"Today the concept of truth is viewed with suspicion, because truth is identified with violence. Over history there have, unfortunately, been episodes when people sought to defend the truth with violence. But they are two contrasting realities. Truth cannot be imposed with means other than itself! Truth can only come with its own light. Yet, we need truth. ... Without truth we are blind in the world, we have no path to follow. The great gift of Christ was that He enabled us to see the face of God".Pope Benedict xvi, February 24th, 2012
The Church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it is therefore a blasphemy—an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost—to turn the Church into a national institution, to narrow her down to petty, transient, time-bound aspirations and ways of doing things. Her purpose is beyond nationality, ecumenical, all-embracing: to unite all men in Christ, all without exception to nation or race or social strata. - St Justin Popovitch
This teaching of Our Lord is introduced by a question, How many people will be saved? It is a sort of abstract question, one that can be discussed and answered in the comfort of our armchair, without exposing us to any danger, without challenging us to any task. It is the kind of question we like; but, in the present Gospel reading, Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem to be crucified and has no time for armchair speculation. He answers at a different level.
He says that there are two gates or doors that people believe are ways into the kingdom of God, but only one can lead us to sit at the messianic banquet: there is the way of repentance which is hard and the way of complacency, which is easy.
The narrow way of repentance begins by recognising our weakness, how easily our values can become distorted, how secondary things can become primary, how good things can become idols, how our past attainments and present qualities, if we pay too much attention to them, can make us blind and become obstacles to knowing God’s will. Even when we know what is wrong, we so often lack the strength because we do not realise how little we rely on Christ. Like the apostles on the Sea of Galilee when Christ was asleep in the boat, all these weaknesses, if they are not tackled, are like contrary winds, adverse currents, rocks and whirlpools that endanger the safety of the boat. Our attention must be constant because the temptations are constant. The moment we are complacent, the moment we rely on our own intelligence, our own experience, our own routine rather than Christ as a guide, we are travelling through uncharted waters without maps, and these weaknesses begin to re-assert themselves and are used by the Evil One to sink us when we are not looking.
This lack of self-satisfaction, this constant awareness of our weakness, this attention to our continual need to steer close to the will of God, to renew our commitment to Christ at every moment, is called “Repentance”.
Repentance is not “feeling sorry for our sins”, though someone who repents may well feel that sorrow. Repentance is changing direction, re-aligning our values - not once but continually - giving up our worldly way of looking at what we do and , and seeking only the will of God, as Christ did: He who said, “Not my will but yours be done,” and as the Blessed Virgin said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord: may it be done to me according to his word.” When this becomes the way we look at things, every moment becomes a sacrament in which we find the will of God and his Presence and; and, to boot, we are passing through the narrow gate.
What about the wider gate that doesn’t lead anywhere, the one at whose entrance so many people wait to enter but cannot because it is locked? It is the wide gate of complacency, the one where people look at themselves and decide that they have changed enough and need only to change others, who are content with their own discipleship, with their own strengths, with their own attainments, with the gifts that God has given them in the past, and they are so content that they are oblivious to the gifts and challenges that he is offering in the present. It is a religious life that is standing still because of self-satisfaction or laziness; and, when people stand still, they cannot be arriving anywhere, especially at the messianic banquet.
How many of us have joined this crowd and have stood outside this gate, without, perhaps, realising it!. Perhaps we all have done so at some time, or even most of the time! Instead of actively seeking what we must change so that we can do the will of God better, we protect ourselves with our religious routine so that nothing will change. Instead of seeking out the will of God in every situation, at every moment, we take refuge in generalities and avoid specifics that might challenge us. If our sins do not make us feel guilty, we accept them as part of ourselves and vaguely rely on God’s mercy rather than do our own part that enables the Holy Spirit to eradicate them or simply to make them harmless. All this is the wide gate that leads to nowhere.
Of course, if we are entering the narrow gate, we have become subject to Christ’s will in every situation. Believe it or not, this means we have become subject to his discipline; and he will discipline us whenever he decides to do so, through his very active Providence; and this is not always pleasant. That is what the second lesson, from Hebrews, is all about.
We must become aware of his discipline and what he is telling us through our circumstances. If he is not disciplining us at present, we can be assured that he will do so when he is ready. If he never disciplines us, then it is perhaps a sign that we are waiting at the wrong gate.
Jesus says in the Gospel that some who at present appear to be “last” will be first when the coming of Jesus in glory takes place. Conversely, some who are “first” now, in prestige, in religious complacency, could ultimately be last or miss out altogether at the coming of the Lord.
It is important to understand that, if we put ourselves among the "last who shall be first", then we are probably suffering from the pride that belongs to those who are standing before the wide gate of complacency. It is better to put ourselves among the "first who shall be last", and then call on Our Lord Jesus Christ to have mercy on us as sinners. If this cry is genuine, then, and only then, will we be entering through the narrow gate.
Implied in this message of Jesus is the answer to the original question about “how many” will be saved. We believe many will be saved and from all races. However, and most importantly, this gospel gives us a clear call, wherever we come from,and in every generation, always to strive earnestly, throughout our lives, to enter God’s banquet hall. This can only happen by looking for and doing God’s will day in and day out.
The biblical scholar, the late Father Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P., comments on this Sunday’s Gospel text with these words:
“We must be willing to accept the sudden, unexpected turns of life, even to be at peace with our sinful, suffering moments, to be ready for the unplanned yet heroic demands of sickness and misfortune. When we seem to become the outcast, we are one with those who are coming from the ends of the earth and entering by the narrow door” (from “Biblical Meditations for Ordinary Time, Weeks 10 – 22,” Paulist Press, 1984, p. 387).
Hence, we can pass through the narrow gate of repentance only if we constantly ask ourselves, "What does God want from me today?", never being satisfied with yesterday's answers, but by looking as clearly as possible through the sacrament of the present moment to God who calls us.
The following piece by Protopresbyter Georges V. Florovsky was originally published in 1933 in Church Quarterly Review. Where Florovsky does not translate foreign phrases, we have supplied a translation in brackets for non-specialists.
It is very difficult to give an exact and firm definition of a ‘sect’ or ‘schism’ (I distinguish the theological definition from the simple canonical description), since a sect in the Church is always something contradictory and unnatural, a paradox and an enigma. For the Church is unity, and the whole of her being is in this unity and union, of Christ and in Christ. ‘For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor. 12.13), and the prototype of this unity is the consubstantial Trinity. The measure of this unity is catholicity or communality (sobornost), where the impenetrability of personal consciousness is softened – and even removed – in complete unity of thought and soul, and the multitude of them that believe are of one heart and soul (cf. Acts 4.32). A sect, on the other hand, is separation, solitariness, the loss and denial of communality. The sectarian spirit is the direct opposite of the Church spirit.
The question of the nature and meaning of divisions and sects in the Church was put in all its sharpness as early as the ancient baptismal disputes of the third century. At that time St Cyprian of Carthage developed with fearless consistency a doctrine of the complete absence of grace in every sect, precisely as a sect. The whole meaning and the whole logical stress of his reasoning lay in the conviction that the sacraments are established in the Church. That is to say, they are effected and can be effected only in the Church, in communion and in communality. Therefore every violation of communality and unity in itself leads immediately beyond the last barrier into some decisive ‘outside’. To St Cyprian every schism was a departure out of the Church, out of that sanctified and holy land where alone there rises the baptismal spring, the waters of salvation, quia una est aqua in ecclesia sancta [“because the water in the holy Church is one”] (Epist. lxxi, 2).
The teaching of St Cyprian as to the gracelessness of sects is only the opposite side of his teaching about unity and communality. This is not the place or the moment to recollect and relate Cyprian’s deductions and proofs. Each of us remembers and knows them, is bound to know them, is bound to remember them. They have not lost their force to this day. The historical influence of Cyprian was continuous and powerful. Strictly speaking, in its theological premises the teaching of St Cyprian has never been disproved. Even Augustine was not very far from Cyprian. He argued with the Donatists, not with Cyprian himself, and did not try to refute Cyprian; indeed, his argument was more about practical measures and conclusions. In his reasoning about the unity of the Church, about the unity of love as a necessary and decisive condition for the saving power of the sacraments, Augustine really only repeats Cyprian in new words.
