This is what the governments of some of your countries have done by recognizing the unilateral, illegal and illegitimate declaration of independence of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am ashamed not as a Serb—for in the negotiating process on the future status of our province of Kosovo, we did nothing but demonstrate good faith and understanding for the legitimate rights of the other side. In fact, since the democratic overthrow of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000, we have done almost everything right. We have overcome almost every obstacle. We have fulfilled almost every condition. We have embraced almost every standard. And we have taken on every challenge to our future with an optimism that thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville thought had departed the Old Continent long ago.
I am ashamed as a European. As someone who knows in his heart that what has been done to Serbia is a fundamental violation of the very nature of not just the international system, but of the values that hold up the European construction.
I am ashamed, because if recognizing this act of ethnically-motivated secession from a democratic, European state is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.
I am ashamed, because I see how the bedrock of values that make us who we are is being trampled underfoot. Because I see how my fellow Europeans are trying to construct the future on a foundation of sand and rubble.
And I am ashamed, because for all the talk about reason and Enlightenment, for all the pious declinations on the common good and solidarity, Europe is rapidly becoming just another place where might makes right.
Some may say I have exaggerated. Well, let us turn to the matter at hand.
The institution with primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security is, according to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council. And, in 1999, following the 78-day bombing of my country, it adopted a resolution—still operative today—that conferred upon the UN the authority to administer Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo, and explicitly and unambiguously reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country. When Serbia was ruled by a tyrant, Kosovo was a confirmed part of Serbia.
It said so in Security Council Resolution 1244. And it went further than that. It placed a Chapter VII obligation—a binding obligation—on all the member-states of the United Nations to respect the borders of my country.
And now, when Serbia is a democracy, some European nations are prepared to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. They say, in effect, we did not punish the tyrant, but now we will punish a democracy—a European democracy—and we expect its citizens to take it.
They say Kosovo can be independent, while saying that 1244 in its entirety still applies, including, presumably, that part that reaffirms Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. And they send an EU-led mission to our province without the approval of the Security Council, even though paragraphs 5 and 19 of 1244 make it abundantly clear that only the Security Council can do that.
And yesterday, at an emergency session of the Permanent Council, no European ambassador could explain to anyone with any degree of reason why what is being done to Serbia is not a violation of the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
They could not explain to me why what they are doing is not setting a dangerous, precedent that will create very troubling consequences to the stability of Europe and the whole world.
Recognizing the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia legitimizes the doctrine of imposing solutions to ethnic conflicts.
It legitimizes the act of unilateral secession by a provincial or local entity.
It transforms the right to self-determination into an avowed right to independence.
It legitimizes the forced partition of internationally-recognized, sovereign states.
And it violates the commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes in Europe.
It even resurrects the discredited Cold War doctrine of limited sovereignty.
By the actions of some European Union member-states, every would-be ethnic or religious separatist across Europe and around the world has been provided with a tool kit on how to achieve recognition. Does anyone in this room think that the Kosovo Albanians are the only group in the world with a grievance against their capital?
Do any of you honestly think that just by saying that Kosovo is sui generis, you will make it so? That there will be no consequences to the stability and security of the international system, just because you say it won’t?
Is this the way proud Europeans behave? Is this the way European values are put into practice? Is this the way to treat friends?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Notwithstanding everything I have witnessed and all that my country has gone through, I have not lost faith in Europe, even though I am ashamed by the actions of some within it.
I have not lost faith in Europe because I still hold out a measure of hope that Europe will live up to its values; that Europe will pause for a moment and recall the principles that drive its own decision-making in Brussels and Strasbourg. I’m talking about compromise, concession, and consensus-building. That’s how it works: by engaging in a process of deliberate, patient, and sustained, good-faith negotiations until a compromise is struck that all stakeholders can abide by.
In the case of Kosovo’s future status, only a solution that is acceptable to the sides can be viable, sustainable, and lasting.
Only a negotiated solution can pave the way towards a common, European future.
Only such a solution can consolidate the regional gains made, reinforce the geo-strategic priorities achieved, and restore the drive for change in Southeast Europe.
The imposition of a one-sided outcome—the recognition of an independent Kosovo—does the opposite. It sets back the achievements of European visionaries in our region; it uncouples the Western Balkans from its future in Europe; and it fosters a view throughout the region that Europe is in the business of imposing outcomes.
This is where we are. It’s a shameful place to be. And it’s not where we should be.
Where we are is at the precipice, facing down into the shadows of uncertainty. Uncertainty over the future of the Western Balkans. Uncertainty over democracy in Serbia. Uncertainty over the safety of the Kosovo Serbs. And uncertainty over the fate of our holy sites—the central element of our national identity.
Yet we also face forward. We can see beyond the break, and beyond the discord. We can still see Europe for what it is, for what it can become, for what it can accomplish.
But also for what it can harm: the dreams of a proud, democratic, European country that has surmounted more obstacles since October 2000 than most other nations have in a hundred years.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I assure you, with the fortitude of a unified nation, Serbia will not go quietly. We shall strive for what is just, for what we believe in, for our future, for what is rightfully ours.
The Republic of Serbia shall not tolerate this illegal act of secession. Our Government and National Assembly have declared this action by the authorities in Pristina null and void. And we shall undertake all diplomatic and political measures designed to impede and reverse this direct and unprovoked attack on our sovereignty.
As a responsible member of the international community committed to the peaceful and negotiated resolution of disputes, the Republic of Serbia will not resort to the use of force. For violence cannot bring a peaceful settlement to any crisis. Violence only destroys—lives, property, hope, ambitions. It destroys everything and creates desolation.
We are for peace. We are for agreement. We are for concord. We are Europeans.
Kosovo shall remain a part of Serbia forever.
It's Here, It's Here!!
After what must be a 12 year wait on my part, the complete Orthodox Study Bible has arrived. Although basically a revision of the NKJV Old Testament (correcting it against the LXX), it still represents the first English translation of the LXX since the middle of the 19th century.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on Fasting
If I find the whole piece somewhere, I'll post a link. It is well worth reading.
In Case You Were Wondering About Kosovo
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Another Indictment of Modern Academia
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Interview Recommendation
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
A Little Truth
Anglo Papalism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the TAC
I have to admit to holding to much of this line of thinking not too many years ago. Now, he doesn't support his beliefs here with facts, so its hard to assess the validity of his view on that basis. I suspect that some of his views on Papal primacy and the Pope being the successor of Peter (and the effect of that) are driven by Roman Catholic apologetic arguments, including those of Leo XIII. Many of these were handled well in this book . Unfortunately there are a number of additional flaws in his reasoning.
Foundation - Cards Anyone?
The major challenge here is that the position of "everybody is okay, we just need to become friends again" is really built on a house of cards. A number of propositions (and suppositions for that matter) are offered which need to all be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Each one of the propositions is pretty weak, and put together there is not really much foundation. So, let's look at some of these.
1. The Pope is incapable of lapsing into error and leaving the OTC - this is the consensus of the Fathers and of Scripture.
As I mentioned above, its hard to refute this without the citations. What Fathers is he thinking of? All that would really be required to disprove this, would be to find that any Pope espoused heresy and was condemned as a heretic. It is true that heretical Popes in the pre-schism period are hard to find (or more accurately those declared to be heretics). However, we do have one, and that is all we need. That is, Pope Honorius . He was declared a heretic, and Popes for many generations afterward pronounced an anathema on him as a heretic. Modern Roman apologists like to assert that he really wasn't teaching heresy, it was a personal opinion, and basically everyone was mistaken about him (including the Popes in subsequent years who declared him to be a heretic). So, while Rome was restored to Orthodoxy with the next Pope, if one Pope could become a heretic, why would he be unable to lead entire Churches into heresy? Remember the Council of Chalcedon? Large chunks of the Church were declared to be guilty of heresy. The separation remains to this day - although there is increasing hope of restoration.
2. Rome has never definitively affirmed heresy
We'll skip Honorius. It doesn't seem fair to keep picking on him. What about the filioque? Why is that not heretical? Heresy in the modern sense has been taken to only mean some basic stuff. So long as you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Trinity, you seem to be good. However, heresy doesn't quite have such a narrow meaning. It is translated in some places (the RSV for instance) as "party spirit" - basically a teaching at odds with the rest of the group. The filioque was added in Spain in order to fight Arianism. It was clearly forbidden by one Pope (Leo III), but then is accepted once politically expedient. Many people tend to draw on Bp. Kallistos Ware's statements that the filioque is not heretical. However, he doesn't say that. All he says is that "There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained." He also acknowledges that most Orthodox believe the filioque to be just that, heretical. It is the Church as a whole that decides on Orthodoxy, not just a Patriarch, or a few theologians. Note also the need to "properly explain" the filioque. I find that to be the case with many Roman innovations. Papal infallibility is a prime example You need a special degree to figure out when the Pope is making an infallible statement. I'll discuss this a bit further down.
