EXPAND YOUR READING!!

"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

Friday, 25 March 2016

GOOD FRIDAY 2016: CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS (Popes Benedict and FRancis, theologians Raniero Cantalamessa and Alexander Schmemann)



Below, please find the full text of Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Preacher of the Papal Household, delivered Good Friday, April 6th, 2012, in St. Peter's Basilica, during the Passion liturgy.
****************************
Father Raniero Cantalamessa, ofm cap: “I DIED, AND BEHOLD I AM ALIVE FOR EVERMORE”
(Revelation 1:18)Homily of Good Friday 2012 in Saint Peter’s Basilica


Some ancient Fathers of the Church enclosed in an image the whole mystery of the redemption. Imagine, they said, that an epic fight took place in the stadium. A courageous man confronted a cruel tyrant who had the city enslaved and, with enormous effort and suffering, defeated him. You were on the terraces; you did not fight, or make an effort or get wounded. However, if you admire the courageous man, if you rejoice with him over his victory, if you intertwine crowns, arouse and stir the assembly for him, if you kneel joyfully before the triumphant one, kiss his head and shake his right hand; in a word, if you rave so much as to consider his victory yours, I tell you that you will certainly have part of the victor’s prize. However, there is more: imagine that the victor had himself no need of the prize he had won, but wished more than anything to see his supporter honored and considers as the prize of his combat the crowning of his friend, in that case, perhaps, will that man not obtain the crown also though he has not toiled on been wounded? He certainly will obtain it![1]
It happens thus, say the Fathers, between Christ and us. On the cross, he defeated the ancient enemy. “Our swords – exclaims Saint John Chrysostom – were not bloodied, we were not in agony, we were not wounded, we did not even see the battle and yet we obtain the victory. His was the fight, ours the crown. And because we are also the conquerors, let us imitate what soldiers do in such cases: with joyful voices let us exalt the victory, let us intone hymns of praise to the Lord!”[2] It is not possible to explain better the meaning of the liturgy we are celebrating. * * *
However, is what we are doing itself an image, a representation of a reality of the past, or is it the reality itself? It is both things! “We – said Saint Augustine to the people – know and believe with very certain faith that Christ died only once for us […]. You know perfectly that all that happened only once, and yet the solemnity renews it periodically […]. Historical truth and liturgical solemnity are not opposed to one another, as if the second is fallacious and the first alone corresponds to the truth. In fact, of what history says occurred only once in reality, the solemnity repeatedly renews the celebration in the hearts of the faithful.”[3]The liturgy “renews” the event: how many discussions have taken place for the past five centuries on the meaning of this word, especially when it is applied to the sacrifice of the cross and to the Mass! Paul VI used a verb that could smooth the way to an ecumenical agreement on such an argument: the verb “to represent,” understood in the strong sense of re-presenting, namely to render what happened again present and operative.[4]
There is an essential difference between the representation of Christ’s death and that, for example, of the death of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s tragedy of the same name. No one celebrates as a living person the anniversary of his own death; Christ does because he is risen. Only he can say, as he does in Revelation: “I died, and behold I am alive ever more” (Revelation 1:18). We must be careful on this day, visiting the so-called sepulchers or taking part in processions of the dead Christ, not to merit the reproach that the Risen One addressed to the pious women on Easter morning: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5). The affirmation of certain Orthodox authors is bold but true. The anamnesis, namely the liturgical memorial, “renders the event truer than when it happened historically the first time.” In other words, it is more true and real for us who relive it “according to the Spirit,” than it was for those who lived it “according to the flesh,” before the Holy Spirit revealed the full meaning to the Church.
We are not only celebrating an anniversary but a mystery. Again, it is Saint Augustine who explains the difference between the two things. In the celebration “by way of anniversary,” nothing else is required – he says – than to “indicate with a religious solemnity the day of the year in which the recollection of the event itself takes place;” in the celebration by way of mystery (“in sacrament”), “not only is an event commemorated but it is also done in a way in which its meaning is understood and it is received devoutly.”[5]This changes everything. It is not just a question of attending a representation, but of “accepting” the significance, of passing from spectators to actors. It is up to us therefore to choose what part we want to play in the drama, who we wish to be: Peter, Judas, Pilate, the crowd, the Cyrenean, John, Mary … No one can remain neutral; not take a position, means to take a very precise one: Pilate’s who washes his hands or the crowd “standing by, watching” (Luke 23:35).
If when going home this evening, someone asks us “Where are you coming from? Where have you been?” We must also answer, at least in our heart: “on Calvary!”* * *