But the practical conclusions drawn by Cyprian have not been accepted and supported by the consciousness of the Church. One may ask how this was possible, if his premisses have been neither disputed nor set aside. There is no need to enter into the details of the Church’s canonical relations with sectarians and heretics; it is an imprecise and an involved enough story. It is sufficient to state that there are occasions when, by her very actions, the Church gives one to understand that the sacraments of sectarians – and even of heretics – are valid, that the sacraments can be celebrated outside the strict canonical limits of the Church. The Church customarily receives adherents from sects – and even from heresies – not by the way of baptism, thereby obviously meaning or supposing that they have already been actually baptized in their sects and heresies. In many cases the Church receives adherents even without chrism, and sometimes also clergy in their existing orders. All the more must this be understood and explained as recognizing the validity or reality of the corresponding rites performed over them ‘outside the Church’.
If sacraments are performed, however, it can only be by virtue of the Holy Spirit, and canonical rules thus establish or reveal a certain mystical paradox. In what she does the Church bears witness to the extension of her mystical territory even beyond her canonical borders: the ‘outside world’ does not begin immediately. St Cyprian was right: The sacraments are accomplished only in the Church. But he defined this ‘in’ hastily and too narrowly. Must we not rather argue in the opposite direction? Where the sacraments are accomplished, there is the Church. St Cyprian started from the silent supposition that the canonical and charismatic limits of the Church invariably coincide, and it is his unproven equation that has not been confirmed by the communal consciousness of the Church.
As a mystical organism, as the sacramental Body of Christ, the Church cannot be adequately described in canonical terms or categories alone. It is impossible to state or discern the true limits of the Church simply by canonical signs or marks. Very often the canonical boundary determines the charismatic boundary as well, and what is bound on earth is bound by an indissoluble bond in heaven. But not always. And still more often, not immediately. In her sacramental, mysterious being the Church surpasses all canonical norms. For that reason a canonical cleavage does not immediately signify mystical impoverishment and desolation. All that Cyprian said about the unity of the Church and the sacraments can be and must be accepted. But it is not necessary to draw with him the final boundary around the body of the Church by means of canonical points alone.
This raises a general question and a doubt. Are these canonical rules and acts subject to theological generalization? Is it possible to ascribe to them theological or dogmatic grounds and motivation? Or do they rather represent only pastoral discretion and forbearance? Ought we not to understand the canonical mode of action as a forbearing silence concerning gracelessness rather than as a recognition of the reality or validity of schismatic rites? And if so, is it then quite prudent to cite or introduce canonical facts into a theological argument?
This objection is connected with the theory of what is called ‘economy’ (oikonomia). In general ecclesiastical usage ‘economy’ is a term of very many meanings. In its broadest sense it embraces and signifies the whole work of salvation (cf. Coloss. 1.25; Eph. 1.10; 3.2, 9). The Vulgate usually translates it by dispensatio. In canonical language ‘economy’ has not become a technical term. It is rather a descriptive word, a kind of general characteristic: ‘economy’ is opposed to ‘strictness’ (akribeia) as a kind of relaxation of Church discipline, an exemption or exception from the ‘strict rule’ (ous strictum) or from the general rule. The governing motive of ‘economy’ is precisely ‘philanthropy’, pastoral discretion, a pedagogical calculation – the deduction is always from practical utility. ‘Economy’ is an aspect of pedagogical rather than canonical consciousness. ‘Economy’ can and should be employed by each individual pastor in his parish, still more by a bishop or council of bishops. For ‘economy’ is pastorship and pastorship is ‘economy’. In this is the whole strength and vitality of the ‘economic’ principle – and also its limitations. Not every question can be asked and answered in terms of ‘economy’.
One must ask, therefore, whether it is possible to treat the question of the baptism of sectarians and heretics as a question only of ‘economy’. Certainly, in so far as it is a question of winning lost souls for Catholic truth, of bringing them to ‘the word of truth’, then every course of action must be ‘economic’; that is, pastoral, compassionate, loving. The pastor must leave the ninety and nine and seek the lost sheep. But for this very reason the need is all the greater for complete sincerity and directness. Not only is unequivocal accuracy, strictness and clarity – in fact, akribeia – required in the sphere of dogma (how otherwise can unity of mind be obtained?), but accuracy and clarity are above all necessary also in mystical diagnosis. Precisely for this reason the question of the rites of sectarians and heretics must be asked and answered in terms of the strictest akribeia. For here it is not so much a quaestio iuris [“question of law”] as a quaestio facti [“question of fact”], and indeed of mystical fact, of sacramental reality. It is not a matter of ‘recognition’ so much as of diagnosis; it is necessary to identify and to discern mystical realities.
Least of all is the application of ‘economy’ to such a question compatible with the radical standpoint of St Cyprian. If beyond the canonical limits of the Church the wilderness without grace begins immediately, if schismatics have not been baptized and still abide in the darkness that precedes baptism, then perfect clarity, strictness, and firmness are even more indispensable in the acts and judgements of the Church. Here no ‘forbearance’ is appropriate or even possible; no concessions are permissible. Is it in fact conceivable that the Church should receive sectarians or heretics into her own body not by way of baptism simply in order thereby to make their decisive step easy? This would certainly be a very rash and dangerous complaisance. Instead, it would be connivance with human weakness, self-love, and lack of faith, a connivance all the more dangerous in that it creates the appearance of a recognition by the Church that schismatic sacraments and rites are valid, not only in the minds of schismatics or people from outside, but in the consciousness of the majority of people in the Church and even of its leaders.
Moreover, this mode of action is applied because it creates this appearance. If in fact the Church were fully convinced that in the sects and heresies baptism is not accomplished, to what end would she reunite schismatics without baptism? Surely not in order simply to save them by this step from false shame in the open confession that they have not been baptized. Can such a motive be considered honorable, convincing, and of good repute? Can it benefit the newcomers to reunite them through ambiguity and suppression of truth? To the reasonable question whether it would not be possible by analogy to unite Jews and Moslems to the Church ‘by economy’ and without baptism Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) replied with complete candor: ‘Ah, but all such neophytes – and even those baptized in the name of Montanus and Priscilla – would not themselves claim to enter the Church without immersion and the utterance of the words, ‘In the name of the Father, etc.’ Such a claim could only be advanced through a confused understanding of the Church’s grace by those sectarians and schismatics whose baptism, worship and hierarchical system differ little externally from those of the Church. It would be very insulting to them, on their turning to the Church, to have to sit on the same seat with heathens and Jews. For that reason the Church, indulging their weakness, has not performed over them the external act of baptism, but has given them this grace in the second sacrament’ (Faith and Reason, 1916, 8-9, pp.887-8).
From the Metropolitan Anthony’s argument common sense would draw precisely the opposite conclusion. In order to lead weak and unreasoning ‘neophytes’ to the ‘clear understanding of the Church’s grace’ which they lack, it would be all the more necessary and appropriate to perform over them the external act of baptism, instead of giving them, and many others, by a feigned accommodation to their ‘susceptibilities’, not only an excuse but a ground to continue deceiving themselves through the equivocal fact that their ‘baptism, worship and hierarchical system differ in little externally from those of the Church.’
One may ask who gave the Church this right not merely to change, but simply to abolish the external act of baptism, performing it in such cases only mentally, by implication or by intention at the celebration of the ‘second sacrament’ (i.e. chrismation) over the unbaptized. Admittedly, in special and exceptional cases the ‘external act’, the ‘form’, may indeed be abolished; such is the martyr’s baptism in blood, or even the so-called baptisma flaminis [“baptism of flame”]. But this is admissible only in casu necessitatis [“the case of necessity”]. Moreover, there can hardly be any analogy between these cases and a systematic connivance in another’s sensitiveness and self-deception. If ‘economy’ is pastoral discretion conducive to the advantage and salvation of human souls, then in such a case one could only speak of ‘economy in reverse’. It would be a deliberate retrogression into equivocation and obscurity for the sake of purely external success, since the internal enchurchment of ‘ineophytes’ cannot take place with such concealment. It is scarcely possible to impute to the Church such a perverse and crafty intention. And in any case the practical result of this ‘economy’ must be considered utterly unexpected. For in the Church herself the conviction has arisen among the majority that sacraments are performed even among schismatics, that even in the sects there is a valid, although forbidden, hierarchy. The true intention of the Church in her acts and rules would appear to be too difficult to discern, and from this point of view as well the ‘economic’ explanation of these rules cannot be regarded as convincing.