3. You have to intentionally hold to heresy, or intentionally leave the Church in order to no longer be a member of the Church. I know of a number of Mormons who think that what they believe is not heresy, and believe themselves to be members of the OTC. Since they do not intend to hold heretical views, nor do they intend to not be a member of the OTC, does that make them a member of the OTC?
If the C o E never intended to leave the Church, which I will grant, did they not intend to separate from Rome? What about the 39 articles? That's not exactly a glowing support of Roman doctrine and dogma. If you intend to separate from Rome, and Rome is part of the OTC (or is the OTC, either way), doesn't separating from them constitute separating from the OTC? If this is not the case, then there would be two true Churches, or three. I suppose this is an attempt at holding to the Protestant invention of the invisible Church. If you want to discuss consensus of the Fathers, find support for this.
Eastern Error
As a brief aside, I do agree that the Schism was not due to Eastern rebellion or error. Since the Orthodox Church is not known for adding things to the faith, accusing them of doing so is a bit challenging. It is amusing that the famed Bull of Excommunication from Cardinal Humbert accused the Patriarch of Constantinople of dropping the filioque from the creed.
The only other error which the East might presumably be guilty of is not holding to a view of Papal primacy in agreement with Rome. The author of the above blog apparently believes that the only issue is the proper understanding of what Primacy means. Well, I can tell you that such primacy, according to Anglicans and Orthodox would, at best, be a Primacy of Honour. History shows us that this is not what Rome means, at all.
Proper Understanding
Fr. Kirby asserts that one of the issues is that Papal primacy is not properly understood, just as "some Orthodox theologians" think that the Filioque needs to be properly understood in order for those who disagree with it to no longer do so. I find it curious that all conflicts with Rome have now become a matter of lack of understanding. That is what allowed for the joint Lutheran declaration (hardly accepted by most Lutherans) on justification.
While much Christian theology is complex, it seems to me that much of what is being discussed here isn't. A good example is Papal infallibility. It seems that this is a simple notion. As I have heard it put, it is that the Pope is infallible when teaching on faith or morals. In order to deal with various pronouncements over the centuries that are problematic, we have added that he must be teaching ex cathedra (with the intent to be teaching with the authority of his office). The challenge comes when you're trying to figure out when that is. Apparently there is some phraseology that is important. However, I can guarantee that you can start a fight among Roman Catholic lay apologists if you ask them if Apostolica Curae (the encyclical declaring Anglican orders null and void) is infallible. Apparently phrases like, "Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void." are not sufficient. Nor is the close of the document, "We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding." Of course, some would declare that it is infallible, but no longer applies as certain Old Catholic Bishops got involved along the way and restored validity to the line. Presumably the defects in order and intent have been corrected as well. However, others have declared that this wasn't an infallible document to begin with.
The other fight you can cause is over whether you can be saved outside the Church. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctum, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." A normal lay person, reading this Bull, would think that you would need to be visibly subject to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, I think you could assume that every Catholic believed just that until Vatican II. It was then that we learned that we simply didn't understand properly. In fact, you can be subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if you don't know it. Imagine what this must mean for the Church of England. They thought that they were breaking free from the Roman Pontiff, but apparently didn't know it.
So, the "it needs to be understood properly" is really code word for we didn't mean it, or that doesn't suit us anymore. In that context, how long before the resurrection of Christ simply needs to be understood properly?
Fixing Anglicanism from the Inside
I used to say that all of the time. I'm staying within the Anglican Church in order to reform it from the inside. Then I realized how tremendously egotistical of me. Especially given that the number of AngloCatholics within the Episcopal Church is really quite small. In fact, much of what AngloCatholics believe has really been absent from the Anglican Church from the time of Elizabeth (or shortly thereafter) until the 19th century. As a friend used to point out, if the OTC is either the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, and there is one down the street, shouldn't you walk down the street and join it? Rather than trying to change the beliefs of the Church to which you belong?
Fr. Kirby reminds me of me. Desperately trying to rationalize his continuing presence in the Anglican Church, he waves his hands at all of the significant differences between Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of England. Popes are incapable of lapsing into heresy, thus the only things they are mistaken about can't be heresy (question begging). The things they are mistaken about they really aren't mistaken about, its just nobody else really understood what Rome meant. To be guilty of heresy you have to want to hold to heresy. To not be in the OTC, you have to want to leave. Just because you walked out the door, and handed in your resignation, doesn't mean you wanted to.
I'm sorry Fr. Kirby. I don't really find your position coherent.
As Western Lent Approaches
Original Thought?
Check this out. Seems that Barack Obama is capable of neither an original thought nor an original speech:
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Church as Organism
"Both organisms and institutions have members.
But the members of an organism share one and the same life and are ordered to
one and the same end. The members of an organization share a similar life and or
ordered to similar ends."
Read the whole article here .
Read the whole article here .
Single Payer Healthcare - Grand idea
Here in California, Governor Schriver is hoping to get us to a single payer system, much like Canada. Of course, Hillary and Barack want the same thing (and Michael Moore, who, unfortunately, is too rich to have to worry about such things). As pointed out in this video, once that happens, where can we go when we actually need high quality care? Canadians come to the U.S. Fidel Castro got to travel to Europe. For most of us, that would be too expensive.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Branch Theory and Intellectualism
On a message board I occasionally post on, a
member of some offshoot of the World Wide Church of God was proposing that his
group is one of the four main "branches" of Christianity - which are
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Sabbatarians (his word, not mine -
refers to 7th Day Adventists and the
like.)
This was on a Roman Catholic message board, where many attempt to argue him toward Catholicism. I suppose, in a way, I was attempting to argue him to Orthodoxy. Really, though, I was trying to express - and somewhat poorly - what is wrong with the branch theory. So, here goes:
All of this will be my relatively poor attempt at expressing the Orthodox take on this matter. Keeping in mind that I am not a Bishop (who has primary responsibility for rightly teaching the word of truth), nor a Priest, nor even a Reader (although I am somewhat in training for that).
From an Orthodox perspective, membership in the Church is being a patient at the hospital for our soul. Membership in this hospital necessarily requires assent to its doctrines, although it doesn't require that I necessarily understand all of them. Even those that I may intellectually understand, I may not understand with my nous - that aspect of human nature that allows us to comprehend, to some degree, God. Membership requires that we interact with others, because we are not saved in isolation. God is a Trinity, and thus the notion of individual salvation, even the notion of an individual, is foreign to the understanding of the Church.
Membership requires following the prescriptions of the hospital. We are to pray (more than I do), fast (or try more than I do), and love God and our neighbor (that which I do least well). We are to participate in the mysteries, because we receive God's grace through them.
Merely holding to a list of doctrines does not make you a member of the Church. The Church has specific mechanisms for grafting you to the body - and that has always been the case. Merely holding to a list of doctrines cannot save you. We are transformed by the renewing, not of our mind, as Romans is often mistranslated (mostly due to the lack of an appropriate English word), but by the transformation of our nous. That transformation is not an intellectual process. Thank God it is not, for I would not be smart enough to be saved.
The problem with the notion of the invisible Church is that it reduces, in the case of most other "entities," the definition to holding just the right doctrines, thereby either excluding those with less intellectual prowess, or basically saying that almost everyone but the staunches atheist, is a member. In the case of Anglicans, they'll add Apostolic succession to the list, as if it is the magical glue that makes it all hold together.
Instead, being a member of the Church is like being a member of anything else. I can tell if I'm a member of the Kiwanis, or Rotary, or Mensa, or whatever. There is an identifiable organization that has the right to declare who is and is not a member. I can claim to be a member of Mensa all I want, but that does not make it so. The key here, as noted above, is the we are not saved as individuals, nor are our parish communities saved in isolation. The key is, communion. There must be a real bond between us.
Part of the reason I attempt to spend less time on message boards, and in particular debating, is that proving that you are wrong on a specific point is likely not to accomplish much, and may, in fact, be detrimental. If I prove, say, that the souls of the righteous departed are in heaven awaiting the second coming, has that made you more saved? No, I don't think it does. Perhaps to the degree that you are nudged closer to joining the Church, its good. But the risk is that I, at the same time, put you off. That my haughtiness offends you and drives you away. Then I have done more damage than good. If I can, in some small way, reveal Christ to you via my behavior, then I've done something useful. That, IMO, is hard to accomplish via this media.
This was on a Roman Catholic message board, where many attempt to argue him toward Catholicism. I suppose, in a way, I was attempting to argue him to Orthodoxy. Really, though, I was trying to express - and somewhat poorly - what is wrong with the branch theory. So, here goes:
All of this will be my relatively poor attempt at expressing the Orthodox take on this matter. Keeping in mind that I am not a Bishop (who has primary responsibility for rightly teaching the word of truth), nor a Priest, nor even a Reader (although I am somewhat in training for that).
From an Orthodox perspective, membership in the Church is being a patient at the hospital for our soul. Membership in this hospital necessarily requires assent to its doctrines, although it doesn't require that I necessarily understand all of them. Even those that I may intellectually understand, I may not understand with my nous - that aspect of human nature that allows us to comprehend, to some degree, God. Membership requires that we interact with others, because we are not saved in isolation. God is a Trinity, and thus the notion of individual salvation, even the notion of an individual, is foreign to the understanding of the Church.