However, all this does not happen automatically, just because we have taken part in this liturgy. It is a question of “accepting” the meaning of the mystery. This happens with faith. There is no music where there is no ear to hear it, no matter how loud the orchestra sounds; there is no grace where there is no faith to receive it. In an Easter homily of the 4th century, the bishop pronounced these extraordinarily modern, and one could say existentialist, words: “For every man, the beginning of life is when Christ was immolated for him. However, Christ is immolated for him at the moment he recognizes the grace and becomes conscious of the life procured for him by that immolation.”[6]
However, let us stay on the safe side; let us listen to a doctor of the Church. “What I cannot obtain by myself – writes Saint Bernard --, I appropriate (literally, I usurp!) with confidence from the pierced side of the Lord., because he is full of mercy. Hence my merit is the mercy of God. I am certainly not poor in merits, as long as he is rich in mercy. If the mercies of the Lord are many (Psalm 119:156), I will also abound in merits. And what about my own righteousness? O Lord, I will remember only your righteousness. In fact, it is also mine, because you are righteousness for me on behalf of God” (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:30).[7]Did this way of conceiving holiness make Saint Bernard, perhaps, less zealous in good works, less committed to the acquisition of virtues? Did perhaps the apostle Paul neglect to mortify his body and reduce it to slavery (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27), he who, before all and more than all, had made of this appropriation of Christ’s righteousness the purpose of his life and of his preaching (cf. Philippians 3:7-9)?
In Rome, as unfortunately in all big cities, there are so many homeless people, human persons who only have a few rags upon their body and some poor belongings that they carry along in a plastic bag. Let us imagine that one day this voice spreads: on Via Condotti (everyone knows what Via Condotti represents in Rome!) there is the owner of a fashion boutique who, for some unknown reason, whether out of interest or generosity, invites all the homeless of Termini rail way station to come to her shop; she invites them to take off their soiled rags, to have a good shower and then choose the garment they want among those displayed and take it away free of charge.All say in their heart: “This is a fairy-tale, it never happens!” Very true, but what never happens among men is what can happen every day between men and God, because, before Him, we are those homeless people! This is what happens in a good confession: you take off your dirty rags, your sins, receive the bath of mercy and rise “clothed in the garments of salvation, covered with the robe of righteousness” (Isaiah 61:10).
The tax collector of the parable went up into the temple to pray; he said simply but from the depth of his heart: “God, be merciful to me a sinner!”, and “he went down to his house justified” (Luke 18:14), reconciled, made new, innocent. The same could be said of us, if we have his same faith and repentance, when we go home after this liturgy. * * *
Among the personages of the Passion with whom we can identify, I realize that I have neglected to name one that more than all awaits those who will follow his example: the good thief. The good thief made a complete confession of sin; he says to his companion who insults Jesus: “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong” (Luke 23:40f.). Here the good thief shows himself an excellent theologian. Only God in fact, if he suffers, suffers absolutely as innocent; every other being who suffers should say: “I suffer justly,” because even if he is not responsible for the action imputed to him, he is never altogether without fault. Only the pain of innocent children is similar to God’s and because of this it is so mysterious and so sacred.
How many atrocious crimes in recent times remained anonymous, how many unresolved cases exist! The good thief launches an appeal to those responsible: do like me, come out into the open, confess your fault; you also will experience the joy I had when I heard Jesus’ word: “”today you will be with me in Paradise!” (Luke 23:43). How many confessed offenders can confirm that it was also like this for them: that they passed from hell to heaven the day that they had the courage to repent and confess their fault. I have known some myself. The paradise promised is peace of conscience, the possibility of looking at oneself in the mirror or of looking at one’s children without having to have contempt for oneself. Do not take your secret to your grave; it would procure for you a far more fearful condemnation than the human. Our people are not merciless with one who has made a mistake but recognizes the evil done, sincerely, not just for some calculation. On the contrary! They are ready to be merciful and to accompany the repentant one on his journey of redemption (which in every case becomes shorter). “God forgives many things, for a good work,” says Lucia to the Unnamed in Manzoni’s novel “The Betrothed”; with greater truth we can say, he forgives many things by one act of repentance. He promised it solemnly: “though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” (Isaiah 1:18).
Let us take up now and do what we heard at the beginning, it is our task this day: with joyful voices let us exalt the victory of the cross, intone hymns of praise to the Lord. “O Redemptor, sume carmen temet concinentium”[8]: And you, O our Redeemer, receive the song we raise to you.
1. Nicholas Cabasilas, Vita in Christo, I. 9 (PG 150, 517)2. Saint John Chrysostom, De coemeterio et de cruce (PG, 49, 596).
3. Saint Augustine, Sermon 220 (PL 38, 1089).4. Cf. Paul VI, Mysterium fidei (AAS 57, 1965, p. 753 ff).
5. Augustine, Epistle 55, 1, 2 (CSEL 34, 1, p. 170). 6. Paschal Homily of the year 387 (SCh 36, p. 59 f.).
7. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Canticle, 61, 4-5 (PL 183, 1072). 8. Hymn of Palm Sunday and of the Chrism Mass of Maundy Thursday.