The ‘economic’ explanation raises even greater difficulties when we consider its general theological premises. One can scarcely ascribe to the Church the power and the right, as it were, to convert the ‘has-not-been’ into the ‘has-been’, to change the meaningless into the valid, as Professor Diovuniotis expresses it (Church Quarterly Review, No.231 [April 1931], p.97), ‘in the order of economy.’ This would give a particular sharpness to the question whether it is possible to receive schismatic clergy ‘in their existing orders.’ In the Russian Church adherents from Roman Catholicism or from the Nestorians, etc., are received into communion ‘through recantation of heresy’, that is, through the sacrament of repentance. Clergy are given absolution by a bishop and thereby, the inhibition lying on a schismatic cleric is removed. One asks whether it is conceivable that in this delivery and absolution from sin there is also accomplished silently – and even secretly – baptism, confirmation, ordination as deacon or priest, sometimes even consecration as bishop, without any ‘form’ or clear and distinctive ‘external act’ which might enable us to notice and consider precisely what sacraments are being performed.
Here there is a double equivocation, both from the standpoint of motive and from the standpoint of the fact itself. Can one, in short, celebrate a sacrament by virtue of ‘intention’ alone and without some visible act? Of course not. Not because there belongs to the ‘form’ some self-sufficient or ‘magic’ effect, but precisely because in the celebration of a sacrament the ‘external act’ and the pouring-forth of grace are in substance indivisible and inseparable. Certainly, the Church is the ‘steward of grace’ and to her is given power to preserve and teach these gifts of grace. But the power of the Church does not extend to the very foundations of Christian existence. It is impossible to conceive that the Church might have the right, ‘in the order of economy’, to admit to the priestly function without ordination the clergy of schismatic confessions, even of those that have not preserved the ‘apostolic succession’, while remedying not only all defects but a complete lack of grace while granting power and recognition by means of an unexpressed ‘intention’.
In such an interpretation the Church’s whole sacramental system becomes too soft and elastic. Khomiakov, too, was not sufficiently careful, when, in defending the new Greek practice of receiving reunited Latins through baptism, he wrote to Palmer that ‘all sacraments are completed only in the bosom of the true Church and it matters not whether they be completed in one form or another. Reconciliation (with the Church) renovates the sacraments or completes them, giving a full and Orthodox meaning to the rite that was before either insufficient or heterodox, and the repetition of the preceding sacraments is virtually contained in the rite or fact of reconciliation. Therefore, the visible repetition of baptism or confirmation, though unnecessary, cannot be considered as erroneous, and establishes only a ritual difference without any difference of opinion’ (Russia and the English Church, ch. vi, p.62). This is impossible. The ‘repetition’ of a sacrament is not only superfluous but impermissible. If there was no sacrament and what was previously performed was an imperfect, heretical rite, then the sacrament must be accomplished for the first time – and with complete sincerity and candor. In any case, the Catholic sacraments are not just ‘rites’ and it is not possible to treat the external aspect of a sacramental celebration with such disciplinary relativism.
The ‘economic’ interpretation of the canons might be probable and convincing, but only in the presence of direct and perfectly clear proofs, whereas it is generally supported by indirect data and most often by indirect intentions and conclusions. The ‘economic’ interpretation is not the teaching of the Church. It is only a private ‘theological opinion’, very late and very controversial, which arose in a period of theological confusion and decadence in a hasty endeavor to dissociate oneself as sharply as possible from Roman theology.
Roman theology admits and acknowledges that there remains in sects a valid hierarchy and even, in a certain sense, the ‘apostolic succession’, so that under certain conditions sacraments may be accomplished – and actually are accomplished – among schismatics and even among heretics. The basic premises of this sacramental theology have already been established with sufficient definition by St Augustine, and the Orthodox theologian has every reason to take the theology of Augustine into account in his doctrinal synthesis.
The first thing to notice in Augustine is the organic way in which he relates the question of the validity of sacraments to the doctrine of the Church. The reality of the sacraments celebrated by schismatics signifies for Augustine the continuation of their links with the Church. He directly affirms that in the sacraments of sectarians the Church is active: some she engenders of herself, others she engenders outside herself, of her maid-servant, and schismatic baptism is valid for this very reason, that it is performed by the Church (de bapt. i, 15, 23). What is valid in the sects is that which is in them from the Church, that which remains with them as their portion of the sacred inner core of the Church, that through which they are with the Church. In quibusdam rebus nobiscum sunt [“In some of the things we are”].
The unity of the Church is based on a twofold bond – the ‘unity of the Spirit’ and the ‘bond of peace’ (cf. Eph. 4.3). In sects and schisms the ‘bond of peace’ is broken and torn, but the ‘unity of the Spirit’ in the sacraments is not brought to an end. This is the unique paradox of sectarian existence: the sect remains united with the Church in the grace of the sacraments, and this becomes a condemnation once love and communal mutuality have withered and died.
With this is connected St Augustine’s second basic distinction, the distinction between the ‘validity’ or ‘reality’ of the sacraments and their ‘efficacy’. The sacraments of schismatics are valid; that is, they genuinely are sacraments, but they are not efficacious by virtue of schism and division. For in sects and schisms love withers, and without love salvation is impossible. There are two sides to salvation: the objective action of God’s grace, and man’s subjective effort or fidelity. The holy and sanctifying Spirit still breathes in the sects, but in the stubbornness and powerlessness of schism healing is not accomplished. It is untrue to say that in schismatic rites nothing is accomplished, for, if they are considered to be only empty acts and words, deprived of grace, by the same token not only are they empty, they are converted into a profanation, a sinister counterfeit. If the rites of schismatics are not sacraments, then they are a blasphemous caricature, and in that case neither ‘economic’ suppression of facts nor ‘economic’ glossing over of sin is possible. The sacramental rite cannot be only a rite, empty but innocent. The sacrament is accomplished in reality.
Nevertheless it is impossible, Augustine argues, to say that in the sects the sacraments are of avail, are efficacious. The sacraments are not magic acts. Indeed, the Eucharist itself may also be taken ‘unto judgement and condemnation’, but this does not refute the reality or ‘validity’ of the Eucharist. The same may be said of baptism: baptismal grace must be renewed in unceasing effort and service, otherwise it becomes ‘inefficacious’. From this point of view St Gregory of Nyssa attacked with great energy the practice of postponing baptism to the hour of death, or at least to advanced years, in order to avoid pollution of the baptismal robe. He transfers the emphasis. Baptism is not just the end of sinful existence, rather it is the beginning of everything. Baptismal grace is not just the remission of sins, but a gift or pledge. His name may be entered in the army list, but the honor of a soldier lies in his service, not in his calling alone. What does baptism mean without spiritual deeds?
Augustine wishes to say the same thing in his distinction between ‘character’ and ‘grace’. In any case, there rests on everyone baptized a ‘sign’ or ‘seal’, even if he falls away and departs, and each will be tried concerning this ‘sign’ or ‘pledge’ in the Day of Judgement. The baptized are distinguished from the unbaptized even when baptismal grace has not flowered in their works and deeds, even when they have corrupted and wasted their whole life. That is the ineffaceable consequence of the divine touch. This clear distinction between the two inseparable factors of sacramental existence, divine grace and human love, is characteristic of the whole sacramental theology of St Augustine. The sacraments are accomplished by grace and not by love, yet man is saved in freedom and not in compulsion, and for that reason grace somehow does not burn with a life-giving flame outside communality and love.
One thing remains obscure. How does the activity of the Spirit continue beyond the canonical borders of the Church? What is the validity of sacraments without communion, of stolen garments, sacraments in the hands of usurpers? Recent Roman theology answers that question by the doctrine of the validity of the sacraments ex opere operato [“operating by the work itself”]. In St Augustine this distinction does not exist, but he understood the validity of sacraments performed outside canonical unity in the same sense. In fact ex opere operato points to the independence of the sacrament from the personal action of the minister. The Church performs the sacrament and, in her, Christ the high priest. The sacraments are performed by the prayer and activity of the Church, ex opere orantis et operantis ecclesiae [this phrase is translated by the previous clause, “performed by the prayer and activity of the Church”]. It is in this sense that the doctrine of validity ex opere operato, must be accepted. For Augustine it was not so important that the sacraments of the schismatics are ‘unlawful’ or ‘illicit’ (illicita); much more important is the fact that schism is a dissipation of love. But the love of God can overcome the failure of love in man. In the sects themselves – and even among the heretics – the Church continues to perform her saving and sanctifying work. It may not follow, perhaps, that we should say that schismatics are still in the Church. In any case this would not be precise and sounds equivocal. It would be truer to say that the Church continues to work in the schisms in expectation of that mysterious hour when the stubborn heart will be melted in the warmth of God’s prevenient grace, when the will and thirst for communality and unity will finally burst into flame. The ‘validity’ of sacraments among schismatics is the mysterious guarantee of their return to Catholic plenitude and unity.