Membership requires following the prescriptions of the hospital. We are to pray (more than I do), fast (or try more than I do), and love God and our neighbor (that which I do least well). We are to participate in the mysteries, because we receive God's grace through them.
Merely holding to a list of doctrines does not make you a member of the Church. The Church has specific mechanisms for grafting you to the body - and that has always been the case. Merely holding to a list of doctrines cannot save you. We are transformed by the renewing, not of our mind, as Romans is often mistranslated (mostly due to the lack of an appropriate English word), but by the transformation of our nous. That transformation is not an intellectual process. Thank God it is not, for I would not be smart enough to be saved.
The problem with the notion of the invisible Church is that it reduces, in the case of most other "entities," the definition to holding just the right doctrines, thereby either excluding those with less intellectual prowess, or basically saying that almost everyone but the staunches atheist, is a member. In the case of Anglicans, they'll add Apostolic succession to the list, as if it is the magical glue that makes it all hold together.
Instead, being a member of the Church is like being a member of anything else. I can tell if I'm a member of the Kiwanis, or Rotary, or Mensa, or whatever. There is an identifiable organization that has the right to declare who is and is not a member. I can claim to be a member of Mensa all I want, but that does not make it so. The key here, as noted above, is the we are not saved as individuals, nor are our parish communities saved in isolation. The key is, communion. There must be a real bond between us.
Part of the reason I attempt to spend less time on message boards, and in particular debating, is that proving that you are wrong on a specific point is likely not to accomplish much, and may, in fact, be detrimental. If I prove, say, that the souls of the righteous departed are in heaven awaiting the second coming, has that made you more saved? No, I don't think it does. Perhaps to the degree that you are nudged closer to joining the Church, its good. But the risk is that I, at the same time, put you off. That my haughtiness offends you and drives you away. Then I have done more damage than good. If I can, in some small way, reveal Christ to you via my behavior, then I've done something useful. That, IMO, is hard to accomplish via this media.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Ascetic
A boy once approached his father, ‘Old man,
why do you fast?’ The father stood silent, bringing heart and mind
together, and then:
‘Beloved boy, I fast to know what it is I lack.
For day by day I sit in abundance, and
all is well before me;
I want not, I suffer not, and I
lack but that for which I invent a need.
But my heart is empty of true joy,
filled, yet overflowing with dry waters.
There is no room left for love.
I have no needs, and so my needs are never met,
no longings, and so my desires are never fulfilled.
Where all the fruits of the earth could dwell, I have
filled the house with dust and clouds;
It is full, so I am content—
But it is empty, and so I weep.
‘Thus I fast, beloved, to know the
dust in which I dwell.
I take not from that which I might take,
for in its absence I am left empty,
and what is empty stands ready to be
filled.
I turn from what I love, for my love is barren,
and by it I curse the earth.
I turn from what I love, that I may purify my loving,
and move from curse to blessing.
‘From my abundance I turn to want,
as the soldier leaves the comfort of home,
of family and love,
to know the barrenness of war.
For it is only amongst the fight, in the
torture of loss, in the fire of battle,
that lies are lost and the blind man
clearly sees.
In hunger of body and mind, I see
the vanity of food,
for I have loved food as food,
and have never been fed.
In weary, waking vigil I see
the vanity of sleep,
for I have embraced sleep as desire,
and have never found rest.
In sorrow, with eyes of tears I see
the vanity of pleasure,
for I have treasured happiness above all,
and have never known joy.
‘I fast, beloved child, to crush the wall
that is my self;
For I am not who I am, just as these passions
are not treasures of gold but of clay.
I fast to die, for it is not the living who are
raised, but the dead.
I fast to crucify my desires, for He who was
crucified was He who lived,
and He who conquered,
and He who lives forever.’
Read the whole thing at Monachos.net.
‘Beloved boy, I fast to know what it is I lack.
For day by day I sit in abundance, and
all is well before me;
I want not, I suffer not, and I
lack but that for which I invent a need.
But my heart is empty of true joy,
filled, yet overflowing with dry waters.
There is no room left for love.
I have no needs, and so my needs are never met,
no longings, and so my desires are never fulfilled.
Where all the fruits of the earth could dwell, I have
filled the house with dust and clouds;
It is full, so I am content—
But it is empty, and so I weep.
‘Thus I fast, beloved, to know the
dust in which I dwell.
I take not from that which I might take,
for in its absence I am left empty,
and what is empty stands ready to be
filled.
I turn from what I love, for my love is barren,
and by it I curse the earth.
I turn from what I love, that I may purify my loving,
and move from curse to blessing.
‘From my abundance I turn to want,
as the soldier leaves the comfort of home,
of family and love,
to know the barrenness of war.
For it is only amongst the fight, in the
torture of loss, in the fire of battle,
that lies are lost and the blind man
clearly sees.
In hunger of body and mind, I see
the vanity of food,
for I have loved food as food,
and have never been fed.
In weary, waking vigil I see
the vanity of sleep,
for I have embraced sleep as desire,
and have never found rest.
In sorrow, with eyes of tears I see
the vanity of pleasure,
for I have treasured happiness above all,
and have never known joy.
‘I fast, beloved child, to crush the wall
that is my self;
For I am not who I am, just as these passions
are not treasures of gold but of clay.
I fast to die, for it is not the living who are
raised, but the dead.
I fast to crucify my desires, for He who was
crucified was He who lived,
and He who conquered,
and He who lives forever.’
Read the whole thing at Monachos.net.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
So, What's the Big Deal?
So, I'm clearly excited about the new Orthodox Study Bible.
The obvious question is, why? The answer is the LXX. That is the Septuagint,
which refers to the Greek version of the Old Testament, apparently translated in
the 2nd century, BC.
The LXX technically refers to the first 5 books of the Bible. However, it came to refer to the Greek Canon that was used by the early Church. This means that the Orthodox Study Bible uses both the books authorized by the Church, and the correct source documents. The first point is important. Protestants dropped many books from the Bible, mostly due to an incorrect reading of St. Jerome. The latter point, however, is perhaps even more important. For there are subtle flaws in the source text for most Western Bibles. Justin Martyr, back in the early days of the Second Century, accused the Jewish leadership of altering the text of the Bible in many places. The basic accusation was that they altered passages which the early Christians used to argue for Jesus as the Christ. You can find a list of such alterations here. Many are subtle, but nonetheless intriguing.
Another point is that this is the text of the early Church. Most New Testament quotes agree better with the Septuagint text than with the Masoretic text. The example that always springs to mind is Hebrews 10:5-7:
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.
However, if you check your cross reference, you will be sent to to Psalm 40 (If you're lucky, they'll point you to the LXX), where you will likely see the following:
Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required.
An open ear? That's not what St. Paul said. That's because he was referring to the LXX. There are other cases of this, but this is the most egregious. Its certainly not the end of the world - and you can muddle along fine with the Masoretic text. But now that you don't have to, why would you want to?
Of course, not every NT quote squares better with the LXX. Some square better with the manuscript tradition that led to the Masoretic text. For those who hold to a very strict form of Sola Scriptura, you'd imagine that the variable manuscripts would be somewhat problematic. After all, how could you be sure that the OT passage you're reading is correct. A similar problem underlies the NT as well. As noted in an earlier entry , and underscored here , that is not a problem within Orthodoxy where the Scripture comes from the Church and is part of the overall tradition.
The LXX technically refers to the first 5 books of the Bible. However, it came to refer to the Greek Canon that was used by the early Church. This means that the Orthodox Study Bible uses both the books authorized by the Church, and the correct source documents. The first point is important. Protestants dropped many books from the Bible, mostly due to an incorrect reading of St. Jerome. The latter point, however, is perhaps even more important. For there are subtle flaws in the source text for most Western Bibles. Justin Martyr, back in the early days of the Second Century, accused the Jewish leadership of altering the text of the Bible in many places. The basic accusation was that they altered passages which the early Christians used to argue for Jesus as the Christ. You can find a list of such alterations here. Many are subtle, but nonetheless intriguing.
Another point is that this is the text of the early Church. Most New Testament quotes agree better with the Septuagint text than with the Masoretic text. The example that always springs to mind is Hebrews 10:5-7:
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.
However, if you check your cross reference, you will be sent to to Psalm 40 (If you're lucky, they'll point you to the LXX), where you will likely see the following:
Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required.
An open ear? That's not what St. Paul said. That's because he was referring to the LXX. There are other cases of this, but this is the most egregious. Its certainly not the end of the world - and you can muddle along fine with the Masoretic text. But now that you don't have to, why would you want to?
Of course, not every NT quote squares better with the LXX. Some square better with the manuscript tradition that led to the Masoretic text. For those who hold to a very strict form of Sola Scriptura, you'd imagine that the variable manuscripts would be somewhat problematic. After all, how could you be sure that the OT passage you're reading is correct. A similar problem underlies the NT as well. As noted in an earlier entry , and underscored here , that is not a problem within Orthodoxy where the Scripture comes from the Church and is part of the overall tradition.