The sacramental theology of St Augustine was not received by the Eastern Church in antiquity nor by Byzantine theology, but not because they saw in it something alien or superfluous. Augustine was simply not very well known in the East. In modern times the doctrine of the sacraments has not infrequently been expounded in the Orthodox East, and in Russia, on a Roman model, but there has not yet been a creative appropriation of Augustine’s conception.
Contemporary Orthodox theology must express and explain the traditional canonical practice of the Church in relation to heretics and schismatics on the basis of those general premises which have been established by Augustine.
It is necessary to hold firmly in mind that in asserting the ‘validity’ of the sacraments and of the hierarchy itself in the sects, St Augustine in no way relaxed or removed the boundary dividing sect and communality. This is not so much a canonical as a spiritual boundary: communal love in the Church and separatism and alienation in the schism. For Augustine this was the boundary of salvation, since grace operates outside communality but does not save. (It is appropriate to note that here, too, Augustine closely follows Cyprian, who asserted that except in the Church even martyrdom for Christ does not avail.) For this reason, despite all the ‘reality’ and ‘validity’ of a schismatic hierarchy, it is impossible to speak in a strict sense of the retention of the ‘apostolic succession’ beyond the limits of canonical communality. This question has been investigated exhaustively and with great insight in the remarkable article of the late C.G. Turner, ‘The Apostolic Succession’, in Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, edited by H.B. Swete (1918).
From this it follows without a doubt that the so-called ‘branch’ theory is unacceptable. This theory depicts the cleavages of the Christian world in too complacent and comfortable a manner. The onlooker may not be able immediately to discern the schismatic ‘branches’ from the Catholic trunk. In its essence, moreover, a schism is not just a branch. It is also the will for schism. It is the mysterious and even enigmatic sphere beyond the canonical limits of the Church, where the sacraments are still celebrated and where hearts often still burn in faith, in love and in works. We must admit this, but we must remember that the limit is real, that unity does not exist. Khomiakov, it seems, was speaking of this when he said: ‘Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgement of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5.12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who have excluded themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the Great Day’ (Russia and the English Church, ch. xxiii, p.194).
In the same sense Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow decided to speak of Churches which were ‘not purely true’:
Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men’ ( Conversation between a Seeker and a Believer Concerning the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greco-Russian Church, Moscow 1831, pp.27-29).
‘You expect now that I should give judgement concerning the other half of present Christianity,’ the Metropolitan said in the concluding conversation,
but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death (ibid. , p.135).
These statements of Metropolitan Philaret are a beginning only. Not everything in them is clearly and fully expressed. But the question is truly put. There are many bonds, still not broken, whereby the schisms are held together in a certain unity with the Church. The whole of our attention and our will must be concentrated and directed towards removing the stubbornness of dissension. ‘We seek not conquest,’ says St Gregory of Nazianzen, ‘but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart.’
by Fr Thomas McGovern my source: Christendon Awake! It is not surprising that the recent advance in the cause of beatification John Henry Newman has generated interest in the spirituality of the great English cardinal.[1] While Newman's biographers have studied in detail many aspects of his personality and intellectual qualities, only limited attention would seem to have been given to his reputation for holiness and to the devotional aspects of his works. The Holy Father has emphasised Newman's great love for the Church. [2] One could also refer to his devotion to the Passion of Christ, to his love for the martyrs of the nascent Church, for the Fathers and the saints, and to his devotion to the guardian angels. In this article I will draw attention to some aspects of his devotion to Our Lady, as witnessed primarily by his own writings on this topic. Beginnings In 1826 John Henry Newman was appointed a tutor at Oriel College, Oxford. About the same time Hurrell Froude, a High Church Anglican with Roman Catholic sympathies, was elected a Fellow of the same college. The two became close friends, and it was from Froude that Newman first learned to have devotion to the Blessed Virgin. [3] That this devotion progressed rapidly, and was based on a solid doctrinal foundation, is clear from a sermon he gave on the Feast of the Annunciation, 1832. The following extract from that sermon shows how much Newman the Anglican honoured the Mother of God:
'In her the destinies of the world were to be reversed, and the serpent's head bruised. On her was bestowed the greatest honour ever put upon any individual of our fallen race... But further, she is doubtless to be accounted blessed and favoured in herself, as well as in the benefits she has done us. Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom he was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate him, to instruct him day by day, as he grew in wisdom and in stature?' [4]
After Froude's death in 1836, Newman was given his Roman Breviary. He began to recite it daily, but omitted the prayers directly invoking Our Lady, as this practice was against the teaching of the Church of England. [5] Although he had often been accused of 'teaching popery' during the Oxford Movement in the 1830's, Newman's perception of the Catholic Church at that time was still a very defective one. In Tract 15 he wrote of Catholicism: 'their communion is infected with heresy; we are bound to flee it as a pestilence'. He complained of her 'lying wonders', including statues of Our Lady. [6] Professor C. W. Russell of Maynooth, who took a keen interest in Newman's progress towards the faith, wrote him in 1841, after the publication of Tract 90 on the Thirty Nine Articles, explaining that his interpretation of Catholic doctrine on Transubstantiation was deficient. Newman replied graciously, saying he effectively accepted this doctrine but that 'the extreme honours' paid to our Lady was still a big stumbling block to his acceptance of Catholic doctrine. Russell assured Newman that if he had a fuller knowledge of Church teaching on the Blessed Virgin, his fears and reservations would disappear, pointing out to him how the Rosary was but 'a series of meditations on the Incarnation, Passion and Glory of our Redeemer', [8] and in no way derogated from the worship due to God alone. To assure him that there was no ground for the opinion which accused Rome of excessive devotion to Mary, in October 1842 Russell sent Newman a copy of St Alphonsus Liguori's book of homilies on Our Lady. The Maynooth professor commented that, although he could hardly think of anyone who spoke more strongly about the prerogatives of the Mother of God, he hoped Newman would see from a reading of these homilies how he had been misled by appearances into thinking that the Catholic Church gave too much honour to the Blessed Virgin at the expense of the Holy Trinity. [9] It is interesting to note that when Newman came to write his celebrated Apologia pro Vita Sua, almost twenty years later, he recalled with gratitude the very significant part played by Dr Russell in his reception into the Church: 'He had, perhaps, more to do with my conversion than anyone else'. [10]One of the most important factors in Russell's contribution to Newman's conversion was his clarification of the Catholic position in relation to devotion to the Blessed Virgin. [11] Essay on Development of Doctrine As Newman drew closer to Rome, he felt the need to justify rationally to himself the differences, as he saw it, between the doctrine of the primitive Church and that professed by the Catholic Church of his time. This was the origin of one of Newman's greatest theological works, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. He finished it in September 1845, and was received into the Church a few days later, on October 8. [12] The sixth of Newman's seven criteria, outlined in the Essay, for assessing the authenticity of a doctrinal development, reads as follows:
'A true development may be described as one which is conservative of the course of antecedent developments, being really those antecedents and something besides them: it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds'. [13]
This is the context in which Newman reflects on the nature and scope of Marian devotion shortly before he took the final step to enter the Church. He poses the question whether the honours paid to Our Lady, which have grown out of devotion to her Son, do not in fact tend to weaken that devotion to Christ. A related question also presented itself: was it possible so to exalt a creature without withdrawing one's heart from the Creator?[14] Newman replied that the issue was to a large extent answered by the Fathers of Ephesus when they declared Our Lady to be the Theotokos, or Mother of God, 'in order to protect the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to preserve the faith of Catholics from a specious humanitarianism'. [15] And he goes on to make the telling point that a survey of religious practice in Europe confirmed
'that it is not those religious Communions which are characterised by devotion to the Blessed Virgin that have ceased to adore her Eternal Son, but those very bodies which have renounced devotion to her'. [16]