Yes, Its True, There is No Bible in the Orthodox Church
“Strictly speaking, there never was a Bible
in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a
single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church,
from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book
in an Orthodox church we could point to as the Bible. Instead, the various Books
of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either
on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their
pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious
metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy
Altar.
The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.
The fact that there is no Bible in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The Hebrew Scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
The Church is not based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which books of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various lists of the canonical books comprising the Bible:
The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.
Even so, there was no official, authoritative canon listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in AD 680. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (AD 255), Ancyra (AD 315), Neocaesaria (AD 315), Gangra (AD 340), Antioch (AD 341), Laodicea (AD 364), Sardica (AD 347), Constantinople (AD 394), and Carthage (AD 419). When the Council at Laodicea specified the content of the bible as we know it — 39 years after the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) and 17 years before the second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) — the Liturgy was pretty much well-defined and established and had been canonized by common usage — the reading from these books. It was not until the invention of the printing press in Western Europe, coinciding with the period of the Protestant Reformation of Western Christianity that The Bible was widely disseminated as a single volume.”
Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17.
h/t to Orrologion
The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.
The fact that there is no Bible in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The Hebrew Scriptures (what we now call the Old Testament, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
The Church is not based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called The Bible. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which books of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various lists of the canonical books comprising the Bible:
The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.
Even so, there was no official, authoritative canon listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in AD 680. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (AD 255), Ancyra (AD 315), Neocaesaria (AD 315), Gangra (AD 340), Antioch (AD 341), Laodicea (AD 364), Sardica (AD 347), Constantinople (AD 394), and Carthage (AD 419). When the Council at Laodicea specified the content of the bible as we know it — 39 years after the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325) and 17 years before the second Ecumenical Council (AD 381) — the Liturgy was pretty much well-defined and established and had been canonized by common usage — the reading from these books. It was not until the invention of the printing press in Western Europe, coinciding with the period of the Protestant Reformation of Western Christianity that The Bible was widely disseminated as a single volume.”
Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17.
h/t to Orrologion
Friday, February 22, 2008
Why Kosovo Matters to Serbia
A nice little Wikipedia article . Although the Ottomans won the day,
they did need to retreat, and their hopes of invading Europe ended
there.
Liberal Christianity
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Russian Orthodox
representative to European Institutions, and Bishop of Central
Europe:
Intervention at the opening session of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, 13 February 2008
I would like to draw your attention to the danger of liberal Christianity. The liberalization of moral standards, initiated by some Protestant and Anglican communities several decades ago and developing with ever-increasing speed, has now brought us to a situation where we can no longer preach one and the same code of moral conduct. We can no longer speak about Christian morality, because moral standards promoted by 'traditional' and 'liberal' Christians are markedly different, and the abyss between these two wings of contemporary Christianity is rapidly growing.
We are being told by some allegedly Christian leaders, who still bear the titles of Reverends and Most Reverends, that marriage between a woman and a man is no longer the only option for creating a Christian family, that there are other patterns, and that the church must be 'inclusive' enough to recognize alternative lifestyles and give them official and solemn blessing. We are being told that human life is no longer an unquestionable value, that it can be summarily aborted in the womb, or that one may have the right to interrupt it voluntarily, and that Christian 'traditionalists' should reconsider their standpoints in order to be in tune with modern developments. We are being told that abortion is acceptable, contraception is agreeable, and euthanasia is better still, and that the church must accommodate all these 'values' in the name of human rights.
What, then, is left of Christianity? In the confusing and disoriented world in which we live, where is the prophetic voice of Christians? What can we offer, or can we offer anything at all to the secular world, apart from what the secular world will offer to itself as a value system on which society should be built? Do we have our own value system which we should preach, or should we simply applaud every novelty in public morality which becomes fashionable in the secular society?
I would also like to draw your attention to the danger of a 'politically correct' Christianity, of a Christianity which not only so easily and readily surrenders itself to secular moral standards, but also participates in promoting value systems alien to Christian tradition.
We are facing a paradoxical situation. British secular politicians who share Christian convictions are concerned about the rising Christianophobia in the UK and initiate a debate on this issue in Parliament, calling for recognition of the country's Christian identity. At the same time the primate of the Church of England calls for 'a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law.'
I am sure I will be told that Christianity must become more tolerant and all-inclusive, that we Christians should no longer insist on our religion as being the only true faith, that we should learn how to adopt other value systems and standards. My question, however, is: when are we going to stop making Christianity politically correct and all-inclusive; why do we insist on accommodating every possible alternative to the centuries-old Christian tradition? Where is the limit, or is there no limit at all?
Many Christians worldwide look to Christian leaders in the hope that they will defend Christianity against the challenges that it faces. It is not our task to defend Sharia law, or to commend alternative lifestyles or to promote secular values. Our holy mission is to preach what Christ preached, to teach what the apostles taught and to propagate what the holy Fathers propagated. It is this witness which people are expecting of us.
I am convinced that liberal Christianity will not survive for a long time. A politically correct Christianity will die. We see already how liberal Christianity is falling apart and how the introduction of new moral norms leads to division, discord and confusion in some Christian communities. This process will continue, while traditional Christians, I believe, will consolidate their forces in order to protect the faith and moral teaching which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers preserved.
With thanks to Fr. Huneycutt
Intervention at the opening session of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, 13 February 2008
I would like to draw your attention to the danger of liberal Christianity. The liberalization of moral standards, initiated by some Protestant and Anglican communities several decades ago and developing with ever-increasing speed, has now brought us to a situation where we can no longer preach one and the same code of moral conduct. We can no longer speak about Christian morality, because moral standards promoted by 'traditional' and 'liberal' Christians are markedly different, and the abyss between these two wings of contemporary Christianity is rapidly growing.
We are being told by some allegedly Christian leaders, who still bear the titles of Reverends and Most Reverends, that marriage between a woman and a man is no longer the only option for creating a Christian family, that there are other patterns, and that the church must be 'inclusive' enough to recognize alternative lifestyles and give them official and solemn blessing. We are being told that human life is no longer an unquestionable value, that it can be summarily aborted in the womb, or that one may have the right to interrupt it voluntarily, and that Christian 'traditionalists' should reconsider their standpoints in order to be in tune with modern developments. We are being told that abortion is acceptable, contraception is agreeable, and euthanasia is better still, and that the church must accommodate all these 'values' in the name of human rights.
What, then, is left of Christianity? In the confusing and disoriented world in which we live, where is the prophetic voice of Christians? What can we offer, or can we offer anything at all to the secular world, apart from what the secular world will offer to itself as a value system on which society should be built? Do we have our own value system which we should preach, or should we simply applaud every novelty in public morality which becomes fashionable in the secular society?
I would also like to draw your attention to the danger of a 'politically correct' Christianity, of a Christianity which not only so easily and readily surrenders itself to secular moral standards, but also participates in promoting value systems alien to Christian tradition.
We are facing a paradoxical situation. British secular politicians who share Christian convictions are concerned about the rising Christianophobia in the UK and initiate a debate on this issue in Parliament, calling for recognition of the country's Christian identity. At the same time the primate of the Church of England calls for 'a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law.'
I am sure I will be told that Christianity must become more tolerant and all-inclusive, that we Christians should no longer insist on our religion as being the only true faith, that we should learn how to adopt other value systems and standards. My question, however, is: when are we going to stop making Christianity politically correct and all-inclusive; why do we insist on accommodating every possible alternative to the centuries-old Christian tradition? Where is the limit, or is there no limit at all?
Many Christians worldwide look to Christian leaders in the hope that they will defend Christianity against the challenges that it faces. It is not our task to defend Sharia law, or to commend alternative lifestyles or to promote secular values. Our holy mission is to preach what Christ preached, to teach what the apostles taught and to propagate what the holy Fathers propagated. It is this witness which people are expecting of us.
I am convinced that liberal Christianity will not survive for a long time. A politically correct Christianity will die. We see already how liberal Christianity is falling apart and how the introduction of new moral norms leads to division, discord and confusion in some Christian communities. This process will continue, while traditional Christians, I believe, will consolidate their forces in order to protect the faith and moral teaching which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers preserved.
With thanks to Fr. Huneycutt
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A Speech on Kosovo
You know, since we can allow Kosovo to secede
from a democratic nation, I can't help but think that President Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain must think President Lincoln got it
all wrong.
Remarks Before the Foreign Affairs Committee of
the European Parliament
by H.E. Mr. Vuk Jeremić
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia,
Strasbourg, 20 February 2008
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished MEPs,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I stand before you this afternoon as a proud European, and as an ashamed European.
Proud because my heritage, my culture, my beliefs, and my history bind me to a constellation of nations that, at the onset of the 21st century, reconciled themselves, and created something so magnificent that one could say: ‘there has truly never been anything else like it in the history of the world.’
Winston Churchill equated the feeling I am trying to describe to you with a “sense of enlarged patriotism.” That was his vision of Europe, and Jean Monet’s vision of Europe, and Konrad Adenauer’s vision of Europe. It is a vision I proudly share. For the peoples of Europe, between whom rivers of blood have flowed without mercy, chose to end the feuds of a thousand years. And they sought to eliminate from their shores a zero-sum approach to the conduct of regional politics.
How could I not be proud? How could I not, until just a few days ago, without the faintest shadow of a doubt, support the aspirations of my country to join the European Union, and therefore welcome the EU’s commitment to the incorporation of Serbia and all the Western Balkans within its welcoming boundaries?
But I am also a deeply ashamed European. Tacitus wrote: Deserta faciunt et pacem appellant: “They create a desolation and they call it peace.” That is what some European Union countries have done to the Republic of Serbia, to a small, peace-loving, democratic country in Europe, a founding member of the United Nations, an original signatory to the Helsinki Final Act, and a pillar of stability in Southeast Europe.
Creating desolation out of the promise of a European future. This is what the governments of some of your countries have done by recognizing the unilateral, illegal and illegitimate declaration of independence of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am ashamed not as a Serb—for in the negotiating process on the future status of our province of Kosovo, we did nothing but demonstrate good faith and understanding for the legitimate rights of the other side. In fact, since the democratic overthrow of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000, we have done almost everything right. We have overcome almost every obstacle. We have fulfilled almost every condition. We have embraced almost every standard. And we have taken on every challenge to our future with an optimism that thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville thought had departed the Old Continent long ago.
I am ashamed as a European. As someone who knows in his heart that what has been done to Serbia is a fundamental violation of the very nature of not just the international system, but of the values that hold up the European construction.
I am ashamed, because if recognizing this act of ethnically-motivated secession from a democratic, European state is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.
I am ashamed, because I see how the bedrock of values that make us who we are is being trampled underfoot. Because I see how my fellow Europeans are trying to construct the future on a foundation of sand and rubble.
And I am ashamed, because for all the talk about reason and Enlightenment, for all the pious declinations on the common good and solidarity, Europe is rapidly becoming just another place where might makes right.
Some may say I have exaggerated. Well, let us turn to the matter at hand.
The institution with primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security is, according to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council. And, in 1999, following the 78-day bombing of my country, it adopted a resolution—still operative today—that conferred upon the UN the authority to administer Serbia’s southern province of Kosovo, and explicitly and unambiguously reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country. When Serbia was ruled by a tyrant, Kosovo was a confirmed part of Serbia.
It said so in Security Council Resolution 1244. And it went further than that. It placed a Chapter VII obligation—a binding obligation—on all the member-states of the United Nations to respect the borders of my country.
And now, when Serbia is a democracy, some European nations are prepared to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. They say, in effect, we did not punish the tyrant, but now we will punish a democracy—a European democracy—and we expect its citizens to take it.
They say Kosovo can be independent, while saying that 1244 in its entirety still applies, including, presumably, that part that reaffirms Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. And they send an EU-led mission to our province without the approval of the Security Council, even though paragraphs 5 and 19 of 1244 make it abundantly clear that only the Security Council can do that.
And yesterday, at an emergency session of the Permanent Council, no European ambassador could explain to anyone with any degree of reason why what is being done to Serbia is not a violation of the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
They could not explain to me why what they are doing is not setting a dangerous, precedent that will create very troubling consequences to the stability of Europe and the whole world.
Recognizing the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia legitimizes the doctrine of imposing solutions to ethnic conflicts.
It legitimizes the act of unilateral secession by a provincial or local entity.
It transforms the right to self-determination into an avowed right to independence.
It legitimizes the forced partition of internationally-recognized, sovereign states.
And it violates the commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes in Europe.
It even resurrects the discredited Cold War doctrine of limited sovereignty.
By the actions of some European Union member-states, every would-be ethnic or religious separatist across Europe and around the world has been provided with a tool kit on how to achieve recognition. Does anyone in this room think that the Kosovo Albanians are the only group in the world with a grievance against their capital?
Do any of you honestly think that just by saying that Kosovo is sui generis, you will make it so? That there will be no consequences to the stability and security of the international system, just because you say it won’t?
Is this the way proud Europeans behave? Is this the way European values are put into practice? Is this the way to treat friends?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Notwithstanding everything I have witnessed and all that my country has gone through, I have not lost faith in Europe, even though I am ashamed by the actions of some within it.
I have not lost faith in Europe because I still hold out a measure of hope that Europe will live up to its values; that Europe will pause for a moment and recall the principles that drive its own decision-making in Brussels and Strasbourg. I’m talking about compromise, concession, and consensus-building. That’s how it works: by engaging in a process of deliberate, patient, and sustained, good-faith negotiations until a compromise is struck that all stakeholders can abide by.
In the case of Kosovo’s future status, only a solution that is acceptable to the sides can be viable, sustainable, and lasting.
Only a negotiated solution can pave the way towards a common, European future.
Only such a solution can consolidate the regional gains made, reinforce the geo-strategic priorities achieved, and restore the drive for change in Southeast Europe.
The imposition of a one-sided outcome—the recognition of an independent Kosovo—does the opposite. It sets back the achievements of European visionaries in our region; it uncouples the Western Balkans from its future in Europe; and it fosters a view throughout the region that Europe is in the business of imposing outcomes.
This is where we are. It’s a shameful place to be. And it’s not where we should be.
Where we are is at the precipice, facing down into the shadows of uncertainty. Uncertainty over the future of the Western Balkans. Uncertainty over democracy in Serbia. Uncertainty over the safety of the Kosovo Serbs. And uncertainty over the fate of our holy sites—the central element of our national identity.
Yet we also face forward. We can see beyond the break, and beyond the discord. We can still see Europe for what it is, for what it can become, for what it can accomplish.
But also for what it can harm: the dreams of a proud, democratic, European country that has surmounted more obstacles since October 2000 than most other nations have in a hundred years.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I assure you, with the fortitude of a unified nation, Serbia will not go quietly. We shall strive for what is just, for what we believe in, for our future, for what is rightfully ours.
The Republic of Serbia shall not tolerate this illegal act of secession. Our Government and National Assembly have declared this action by the authorities in Pristina null and void. And we shall undertake all diplomatic and political measures designed to impede and reverse this direct and unprovoked attack on our sovereignty.
As a responsible member of the international community committed to the peaceful and negotiated resolution of disputes, the Republic of Serbia will not resort to the use of force. For violence cannot bring a peaceful settlement to any crisis. Violence only destroys—lives, property, hope, ambitions. It destroys everything and creates desolation.
We are for peace. We are for agreement. We are for concord. We are Europeans.
Kosovo shall remain a part of Serbia forever.
It's Here, It's Here!!
After what must be a 12 year wait on my part, the complete Orthodox Study Bible has arrived. Although basically a revision of the NKJV Old Testament (correcting it against the LXX), it still represents the first English translation of the LXX since the middle of the 19th century.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on Fasting
Many years ago, Archimandrite Kallistos Ware
penned an article on Fasting. The whole article can be found at the beginning
of the Lenten Triodion that he helped translate. I
was hoping that the whole article would have been published on the internet, but
have only found excerpts. So here is a taste:
"We waited, and at last our
expectations were fulfilled", wrote Bishop Nicholas of South Canaan, describing
the Easter Service at Jerusalem. "When the patriarch sang 'Christ is risen', a
heavy burden fell from our souls. We felt as if we also had been raised from the
dead. All at once, from all around, the same cry resounded like the noise of
many waters. 'Christ is risen' sang the Greeks, the Russians, the Arabs, the
Serbs, the Copts, the Armenians, the Ethiopians - one after another, each in his
own tongue, in his own melody....Coming out from the service at dawn, we began
to regard everything in the light of the glory of Christ's Resurrection, and all
appeared different from what it had yesterday; everything seemed better, more
expressive, more glorious. Only in the light of the Resurrection does life
receive meaning."
This sense of Resurrection joy, so
vividly described by Bishop Nicholas, forms the foundation of all worship of the
Orthodox Church; it is the one and only basis for our Christian life and hope.
Yet, in order for us to experience the full power of this Paschal rejoicing,
each of us needs to pass through a time of preparation. "We waited, " says
Bishop Nicholas, "and at last our expectations were fulfilled." Without the
waiting, without the expectant preparation, the deeper meaning of the Easter
celebration will be lost.
So it is that before the festival of
Easter there has developed a long preparatory season of repentance and fasting,
extending in present Orthodox usage over ten weeks. First comes twenty-two days
(four Sundays) of preliminary observance; then the six weeks or forty days of
the Great Fast of Lent; and finally Holy Week, there follows after Easter a
corresponding season of fifty days of thanksgiving, concluding with
Pentecost.
This time can most briefly be described
as the time of the fast. Just as the children of Israel ate the "bread of
affliction" (Deut. 16:3) in preparation for the Passover, so Christians prepare
themselves for the celebration of the New Passover by observing a fast. But what
is meant by this word "fast" (nisteia)? here the utmost care is needed, so as to
preserve a proper balance between the outward and inward. On the outward level
fasting involves physical abstinence from food and drink, and without such
exterior abstinence a full and true fast cannot be kept; yet rules about eating
and drinking must never be treated as an end in themselves, for ascetic fasting
has always an inward and unseen purpose. And a proper balance must always be
maintained.