In the Apologia Newman explains how in the process of conversion he had gradually come to see how 'the Catholic Church allows no image of any sort, material or immaterial, no dogmatic symbol, no rite, no sacrament, no saint, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, to come between the soul and its Creator'. [17] And so in coming to the Church, he was able to state with full conviction: 'I had a true devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in whose College I lived, whose Altar I served, and whose Immaculate Purity I had in one of my earliest sermons made much of'. [18] Catholic Sermons A few years after his conversion, Newman published his Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations. [19] This volume contains two homilies on Our Lady of great theological richness. In the first of these he deals with (i) the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God and her role as chief witness to the Incarnation, and (ii) her intercessory power. [20] The second homily focuses on the Assumption. [21] We will now examine each of these doctrines in turn as seen from Newman's point of view. For Newman, confessing that Mary is Deipara, or Bearer of God, is a doctrine which copper fastens St John's affirmation that 'the Word became flesh' (Jn 1:14), and protects it from any evasiveness or any possible misinterpretation:
'The Church and Satan agreed together in this, that Son and Mother went together; and the experience of three centuries has confirmed their testimony, for Catholics who have honoured the Mother, still worship the Son, while Protestants, who now have ceased to confess the Son, began then by scoffing at the Mother'. [22]
While Newman's mariology emphasises the particular privileges of the Mother of God, at the same time it is always firmly anchored in her role as chief witness to the Incarnation. The Incarnation had brought about the possibility of a new, more intimate relationship with God; 'as soon as it was understood that the incarnate God had a mother', a new focus of devotion was opened up to mankind. 'To her belongs, as being a creature', Newman tells us, 'a natural claim on our sympathy and familiarity, in that she is nothing else than our fellow. She is our pride - in the poet's words, "our tainted nature's solitary boast". We look at her without any fear, any remorse, any consciousness that she is able to read us, judge us, punish us. Our heart yearns towards that pure Virgin, that gentle Mother, and our congratulations follow her, as she rises from Nazareth and Ephesus, through the choir of angels, to the throne on high, so weak, yet so strong; so delicate, yet so glorious; so modest, yet so mighty. She has sketched for us her own portrait in the Magnificat'. [23] Professor Leo Scheffczyk, the German theologian, takes up the point Newman raised about Mary as witness to the Incarnation. 'One cannot be surprised', he says, 'that the specifically Catholic faith regresses and atrophies precisely where the understanding of Mary as the highest witness to the Incarnation of God dwindles'. [24] It is because of this latter perception that she holds a special place in salvation history. Our Lady's Intercession When Newman speaks about Our Lady's intercessory role, he is conscious that he is dealing with a sensitive issue from the point of view of his Anglican friends. To put this prerogative of the Blessed Virgin into perspective, he shows, by means of an analysis relating to Abraham, Job and Moses in the Old Testament, and to Philip and Andrew in the New, how personal intercession was part of the economy of salvation sanctioned by God. If this is so, he asks, how could there be anything strange about the Mother having influence with the Son: 'If we have faith to admit the Incarnation itself, we must admit it in its fullness; why then should we start at the gracious appointments which arise out of it, or are necessary to it, or are included in it? If the Creator comes on earth in the form of a servant and a creature, why may not His Mother, on the other hand, rise to be the Queen of Heaven, and be clothed with the sun, and have the moon under her feet?'. [25] Newman finds support for the doctrine of the intercessory power of Mary in two other truths of the faith: firstly that, as the Council of Trent affirms, it is good and useful to invoke the saints and to have recourse to their prayers; and secondly that the Blessed Virgin is singularly loved by her son Jesus Christ. It is not that Newman is trying to provide intellectual proof of this and other marian doctrines for those who might be reluctant to accept them; ultimately we have to assent to them on the authority of the Church. Rather his purpose is to show the harmony of what the Church teaches, which is no more than 'what the Apostles committed to her in every time and place'. [26] In saying this Newman is here anticipating one of the ideas articulated by Vatican II in the constitution on Divine Revelation, namely, that the Church is not above Revelation, but is its servant; that it can teach no more than what it has already received through apostolic tradition. [27] The Assumption One of the aspects of divine revelation which impressed itself on Newman's mind was its consistency, the fact that all of its truths hang together. By means of the principle of the analogy of faith, what is taught now fits into what has already been received, a principle which, he affirms, is exemplified in many different ways in the structure and the history of doctrine. This principle he applies particularly to marian doctrines, especially to the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven. [28] It is a truth which he says is received on the belief of ages, but even from a rational point of view the very fittingness of it recommends it strongly. Mary's assumption into heaven is, for Newman, in perfect harmony with the other truths of Revelation. It is also perfectly fitting that she, who had provided God with the elements of his human body, should not know death and decay. 'Who can conceive', he asks, 'that that virginal frame, which never sinned, was to undergo the death of a sinner? Why should she share the curse of Adam, who had no share in his fall?' [29] It is in harmony with the substance of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and without it, Newman avers, Catholic doctrine would in some way be incomplete. Defence of Mary In 1865 Newman's former colleague at Oxford, E.B. Pusey, published An Eirenicon, [31] in which he affirmed that exaggerated Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin was one of the chief obstacles to church unity. Newman considered Pusey's case unfair and, in 1866, he published a reply: Letter to Pusey on the occasion of his Eirenicon. His purpose in this letter is to demonstrate that the patristic doctrine on Our Lady is essentially the same as that held by Catholics of his day. He points out to Pusey that he cannot condemn the Catholic doctrine on Our Lady without condemning also the doctrine of the Early Fathers. 'The line cannot logically be drawn', he says, 'between the teaching of the Fathers concerning the Blessed Virgin and our own'. [32] He is categoric about the authority he grants to the Fathers:
'I am not ashamed still to take my stand upon the Fathers, and do not mean to budge... The Fathers made me a Catholic... Though I hold, as you know, a process of development in Apostolic truth as time goes on, such development does not supercede the Fathers, but explains and completes them. And, in particular, as regards our teaching concerning the Blessed Virgin, with the Fathers I am content'. [33]
Newman's objective is to show that Catholic devotion to Our Lady is a logical consequence of Catholic marian teaching. He builds his case around a consideration of the following doctrines: Mary as the Second Eve, and the consequences this has for her dignity; and Our Lady as the Theotokos. He begins by distinguishing clearly between belief and devotion; belief about Our Lady, and devotion to her. What people have believed about Our Lady has been in substance one and the same since the beginning; marian devotion, however, has increased with the years and has varied from one place to another. [34] Mary as the Second Eve In his exposition of the Catholic doctrine about Mary in the letter to Pusey, Newman's point of departure is the Fathers' teaching on Our Lady as the Second Eve. Eve, who was 'mother of all the living', played an important role in the fall of the human race. She was an 'active cause' of it and, in the sentence pronounced on her, is recognised 'as a real agent in the temptation and its issue'. The text of Genesis, 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed' (3:15) has always been interpreted as the promise of a future Redeemer. The seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate and the Woman whose seed or son He is, is the Virgin Mary. Newman goes on to demonstrate how this was the interpretation of the Fathers, who draw out from it the parallel between Mary and Eve. [35] He draws on the witness of three of the early Fathers - St. Justin, St Irenaeus and Tertullian - to illustrate this doctrine, and makes the significant point that these writers do not speak of the Blessed Virgin merely as the physical instrument of Our Lord's incarnation, 'but as an intelligent and responsible cause of it'. [36]As a consequence of faith and obedience Mary became the Mother of the Redeemer; Eve by her failure in these two virtues brought about the fall of the human race. As Eve was a cause of ruin for all, so Mary was a cause of salvation for all; just as Eve freely co-operated in bringing about a great evil, Mary co-operated with grace in achieving a much greater good. Newman makes a very convincing case to show that this was the received doctrine of these second century Fathers in both the East and the West, and that its origin is the johannine tradition about Our Lady. [37] Our Lady's Dignity From this patristic teaching on the role of the Blessed Virgin in salvation history, Newman draws a particular inference. Mary's dignity, he affirms, arises from her association with the mysteries of the Redemption and her present state of blessedness in heaven. She anticipated that veneration which future generations would show her when, in response to Elizabeth's greeting, she exclaimed in her hymn of thanksgiving to God, 'all generations shall call me blessed'. Newman finds the scriptural basis for the dignity of the Blessed Virgin in the vision of the Woman and Child in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse:
'And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars' (12:1-2).