If I find the whole piece somewhere, I'll post a link. It is well worth reading.
In Case You Were Wondering About Kosovo
Not many people do. Bill Clinton launched a war
against Serbia. We are now an occupying force in Kosovo, and have been for
almost a decade. Somebody should remind Hillary about this the next time she
gets all anti-war on us. So, what has been happening in Kosovo since the
invasion? Well, the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs, and the destruction of scores of Churches and
Monasteries, mostly. Terry Mattingly raises some interesting questions about
the whole thing here . By the way, the Church in the video was
destroyed in 2004, under the watchful eye of the U.N.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Another Indictment of Modern Academia
9.West sent me this e-mail the other
day:
"I heard a Catholic radio show (on the local affiliate) in which the Orthodox were blamed by the good father for Protestants saying "for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever and ever amen."
I was driving and couldn't take notes but IIRC
1) The oldest bibles (ca. 300) don't have the phrase. The Vatican has these bibles.
2) The early church added it to the liturgy, not clear when
3) The phrase was added to a biblical text in Constantinople ca. 1200 (12th century?) The presumption is a copyist knew it from the liturgy and added it to a biblical manuscript.
4) With the fall of Constantinople to the Ottman Turks in 1453, the Byzantine Greeks scattered throughout Europe, taking these manuscripts with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
5) This/these manuscripts ended up influencing the KJV."
I assumed that this was a priest from Catholic Answers, but I've listened to several hours of programming spanning the last week or two, and haven't found the right program. So, perhaps this was some other program. My immediate reaction was that this was probably bogus, but I wasn't terribly concerned. The "why" I was not terribly concerned I'll address below. As it turns out, the accusation is false - just more of the dubious scholarship around things Scriptural. It seems that there are those who are only happy if they can come up with some theory that challenges Christianity and challenges the Church. Truth is not an issue, nor is it terribly important. The important thing is controversy.
I e-mailed a priest in Texas whose writings I've read for probably the last 10 years or so, and was probably instrumental, in many ways, in my conversion to Orthodoxy. A while back he had some blog entries that were to comprise an article he was writing on Bible translations. One of the issues he addressed was the love affair with the Alexandrian texts of the New Testament, because they represented the oldest manuscripts we had. I thought he might have some light to shed on this.
Of course, he did. He pointed out that there were quotes of the Gospel of Matthew that included the doxology that date back to the first century. The oldest is the Didache, which includes the following quote:
"2 And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, pray thus: "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us to-day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us from the Evil One, for thine is the power and the glory for ever." 3 Pray thus three times a day."
The Didache , of course, is usually dated to about the year 60, so its hardly a 13th century addition.
In addition, we find a similar doxology in the Apostolic Constitutions , which has a somewhat more vague date of somewhere in the 3rd to 5th century. However, this, too, is before the 13th century.
Finally, although I've not find the link yet, St. John Chrysostom has apparently used the doxology, as well, when quoting from the Gospel.
The reason, I suspect, that the Catholic Priest was espousing the theory that the doxology was a later edition, was that he, and whoever developed the theory, were guilty of the logical error that states that the oldest manuscript is necessarily the most accurate. At first blush, this seems a reasonable belief. However, Wilbur Pickering has proposed an interesting alternative to the prevailing theory. Although many scholars debate the validity of his theories, at the very least, a dispassionate observer has to question the validity of the Alexandrian texts.
The final question we need to pose, is why I wasn't overly concerned in the first. place. The reason is that I'm not Protestant. Protestantism has, as one of its 3 basic tenets, the notion of Sola Scriptura. Although the precise definition of this belief varies from denomination to denomination, all denominations agree that only doctrine derived from Scripture is to be binding upon the believer. This, then, would seem to require a pretty solid notion of precisely what is and is not, Scripture. Some of the above links don't exactly bring comfort to those seeking such certainty. Even those denominations who acknowledge that tradition plays a role in their doctrine, see tradition as something apart from Scripture (the somewhat mythical Anglican 3 legged stool sees tradition and reason as something apart from Scripture).
In Orthodoxy, however, we understand tradition to be Scripture "rightly understood" (I believe that is St. Irenaeus). Scripture and Tradition are part of the same thing. So, minor variations in the Scripture don't carry quite the same weight as they would for people who hold Scripture to be supreme. This is not to say that we don't regard Scripture very highly. We do. However, we look to the liturgical tradition, and the teachings of the Fathers, to understand what Scripture means. That pieces of the liturgy might make their way into copies of Scripture is no big deal, because we would use that same liturgy to understand Scripture, and so would know that Jesus Christ believed that God's is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. We would know, because, even if it wasn't in Scripture, it would have been passed down to the Church - which is, after all, both the pillar and ground of truth, and the very body of Christ.
"I heard a Catholic radio show (on the local affiliate) in which the Orthodox were blamed by the good father for Protestants saying "for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever and ever amen."
I was driving and couldn't take notes but IIRC
1) The oldest bibles (ca. 300) don't have the phrase. The Vatican has these bibles.
2) The early church added it to the liturgy, not clear when
3) The phrase was added to a biblical text in Constantinople ca. 1200 (12th century?) The presumption is a copyist knew it from the liturgy and added it to a biblical manuscript.
4) With the fall of Constantinople to the Ottman Turks in 1453, the Byzantine Greeks scattered throughout Europe, taking these manuscripts with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
5) This/these manuscripts ended up influencing the KJV."
I assumed that this was a priest from Catholic Answers, but I've listened to several hours of programming spanning the last week or two, and haven't found the right program. So, perhaps this was some other program. My immediate reaction was that this was probably bogus, but I wasn't terribly concerned. The "why" I was not terribly concerned I'll address below. As it turns out, the accusation is false - just more of the dubious scholarship around things Scriptural. It seems that there are those who are only happy if they can come up with some theory that challenges Christianity and challenges the Church. Truth is not an issue, nor is it terribly important. The important thing is controversy.
I e-mailed a priest in Texas whose writings I've read for probably the last 10 years or so, and was probably instrumental, in many ways, in my conversion to Orthodoxy. A while back he had some blog entries that were to comprise an article he was writing on Bible translations. One of the issues he addressed was the love affair with the Alexandrian texts of the New Testament, because they represented the oldest manuscripts we had. I thought he might have some light to shed on this.
Of course, he did. He pointed out that there were quotes of the Gospel of Matthew that included the doxology that date back to the first century. The oldest is the Didache, which includes the following quote:
"2 And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, pray thus: "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth; give us to-day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us from the Evil One, for thine is the power and the glory for ever." 3 Pray thus three times a day."
The Didache , of course, is usually dated to about the year 60, so its hardly a 13th century addition.
In addition, we find a similar doxology in the Apostolic Constitutions , which has a somewhat more vague date of somewhere in the 3rd to 5th century. However, this, too, is before the 13th century.
Finally, although I've not find the link yet, St. John Chrysostom has apparently used the doxology, as well, when quoting from the Gospel.
The reason, I suspect, that the Catholic Priest was espousing the theory that the doxology was a later edition, was that he, and whoever developed the theory, were guilty of the logical error that states that the oldest manuscript is necessarily the most accurate. At first blush, this seems a reasonable belief. However, Wilbur Pickering has proposed an interesting alternative to the prevailing theory. Although many scholars debate the validity of his theories, at the very least, a dispassionate observer has to question the validity of the Alexandrian texts.
The final question we need to pose, is why I wasn't overly concerned in the first. place. The reason is that I'm not Protestant. Protestantism has, as one of its 3 basic tenets, the notion of Sola Scriptura. Although the precise definition of this belief varies from denomination to denomination, all denominations agree that only doctrine derived from Scripture is to be binding upon the believer. This, then, would seem to require a pretty solid notion of precisely what is and is not, Scripture. Some of the above links don't exactly bring comfort to those seeking such certainty. Even those denominations who acknowledge that tradition plays a role in their doctrine, see tradition as something apart from Scripture (the somewhat mythical Anglican 3 legged stool sees tradition and reason as something apart from Scripture).
In Orthodoxy, however, we understand tradition to be Scripture "rightly understood" (I believe that is St. Irenaeus). Scripture and Tradition are part of the same thing. So, minor variations in the Scripture don't carry quite the same weight as they would for people who hold Scripture to be supreme. This is not to say that we don't regard Scripture very highly. We do. However, we look to the liturgical tradition, and the teachings of the Fathers, to understand what Scripture means. That pieces of the liturgy might make their way into copies of Scripture is no big deal, because we would use that same liturgy to understand Scripture, and so would know that Jesus Christ believed that God's is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. We would know, because, even if it wasn't in Scripture, it would have been passed down to the Church - which is, after all, both the pillar and ground of truth, and the very body of Christ.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Interview Recommendation
An interview with the House Mother of Martha and Mary
House , an Orthodox home for unwed mothers. The topic is "Abortion
and its Aftermath."
We've had the pleasure of meeting Sara, and of providing a small amount of support to the house. Last year we attended the wedding of one of Sara's "daughters." A wonderful ministry which I highly recommend as something for folks to support.
We've had the pleasure of meeting Sara, and of providing a small amount of support to the house. Last year we attended the wedding of one of Sara's "daughters." A wonderful ministry which I highly recommend as something for folks to support.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
A Little Truth
I recently saw a couple of Anglican blogs
extolling the virtues of the Joshua Project. This surprised me as these
blogs are usually of the vein that they consider themselves just like Rome, or
just like the Orthodox.
The Joshua Project, like the Greater European Mission , and probably other groups, maintain maps of the world where they assess to what degree the Gospel has penetrated the various countries. If you read the sites closely, you'll notice that traditionally Orthodox countries are listed as being largely non-converted. The reason is that these countries are not Evangelical. That is, the Christians in these countries do not hold to the erroneous views of the Protestant Reformation in general, and the 19th century Evangelical movement in particular.
You will find some wonderful gems on these sites:
"Pray that the Serbs would become dissatisfied with the rules of Orthodox religion and would instead seek a relationship with their Savior, Jesus Christ. "
You'll also find this gem on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. There, they state that although >95% of the Awngi people are Christian, less than 1% believe in Jesus as God and Only Savior because, "In Ethiopian Orthodox theology, there are other possible saviors in addition to Jesus." Of course this is completely incorrect, but it may reflect the fact that the Orthodox view of salvation is quite different from that of the Evangelical.
Really, I'm rather pleased at these sites. Let's be honest. Orthodoxy, the faith of the early Church, is not at all like Evangelicalism. I'm glad they admit it. I'm willing to admit it, too.
The Joshua Project, like the Greater European Mission , and probably other groups, maintain maps of the world where they assess to what degree the Gospel has penetrated the various countries. If you read the sites closely, you'll notice that traditionally Orthodox countries are listed as being largely non-converted. The reason is that these countries are not Evangelical. That is, the Christians in these countries do not hold to the erroneous views of the Protestant Reformation in general, and the 19th century Evangelical movement in particular.
You will find some wonderful gems on these sites:
"Pray that the Serbs would become dissatisfied with the rules of Orthodox religion and would instead seek a relationship with their Savior, Jesus Christ. "
You'll also find this gem on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. There, they state that although >95% of the Awngi people are Christian, less than 1% believe in Jesus as God and Only Savior because, "In Ethiopian Orthodox theology, there are other possible saviors in addition to Jesus." Of course this is completely incorrect, but it may reflect the fact that the Orthodox view of salvation is quite different from that of the Evangelical.
Really, I'm rather pleased at these sites. Let's be honest. Orthodoxy, the faith of the early Church, is not at all like Evangelicalism. I'm glad they admit it. I'm willing to admit it, too.
Anglo Papalism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the TAC
9.West sent me a link the other day to a blog by Fr. Kirby from the Anglican Continuum.
This particular entry was attempting to justify AngloPapalism, and seemingly
(although it was incredibly hard to follow) claim that Anglicanism, Roman
Catholicism, and Orthodoxy are all pretty much the same, part of the one, true
Church, and simply don't quite get that there are no real doctrinal/dogmatic
differences between the three. Here's the passage in
question:
Why, fundamentally, do I
trust the RCC not to have erred in dogma? Because I don’t believe that God
would allow the prime Successor of Peter and all those in communion with him to
abandon the OTC either through utterly definitive and binding denial of any
Catholic truth or through dogmatic affirmation of what is heretical. This
“disbelief” is one of head and heart and is based on my
understanding of Scripture and the Consensus of the Fathers.
Yet, on the other hand, I
also don’t believe that the Bishop of Rome is the only Petrine successor,
given the Petrine roots (acknowledged by ancient Popes) of Antioch and
Alexandria, the fact that Jerusalem, “the mother of us all”, once
contained the whole Church, with Peter as its Primate, and the fact that
Constantinople was founded as “New Rome” and recognised as such by
the Church. Nor do I believe that God would have or did allow the Eastern half
of the Church (and its Petrine sees!) to leave the OTC in the middle ages. Or
that the E-W schism was primarily the result of Eastern error or rebellion. Or
that the said schism was complete or definitive. Or that Rome’s
excommunications or condemnations in general, whether towards individuals or
bodies, have always been fair. Or, thus, that the resultant schisms are proof
that whoever is not in communion with Rome at any point in time must be outside
the OTC. Or that the Church of England committed itself definitively to heresy
or intended to be out of communion with the rest of the Church (E and W) in 1559
or since then until the defection over the ordination of women. Or that it
rejected, then or since, Papal Primacy properly understood. Or that such primacy
has often been fittingly understood on either side. Nor do I believe this set of
“disbeliefs” is inconsistent with the pro-Papal one or dogmatically
excluded by the RCC.
I have to admit to holding to much of this line of thinking not too many years ago. Now, he doesn't support his beliefs here with facts, so its hard to assess the validity of his view on that basis. I suspect that some of his views on Papal primacy and the Pope being the successor of Peter (and the effect of that) are driven by Roman Catholic apologetic arguments, including those of Leo XIII. Many of these were handled well in this book . Unfortunately there are a number of additional flaws in his reasoning.
Foundation - Cards Anyone?
The major challenge here is that the position of "everybody is okay, we just need to become friends again" is really built on a house of cards. A number of propositions (and suppositions for that matter) are offered which need to all be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Each one of the propositions is pretty weak, and put together there is not really much foundation. So, let's look at some of these.
1. The Pope is incapable of lapsing into error and leaving the OTC - this is the consensus of the Fathers and of Scripture.
As I mentioned above, its hard to refute this without the citations. What Fathers is he thinking of? All that would really be required to disprove this, would be to find that any Pope espoused heresy and was condemned as a heretic. It is true that heretical Popes in the pre-schism period are hard to find (or more accurately those declared to be heretics). However, we do have one, and that is all we need. That is, Pope Honorius . He was declared a heretic, and Popes for many generations afterward pronounced an anathema on him as a heretic. Modern Roman apologists like to assert that he really wasn't teaching heresy, it was a personal opinion, and basically everyone was mistaken about him (including the Popes in subsequent years who declared him to be a heretic). So, while Rome was restored to Orthodoxy with the next Pope, if one Pope could become a heretic, why would he be unable to lead entire Churches into heresy? Remember the Council of Chalcedon? Large chunks of the Church were declared to be guilty of heresy. The separation remains to this day - although there is increasing hope of restoration.
2. Rome has never definitively affirmed heresy
We'll skip Honorius. It doesn't seem fair to keep picking on him. What about the filioque? Why is that not heretical? Heresy in the modern sense has been taken to only mean some basic stuff. So long as you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Trinity, you seem to be good. However, heresy doesn't quite have such a narrow meaning. It is translated in some places (the RSV for instance) as "party spirit" - basically a teaching at odds with the rest of the group. The filioque was added in Spain in order to fight Arianism. It was clearly forbidden by one Pope (Leo III), but then is accepted once politically expedient. Many people tend to draw on Bp. Kallistos Ware's statements that the filioque is not heretical. However, he doesn't say that. All he says is that "There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained." He also acknowledges that most Orthodox believe the filioque to be just that, heretical. It is the Church as a whole that decides on Orthodoxy, not just a Patriarch, or a few theologians. Note also the need to "properly explain" the filioque. I find that to be the case with many Roman innovations. Papal infallibility is a prime example You need a special degree to figure out when the Pope is making an infallible statement. I'll discuss this a bit further down.
3. You have to intentionally hold to heresy, or intentionally leave the Church in order to no longer be a member of the Church. I know of a number of Mormons who think that what they believe is not heresy, and believe themselves to be members of the OTC. Since they do not intend to hold heretical views, nor do they intend to not be a member of the OTC, does that make them a member of the OTC?
If the C o E never intended to leave the Church, which I will grant, did they not intend to separate from Rome? What about the 39 articles? That's not exactly a glowing support of Roman doctrine and dogma. If you intend to separate from Rome, and Rome is part of the OTC (or is the OTC, either way), doesn't separating from them constitute separating from the OTC? If this is not the case, then there would be two true Churches, or three. I suppose this is an attempt at holding to the Protestant invention of the invisible Church. If you want to discuss consensus of the Fathers, find support for this.
Eastern Error
As a brief aside, I do agree that the Schism was not due to Eastern rebellion or error. Since the Orthodox Church is not known for adding things to the faith, accusing them of doing so is a bit challenging. It is amusing that the famed Bull of Excommunication from Cardinal Humbert accused the Patriarch of Constantinople of dropping the filioque from the creed.
The only other error which the East might presumably be guilty of is not holding to a view of Papal primacy in agreement with Rome. The author of the above blog apparently believes that the only issue is the proper understanding of what Primacy means. Well, I can tell you that such primacy, according to Anglicans and Orthodox would, at best, be a Primacy of Honour. History shows us that this is not what Rome means, at all.