In support of his position, he points out that the Virgin with the Child is not just a modern idea; it is a representation which occurs again and again in the catacombs: 'Mary is there drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, and she with hands extended in prayer, He with His hand in the attitude of blessing. No representation', Newman adds, 'can more forcibly convey the doctrine of the high dignity of the Mother, and, I will add, of her influence with the Son'. [38] It is only natural that we should go to the author of the Apocalypse to teach us about Mary, the Beloved Disciple to whose care she was committed by our Lord on the Cross, and with whom, tradition tells us, she lived at Ephesus until the end of her earthly sojourn. Our Lady as Theotokos Our Lady's divine maternity is for Newman the highest of all her prerogatives: 'The Blessed Virgin is Theotokos, Deipara, or Mother of God; and this word, when thus used, carries with it no admixture of rhetoric, no taint of extravagant affection - it has nothing else but a well-weighed, grave, dogmatic sense, which corresponds and is adequate to its sound. It intends to express that God is her Son, as truly as any one of us is the son of his own mother'. [39] Newman reminds us that we first come across this title of Theotokos in the writings of Origen (185-254 AD), who witnesses that it was in use before his time. The idea, if not the term, is explicit in writers of the apostolic and sub-apostolic age. Thus Ignatius of Antioch who was martyred in 106 AD: 'Our God was carried in the womb of Mary'. It was not long before the doctrine was transmitted into devotion. Each successive insult offered her by individual heretics drew out more fully the deep individual affection with which Mary was regarded by the Christian faithful. Devotion to Mary Since for Newman Catholic doctrine on Mary is substantially that of the Fathers, he does not see how the high Anglicans, who also claim to draw their marian doctrine from patristic sources, can have any basis for criticising Roman Catholic teaching on Our Lady. However, he does allow that some Catholic expressions of devotion to Our Lady could be misinterpreted. In a delightful passage, in which he analyses with great sensitivity the affective aspect of religious belief, he makes the following point: 'What mother, what husband or wife, what youth or maiden in love, but says a thousand foolish things, in the way of endearment, which the speaker would be sorry for strangers to hear; yet they are not on that account unwelcome to the parties to whom they are addressed. Sometimes by bad luck they are written down, sometimes they get into the newspapers; and what might be even graceful, when it was fresh from the heart, and interpreted by the voice and the countenance, presents but a melancholy exhibition when served up cold for the public eye. So it is with devotional feelings. Burning thoughts and words are as open to criticism as they are beyond it. What is abstractedly extravagant, may in particular persons be becoming and beautiful, and only fall under blame when it is found in others who imitate them. When it is formalised into meditations and exercises, it is as repulsive as love-letters in a police report'. [40] Logic is a blunt instrument when applied to devotion; it can abuse it and manhandle it. And thus Newman is very reluctant to get involved in public debate about something which is so personal and intimate as devotion to the Mother of God. He only ventures to do so because he feels called on to defend it. Thus he can affirm that:
'when once we have mastered the idea, that Mary bore, suckled, and handled the Eternal in the form of a child, what limit is conceivable to the rush and flood of thoughts which such a doctrine involves? What awe and surprise must attend upon the knowledge, that a creature has been brought so close to the Divine Essence'. [41]
While he recognises that there may be a basis for some of Pusey's comments, Newman is not slow to point out to him that his approach to Our Lady in the Eirenicon is seriously deficient: 'Have you not been touching us on a very tender point in a very rude way? Is it not the effect of what you have said to expose her to scorn and obloquy, who is dearer to us than any other creature? Have you even hinted that our love for her is anything else than an abuse? Have you thrown her one kind word yourself all through your book? I trust so, but I have not lighted upon one'. [42] However, Newman finishes off his reposte to Pusey on a kindly note:
'May that bright and gentle Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, overcome you with her sweetness, and revenge herself on her foes by interceding effectually for their conversion!'. [43]
Marian Advocations Newman's writing on the dogmatic truths about our Lady such as her divine maternity, her assumption and her role as intercessor, give us a perspective on the deep theological foundations of his marian doctrine. This teaching, as we have seen, was grounded on the faith of the early Fathers, to which he added his own not inconsiderable insights. However, to get a broader perspective on his personal love for the Blessed Virgin we need to take a closer look at some of his devotional writings about the Mother of God. In 1894, four years after his death, Newman's Meditations and Devotions was published. This volume contains some moving commentaries on several of our Lady's titles from the Litany of Loreto. They are a testimony to his devotion to Mary, which is at once tender and profound, though without any trace of sentimentality. The central decoration in the dome of the apse of Newman's University Church in Dublin is a painting of Mary as Sedes Sapientiae. Obviously he considered that this was a very appropriate advocation under which to draw the students at his newly founded university to a deeper Marian devotion. He explains that Mary had this title because the Son of God, who in Scripture is called the Word of the Wisdom of God,
'once dwelt in her, and then after his birth of her, was carried in her arms and seated in her lap in his first years. Thus, being, as it were, the human throne of him who reigns in heaven, she is called the Seat of Wisdom'.
But he goes on to explain that Mary was not just the physical throne of the Wisdom of God. Because of her unique sanctity and the clarity of her intellect, her intercourse with Jesus during those thirty years of hidden life was so profound that as a consequence her knowledge of creation, the world, and the things of God must have excelled that of the greatest philosophers and theologians. [44] Why, he asks, is May traditionally the month of special devotion to our Lady? He offers several reasons why this should be so. Apart from the fact that climatically it is the month of promise and hope, from the perspective of the liturgy it is the most festive and joyous part of the year. The whole of May commonly falls within the Easter season and normally boasts of the feasts of the Ascension and Pentecost. It is a time then when there are frequent alleluias because of the resurrection of Christ. Because Mary is the first of God's creatures, the most acceptable child of God, it is fitting, Newman reasons, that his month should be hers in which we especially rejoice 'in our redemption and sanctification in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit'. [45] Rosary Due to failing sight, in the last years of his life Newman was unable to read the Breviary and substituted it with the Rosary. He had always been deeply attached to saying the daily Office, even as an Anglican, so we can imagine how much the Rosary came to mean for him when he could say that it more than made up for the Breviary. Indeed, the ageing Cardinal used to comment that the Rosary was the most beautiful of all devotions, and that it contained all in itself. His understanding of the significance of the Rosary in Christian piety is best explained by himself:
'And so in his mercy he has given us a revelation of himself by coming amongst us, to be one of ourselves, with all the relations and qualities of humanity, to gain us over. He came down from heaven and dwelt amongst us, and died for us. All these things are in the Creed, which contains the chief things that he has revealed to us about himself. Now the great power of the Rosary lies in this, that it makes the Creed into a prayer; of course the Creed is in some sense a prayer and a great act of homage to God; but the Rosary gives us the great truths of his life and death to meditate upon, and brings them nearer to our hearts. And so we contemplate all the great mysteries of his life and his birth in the manger; and so too the mysteries of his suffering and his glorified life. But even Christians, with all their knowledge of God, have usually more awe than love of him, and the special virtue of the Rosary lies in the special way in which it looks at these mysteries; for with all our thoughts of him are mingled thoughts of his Mother, and in the relations between Mother and Son we have set before us the Holy Family, the home in which God lived. Now the family is, evenly humanly considered, a sacred thing; how much more the family bound together by supernatural ties, and, above all, that in which God dwelt with his Blessed Mother. This is what I should most wish you to remember in future years'. [46]
One of the first things that one notices when visiting an Orthodox Church or the home of an Orthodox Christian is the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Everywhere that one looks, one sees icons of the Blessed Virgin. Her icons are on the iconostasis, ceiling and walls of the Church and in the homes of the faithful. Orthodox Christians frequently mention her name in hymns and prayers and request her intercession at every important moment of their lives. The Orthodox devotion to the Theotokos is not merely a matter of popular piety. It is also an expression of the central teaching of the Orthodox Church, the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ.
Significantly, the Orthodox Church has transmitted its teaching concerning Mary through devotional and liturgical texts rather than through theological essays or dogmatic declarations. This shows how Eastern Orthodox Christians preserve and transmit their deepest-held beliefs. Fr. John Meyendorff wrote:
Through the liturgy, a Byzantine recognized and experienced his membership in the Body of Christ. While a Western Christian generally checked his faith against eternal authority (the magisterium or the Bible), the Byzantine Christian considered the liturgy both a source and an expression of his theology … The liturgy maintained the Church’s identity and continuity in the midst of a changing world.
Although Eastern Orthodox Christians hold the Holy Scriptures in very high regard and consider them divinely inspired, they look beyond the sacred texts to the totality of the life of the Church as expressed in the Holy Tradition of the Church. The words used during prayer and worship are a very important and also very personal manifestation of this Holy Tradition. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “In early times the Church knew full well that the lex credendi (rule of faith) and the lex orandi (rule of prayer) were inseparable and that they mutually substantiated each other — that, in the words of St. Irenaeus, ‘our teaching is in harmony with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our teaching.’” Orthodox theologians do not draw a sharp distinction between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition or between written and unwritten Tradition. Instead, they consider the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and those expressed by the prayers of the Church, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of ancient and modern theologians as manifestations of the same Holy Tradition. Orthodox Christians believe that, throughout the centuries, the Holy Spirit has led the Church to preserve the teachings of Christ and His Apostles through the life of the Church. St. Basil the Great wrote:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching, others we have received delivered to us ‘in a mystery’ by the traditions of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.
The role of liturgy in transmitting teachings concerning Mary illustrates a very important aspect of the Orthodox understanding of the Church. Orthodox Christians believe that the Church is first and foremost a Eucharistic or worshipping assembly. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “The Eucharist, we repeat, is not ‘one of the sacraments’ or one of the services, but the very manifestation and fulfillment of the Church in all her power, sanctity and fullness.” Thus, from an Orthodox point of view, liturgy and worship are not just one expression of the life of the Church to Orthodox. They are the very essence of the Church. To Orthodox Christians, everything flows from the Eucharist and the worship of the Church. Even charitable and social works are a means to manifest to the world the presence of Christ that the faithful experience during the Divine Liturgy.
The place of liturgical texts in expressing the teachings of the Church concerning the Theotokos, illustrates the Eastern Orthodox approach to theology. Liturgical texts referring to the Theotokos are poetic manifestations of devotion to Mary, rather than rational treatises on the Blessed Virgin. They are an expression of the heart rather than the mind, because Orthodox Christians believe that human reason cannot comprehend or understand the mysteries of God. Indeed, Orthodox Christians believe that all true theology must come from the mystical experience of God through prayer and worship, rather than through the intellectual contemplation of God with the mind.
The first and fundamental meaning of Mary for the Church is the relationship between veneration of the Theotokos and Orthodox doctrine. For Orthodox Christians, there can be no Church without Orthodox doctrine. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem decreed, “We believe to be members of the Catholic Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful, who, forsooth, having received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ from Christ Himself, and the Apostles, and the Holy Ecumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering …” The Church is not a society of thinkers and philosophers, but is the Body of Christ dedicated to proclaiming the Gospel to the world. The Church is not dedicated to finding new knowledge about God, but instead is dedicated to preserving and transmitting the knowledge of God given to us by Christ and the Apostles. St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote, “For where the Church is, there is the spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.”
The veneration of Mary plays a major role in the preservation of Orthodox doctrine, because the honor paid to her is an expression of the Christology or doctrine concerning Christ of the Church. Mary’s most important title is “Theotokos,” which means “God Bearer,” or “Birthgiver of God.” This term, endorsed by the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, expresses the belief that the son of the Virgin was God from the very moment of his conception. This eliminates such false teachings as Adoptionism, which held that Christ was a good man adopted by God to be his son, and Nestorianism, which came close to teaching that Christ was only an inspired man. As St. John of Damascus wrote, “ … she is truly Mother of God who gave birth to the true God who took flesh from her … For the holy Virgin did not give birth to a mere man, but to true God and, not to God simply, but to God made flesh.”
Of all doctrines, the Incarnation is central for Orthodox Christians. As Vladimir Lossky has written, “Eastern theology never thinks of the Church apart from Christ and from the Holy Spirit.” As the Holy Scriptures teach, “Christ is the head of the Church.” The Church is the Body of Christ. Thus, in order to understand what the Church is, one must understand who Christ is. Related to the doctrine of the incarnation is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, which is not merely belief in the power of God to work wonders. The Orthodox Church believes in the sovereignty of God over creation. Thus, God is not bound by human understandings of the workings of creation, but, “Whensoever God willeth, the order of nature is overcome …” However, the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ has a much deeper meaning as a proclamation that “ … the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” Jesus Christ is really the Son of God, not a divinely inspired man accepted by God because of his own righteousness. Through the virgin birth, God really became human, not just metaphorically or symbolically, but actually. In Christ, God became physical, as humans are physical. This is important because Orthodox believe, as St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” From Mary, God assumed all that is human, to perfect that which is human and to unite humanity to Himself. On the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, September 8, Orthodox Christians proclaim that, through the incarnation, “ … the creation of us earthly beings was renewed, and we ourselves were renewed from corruption to life immortal.” In another hymn sung during Saturday evening Vespers in Tone Six, Orthodox Christians honor Mary with the words, “For the only Son rising timelessly from the Father, himself did come incarnate from thee in an inexplicable way. He, who while God by nature, became for our sakes Man by nature, not divided into two persons, but known by two natures without mixture or confusions.” Another hymn to Mary proclaims, “Thou art the preaching of the Prophets, O virgin Theotokos, the glory of the Apostles and pride of the Martyrs, the renewal of the whole race of earthly ones. For through thee we are reconciled to God.”
The Orthodox Church celebrates the two natures of Christ, the human nature received from the Blessed Virgin and the divine nature begotten by the Father, as expressed by the Church in the Council of Chalcedon through many of its hymns to the Blessed Virgin. For example, a hymn from Saturday evening Vespers in Tone Eight contains a very articulate expression of the teaching of Chalcedon and the fathers on the incarnation and the two natures of Christ:
Verily, the King of heaven, for his love to mankind did appear on earth; and with men did he deal; for he took unto himself a body from the pure Virgin. And from her did he issue in the adopted body, he being one Son, dual in Nature, not dual in Person. Wherefore, do we confess, preaching the truth that Christ our God is perfect God and perfect Man. Therefore, O Mother who hast no groom, beseech thou him to have mercy upon our souls.”
The doctrine of the two natures of Christ is relative to a discussion of the Church because, like Christ, the Church has two natures, the human and the divine. Thus, the Church, which is a divine institution, is also made up of sinful men and women. For this reason, Orthodox Christians believe that the Church itself is perfect and without sin, although some of its members are still in the process of being healed of sin. Thus, although the Church cannot sin, the people in the Church, including its leaders, can fall into sin.
The doctrine of the Incarnation, which is expressed in Orthodox devotion to the Theotokos, is also relevant to Sacramental theology. The Church teaches that God became flesh to save those who are flesh and to sanctify the material universe. Thus God uses physical things such as water, bread and wine, and oil to convey His divine grace through the Mysteries of the Church. At the same time, by becoming physical, Christ has sanctified the physical world. Thus, at the Feast of Epiphany, Orthodox proclaim, “Today the whole creation is lighted from on high.” This means that a true Christian must care for God’s creation and seek to protect it from being destroyed by human pollution.
When the Archangel Gabriel spoke to her, the Blessed Virgin could have refused God’s request to bear His Son. Her positive response to the Archangel Gabriel plays an important part in salvation. As St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote, Mary is the second Eve, whose obedience liberates humanity from the consequences of the disobedience of the first Eve. For this reason, on the Feast of the Nativity of Mary, Orthodox Christians sing, “ … the Mother of Life, who is the renewal of the creation of Adam and the recall of Eve, the fountain of incorruption, the liberation from corruption, through whom we have been deified and delivered from death, is born of the seed of David, dispersing darkness.” Mary could have refused to bear Christ, but she chose to obey God.
Mary’s obedience is an example of synergy, or cooperation, with God. For that reason Orthodox Christians sin, “For through her hath salvation come to the whole human race.” The concept of synergy is essential to the Orthodox understanding of salvation. As understood by Orthodox Christians, synergy is the exercise of our free will to accept God’s gift of grace. It is not the idea that human merit is required or applicable for salvation. The Orthodox doctrine of synergy is also a manifestation of the two natures of Christ, human and divine. God has accomplished salvation through Christ, reflecting the divine aspect of salvation, but the individual believer must respond positively to God’s offer of the gift of salvation, showing the human aspect of salvation. Orthodox believe that St. Paul expressed this concept of human and divine cooperation for salvation with the words, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Thus, Orthodox believe that, despite the curse of sin, humans still possess a free will and can respond positively to God’s invitation to receive His divine grace. Orthodox believe as St. John Cassian wrote:
These two things — that is, the grace of God and free will — certainly seem mutually opposed to one another, but both are in accord, and we understand that we must accept both in like manner by reason of our religion, lest by removing one of them from the human being we seem to contravene the rule of the Church’s faith. For when God sees us turning in order to will what is good, he comes to us, directs us, and strengthens us, for as soon as he hears the voice of our cry, he will respond to you.
The Orthodox Church calls Mary “immaculate,” and “all pure,” as a manifestation of the Orthodox understanding of salvation as deification. Orthodox Christians believe that through the grace of God Mary has been deified or made by grace what God is by nature or, as St. Paul wrote, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another …” Vladimir Lossky wrote, “ … the very heart of the Church, one of her most secret mysteries, her mystical center, her perfection already realized in a human person fully united to God, finding herself beyond the resurrection and the judgment. This person is Mary, the Mother of God.” Thus salvation for Orthodox theology is more than the forgiveness of sins or justification, but is also the transformation of the believer by the grace of God to become a partaker of the Divine Nature. Orthodox Christians see the realization of salvation in the deification of Mary.