Proper Understanding
Fr. Kirby asserts that one of the issues is that Papal primacy is not properly understood, just as "some Orthodox theologians" think that the Filioque needs to be properly understood in order for those who disagree with it to no longer do so. I find it curious that all conflicts with Rome have now become a matter of lack of understanding. That is what allowed for the joint Lutheran declaration (hardly accepted by most Lutherans) on justification.
While much Christian theology is complex, it seems to me that much of what is being discussed here isn't. A good example is Papal infallibility. It seems that this is a simple notion. As I have heard it put, it is that the Pope is infallible when teaching on faith or morals. In order to deal with various pronouncements over the centuries that are problematic, we have added that he must be teaching ex cathedra (with the intent to be teaching with the authority of his office). The challenge comes when you're trying to figure out when that is. Apparently there is some phraseology that is important. However, I can guarantee that you can start a fight among Roman Catholic lay apologists if you ask them if Apostolica Curae (the encyclical declaring Anglican orders null and void) is infallible. Apparently phrases like, "Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void." are not sufficient. Nor is the close of the document, "We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding." Of course, some would declare that it is infallible, but no longer applies as certain Old Catholic Bishops got involved along the way and restored validity to the line. Presumably the defects in order and intent have been corrected as well. However, others have declared that this wasn't an infallible document to begin with.
The other fight you can cause is over whether you can be saved outside the Church. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctum, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." A normal lay person, reading this Bull, would think that you would need to be visibly subject to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, I think you could assume that every Catholic believed just that until Vatican II. It was then that we learned that we simply didn't understand properly. In fact, you can be subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if you don't know it. Imagine what this must mean for the Church of England. They thought that they were breaking free from the Roman Pontiff, but apparently didn't know it.
So, the "it needs to be understood properly" is really code word for we didn't mean it, or that doesn't suit us anymore. In that context, how long before the resurrection of Christ simply needs to be understood properly?
Fixing Anglicanism from the Inside
I used to say that all of the time. I'm staying within the Anglican Church in order to reform it from the inside. Then I realized how tremendously egotistical of me. Especially given that the number of AngloCatholics within the Episcopal Church is really quite small. In fact, much of what AngloCatholics believe has really been absent from the Anglican Church from the time of Elizabeth (or shortly thereafter) until the 19th century. As a friend used to point out, if the OTC is either the Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, and there is one down the street, shouldn't you walk down the street and join it? Rather than trying to change the beliefs of the Church to which you belong?
Fr. Kirby reminds me of me. Desperately trying to rationalize his continuing presence in the Anglican Church, he waves his hands at all of the significant differences between Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of England. Popes are incapable of lapsing into heresy, thus the only things they are mistaken about can't be heresy (question begging). The things they are mistaken about they really aren't mistaken about, its just nobody else really understood what Rome meant. To be guilty of heresy you have to want to hold to heresy. To not be in the OTC, you have to want to leave. Just because you walked out the door, and handed in your resignation, doesn't mean you wanted to.
I'm sorry Fr. Kirby. I don't really find your position coherent.
As Western Lent Approaches
I was asked for some information on fasting from
an Anglican. Here was my response, cleaned up a little
bit:
Often for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, the norm would be for a strict fast. Pretty much nothing except water all day (Monastics would use hot water to stave off the hunger pangs), or at least until after Vespers. Modern Catholic discipline has become pretty watered down, so that it becomes a matter of simply having, I think, one small meal and one large meal or something like that. I remember thinking that the rule fit my usual day, so I couldn't tell what the point was. The strict fast was sort of old school. I just gave away most of my good books on traditional Anglican practice, so I don't have a good resource to look at. Of course, there are no formal rules, as fasting is not part of any routine discipline within the Anglican Church. The other piece of modern Catholicism is that fish Friday is only for the Friday's of Lent.
The rest of Lent, then, is an exercise in moderation, or giving up of something. I suspect the last vestiges of the ancient fasting practices in the West are the usual giving up of sweets by children. Since many "sweets" are really high fat items, like cookies, cakes, and milk chocolate, this reflects the ancient fasting practices which you still see in the Orthodox Church. In fact, Carnival (goodbye to meat) and Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday) also reflect those old practices. In Orthodoxy, we fast for the 6 weeks of Lent, then Holy week, following an Orthodox "strict" fast, which is pretty much a vegan diet, also without wine or harder liquor, and the cessation of marital relations (think 1 Cor. 7:5). Notice how Carnival lasts a week? Well, we have the week known as Meatfare, which is the week before the first week in Lent (we don't do Ash Wednesday, so Lent begins on Clean Monday). This makes the fast from meat last 8 weeks, and the full fast last 7. Sundays during Lent are non-Fasting, meaning we can have wine and oil :). The rules don't relax entirely. There are two days where we can actually have fish, which is the Annunciation and Palm Sunday.
When I used to teach a class on fasting in the Episcopal Church, I was fond of saying that you need to approach fasting very prayerfully, which is true. However, as an Orthodox, I've come to understand that the real goal is to get a spiritual Father to guide you. Fasting can be the source of many problems. For some, it is a source of pride. In an effort to avoid pride, those of us who like our steaks will use that as an excuse to enjoy some meat. Excessive legalism is another risk. I have a friend who was raised with precious few vegetables, and thus has an extremely hard time with Lent - trying to be strict by the rules can actually lead to despair. I'm not totally sure what his discipline is, but he is under the guidance of the Abbot at a Monastery in Arizona. The other risk is meaninglessness. So, for a vegan, most of the fast would be pointless. A spiritual father would be able to guide them into an appropriate fasting regimen.
At any rate, the point of fasting is to limit the control of our passions on ourselves. It is an effort at growing in holiness. As the passions lose their control over us, we should be able to behave in a more Christian fashion. It is interesting that the Church of England is promoting Lenten practices that don't seem to acknowledge the need for fasting as a means of growing in holiness. They apparently find it easier to just skip that part, and ignore the received tradition of the Church. Its not that I disagree with trying to go without gossiping for a day, but with the fast, we are supposed to struggle to go without gossiping, even when we're grumpy for not having had our sweets and steak. I find the wisdom of the Church better than the fads of the C of E.
Often for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, the norm would be for a strict fast. Pretty much nothing except water all day (Monastics would use hot water to stave off the hunger pangs), or at least until after Vespers. Modern Catholic discipline has become pretty watered down, so that it becomes a matter of simply having, I think, one small meal and one large meal or something like that. I remember thinking that the rule fit my usual day, so I couldn't tell what the point was. The strict fast was sort of old school. I just gave away most of my good books on traditional Anglican practice, so I don't have a good resource to look at. Of course, there are no formal rules, as fasting is not part of any routine discipline within the Anglican Church. The other piece of modern Catholicism is that fish Friday is only for the Friday's of Lent.
The rest of Lent, then, is an exercise in moderation, or giving up of something. I suspect the last vestiges of the ancient fasting practices in the West are the usual giving up of sweets by children. Since many "sweets" are really high fat items, like cookies, cakes, and milk chocolate, this reflects the ancient fasting practices which you still see in the Orthodox Church. In fact, Carnival (goodbye to meat) and Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday) also reflect those old practices. In Orthodoxy, we fast for the 6 weeks of Lent, then Holy week, following an Orthodox "strict" fast, which is pretty much a vegan diet, also without wine or harder liquor, and the cessation of marital relations (think 1 Cor. 7:5). Notice how Carnival lasts a week? Well, we have the week known as Meatfare, which is the week before the first week in Lent (we don't do Ash Wednesday, so Lent begins on Clean Monday). This makes the fast from meat last 8 weeks, and the full fast last 7. Sundays during Lent are non-Fasting, meaning we can have wine and oil :). The rules don't relax entirely. There are two days where we can actually have fish, which is the Annunciation and Palm Sunday.
When I used to teach a class on fasting in the Episcopal Church, I was fond of saying that you need to approach fasting very prayerfully, which is true. However, as an Orthodox, I've come to understand that the real goal is to get a spiritual Father to guide you. Fasting can be the source of many problems. For some, it is a source of pride. In an effort to avoid pride, those of us who like our steaks will use that as an excuse to enjoy some meat. Excessive legalism is another risk. I have a friend who was raised with precious few vegetables, and thus has an extremely hard time with Lent - trying to be strict by the rules can actually lead to despair. I'm not totally sure what his discipline is, but he is under the guidance of the Abbot at a Monastery in Arizona. The other risk is meaninglessness. So, for a vegan, most of the fast would be pointless. A spiritual father would be able to guide them into an appropriate fasting regimen.
At any rate, the point of fasting is to limit the control of our passions on ourselves. It is an effort at growing in holiness. As the passions lose their control over us, we should be able to behave in a more Christian fashion. It is interesting that the Church of England is promoting Lenten practices that don't seem to acknowledge the need for fasting as a means of growing in holiness. They apparently find it easier to just skip that part, and ignore the received tradition of the Church. Its not that I disagree with trying to go without gossiping for a day, but with the fast, we are supposed to struggle to go without gossiping, even when we're grumpy for not having had our sweets and steak. I find the wisdom of the Church better than the fads of the C of E.