However, Orthodox Christians do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin was born in ancestral sin just like any other person. This is important because if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ. Indeed, a prayer addressed to the Virgin Mary from the service of Compline contains the beautiful words, “thy glorious birth-giving has united God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things.”
Although Orthodox theologians do not dogmatize the Assumption of the Virgin, the Orthodox Church celebrates the feast of her falling asleep and translation to Heaven on August 15. Once again, this is a reflection of the Gospel by telling the faithful that they, li ke Mary, may share in the victory of Christ over death. Thus, through Christ, the Blessed Virgin has become“more honorable than the cherubim, more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim,” for she has been deified and has inherited a place in the Kingdom of God.
Finally, the devotion of Mary is an The Word 9 expression of meaning of the word “Church.” In the original Greek, the word “Church,” or “ecclesia,” literally means a gathering or assembly. Alexander Schmemann wrote that properly an Orthodox Church building (temple) “is experienced perceived as sobor, as the gathering together of heaven and earth and all creation in Christ — which constitutes the essence and purpose of the Church itself.” To Orthodox Christians, the Church is not just an assembly of humans, but is a participation in the worship of the Saints and angels before the throne of God. That is why there are so many references to the angelic hosts during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Again, Alexander Schmemann wrote, “The Eucharist is always a going out from ‘this world’ and an ascent to heaven …” Thus, Orthodox Christians believe that through the Liturgy, the faithful mystically ascend to heaven and join the company of the faithful departed before God. This assembly of the entire company of heaven before the throne of God through the Eucharist creates a relationship between the living and the departed in Christ. This is manifested by the prayers of the living for intercession of Mary and the Saints, who are mystically present in the lives of the faithful through the mystery of the Church. This mystery transcends the boundaries between heaven and earth and unites those on earth with those in heaven.
Therefore, Orthodox devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is not merely an expression of popular piety. It is much more. Orthodox veneration of Mary is a manifestation of the most essential doctrines of the Orthodox Faith. The prominent place played by Mary in Orthodoxy also shows the importance of worship as the essence of the Church and the chief means whereby the Church transmits and preserves the Gospel for future generations. The deification of Mary shows that the promises of Christ are real, for, through Christ, those who follow Him will share the experience of God’s deifying grace that is manifested by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Finally, the familiar way in which Orthodox Christians ask Mary and the other Saints for their intercessions, illustrates the very meaning of “Church,” which is an assembly of the faithful, those on earth and those in heaven, with the angels before the throne of God.
Courtesy of the
June 2007 issue of The Word magazine.
Assumption 2016
First Profession of Br. Giles Hibbs by Abbot Paul of Belmont Abbey (UK)
Dear Br Giles, you have just asked for God’s merciful love and to share in the monastic way of life in our community. A sign of his merciful love is that you have been accepted by the Belmont Chapter to make your First Profession on this Solemnity of the Assumption of Our Lady, a wonderful feast on which to proclaim publicly your love for God and your desire to live by the traditional Benedictine vows of stability, conversatio morum and obedience. What better example for a monk than Our Lady herself, who exemplified in every moment of her life the vows we try to observe through God’s grace.
By the vow of stability you promise to live as a monk of Belmont, being anchored to your choir stall and to your cell, devoting yourself principally to a life of prayer, both liturgical and personal. Benedictines are called to a life of contemplation, to be focussed on God and him alone. This you do in silence and humility, as you search for his presence in your heart and in the community to which you belong. Stability implies fidelity to the Gospel and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ himself. Without stability it would be impossible to keep the other vows. Just as Our Lady lived for God from the very moment of her Immaculate Conception to her Assumption and Coronation as Queen of Heaven and was always united to her Divine Son as mother and disciple, so you must never be separated from Christ, your Lord and Saviour. Stability will enable you to become totally integrated in our monastic community, which is part of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. Your love of the brethren will be the proof and touchstone of this union between Christ and yourself.
Conversatio morum is best translated by living the monastic life to the full. I emphasise “to the full” as we all have the tendency to pick and chose, but there is no choice other than to knuckle under and get on with it. Did Our Lady at any time say “No” to what the Lord was asking her to do? At the Annunciation, did she say, “Yes, but only if….?” Not at all; she said to the Angel, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done unto me according to thy word.” In the cave of Bethlehem, as she gazed on the Child in the manger, as a refugee on the desert track to Egypt, at the wedding feast of Cana, at the foot of the Cross or in the Cenacle at Pentecost, was there ever the slightest hesitation in her acceptance of God’s will? Throughout her life she continued to sing, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and my spirit exults in God my Saviour.” That will be your song, dear Br Giles, morning, noon and night, if you go about your monastic duties of prayer, lectio, study, work and fraternal living, in a spirit of unfeigned charity, genuine austerity and perfect chastity. It will not be easy, but with God’s grace and Our Lady’s prayers, nothing will be impossible.
Obedience is, of course, one of the key words in the Bible. “Jesus humbled himself and became obedient unto death, death on a cross.” (Ph 2: 8) we read in the Letter to the Philippians, while in Hebrews we are told that, “though he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” (Hb 5: 8) There is no other way for a Christian and a monk than the Way of the Cross, the Way of Jesus, to which he has called us, “Whoever wants to be my disciple, let him take up his cross every day and follow me.” (Lk 9: 23) Dear Br Giles, there can be no shirking from obedience in the monastic life. In fact, you will be vowed to obedience, and in obeying the abbot and community without murmuring, and St Benedict insists that obedience should be immediate and without complaining, you will be obeying Christ himself, for our superiors have legitimate authority in his Church. But in order to obey, we have to dispose our hearts and minds to listen carefully to what is being asked of us. St Benedict invites us to listen always with the ears of the heart, with respect and humility. At times, you will be asked to do what appears impossible, so you must learn to live by faith, like all the saints, and in your monastic patron St Giles, you have a magnificent example. Nevertheless, it is Christ himself who is the supreme model of obedience, followed by his blessed Mother, whose obedience was such that God became Man in her virginal womb. Hence she could sing, “The Almighty has done great things for me. Holy is his name, and his mercy reaches from age to age for those who fear him.” (Lk 1: 49-50) Obedience is the only proof of love: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (Jn 14: 15)
Dear Br Giles, do not be put off by my words, but learn to keep your vows as a joyful response to God’s love and mercy towards you. What a privilege to have been called to the monastic life and how wonderful to make your first vows today under the protection of Our Lady. May she, the Mother of monks, help you grow to perfection in the monastic life and may God’s merciful love be with you always. Amen
Buying a Ticket for a Sinking Ship
-
US bishops declare solidarity with immigrants, refugees
“As a founding principle of our country, we have always welcomed immigrant
and refugee populations,...
The Apocatastasis of 2019
-
2019 is concluded and a new decade has begun! So what kind of year did
Eclectic Orthodoxy enjoy? In 2018, 158,714 individuals visited the blog; in
2019, 17...
Thomas Merton’s Last Three Days
-
This is an extract from the revised edition of Living With Wisdom, a
biography of Thomas Merton written by Jim Forest and published by Orbis
Books. Footnot...
Andrew Gould Featured in New Book and New Website
-
Andrew Gould, founder of the Orthodox Arts Journal, has been featured in a
new work by popular architectural writer Witold Rybczynski. The author of
over t...
Get It
-
I haven’t updated this blog in over six years, so probably no one is going
to read this post, since all my former readers gave up on me a long time
ago. Bu...
The False Experiment
-
In 1984 Father Thomas Keating invited people from various
religions to meditate together. Some call this event “the big experiment”.
The resu...
Radical Incarnation with David Jones
-
Here is my podcast interview for your listening enjoyment...
Sacramental Whine - An Independent Sacramental Movement Podcast
Over the threshold
-
In order not to stumble over her husband’s threshold the first time she
enters, a Roman bride is always lifted over it. – I, Claudius; Robert
Graves Advert...
The Irony of the Reformation
-
Ever since, as an 18 year old college freshman, I first read Roland
Bainton’s biography of Martin Luther (Here I Stand), I’ve been struck by
the irony of h...
Greatness in Repentance
-
When God described Nineveh as being the great city, He was not considering
its ignorance and sin, but looked with great joy at its profound repentance
...
Temporarily – No Comment
-
God willing, the content of this blog will be migrated to its new site,
starting sometime after midnight (here in East Coast America). I have been
asked to...
Posts