AN ORTHODOX INTRODUCTION TO THE
GREAT AND HOLY FRIDAY

By: Father Alexander Schmemann

Friday: The Cross 
From the light of Holy Thursday we enter into the darkness of Friday, the day of Christ's Passion, Death and Burial. In the early Church this day was called "Pascha of the Cross," for it is indeed the beginning of that Passover or Passage whose whole meaning will be gradually revealed to us, first, in the wonderful quiet of the Great and Blessed Sabbath, and, then, in the joy of the Resurrection day.

But, first, the Darkness. If only we could realize that on Good Friday darkness is not merely symbolical and commemorative. So often we watch the beautiful and solemn sadness of these services in the spirit of self-righteousness and self-justification. Two thousand years ago bad men killed Christ, but today we -- the good Christian people -- erect sumptuous Tombs in our Churches -- is this not the sign of our goodness? Yet, Good Friday deals not with past alone. It is the day of Sin, the day of Evil, the day on which the Church invites us to realize their awful reality and power in "this world." For Sin and Evil have not disappeared, but, on the contrary, still constitute the basic law of the world and of our life. And we who call ourselves Christians, do we not so often make ours that logic of evil which led the Jewish Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, the Roman soldiers and the whole crowd to hate, torture and kill Christ? On what side, with whom would we have been, had we lived in Jerusalem under Pilate? This is the question addressed to us in every word of Holy Friday services. It is, indeed, the day of this world, its real and not symbolical, condemnation and the real and not ritual, judgment on our life... It is the revelation of the true nature of the world which preferred then, and still prefers, darkness to light, evil to good, death to life. Having condemned Christ to death, "this world" has condemned itself to death and inasmuch as we accept its spirit, its sin, its betrayal of God -- we are also condemned... Such is the first and dreadfully realistic meaning of Good Friday -- a condemnation to death... 

The Day of Redemption 

But this day of Evil, of its ultimate manifestation and triumph, is also the day of Redemption. The death of Christ is revealed to us as the saving death for us and for our salvation.


It is a saving Death because it is the full, perfect and supreme Sacrifice. Christ gives His Death to His Father and He gives His Death to us. To His Father because, as we shall see, there is no other way to destroy death, to save men from it and it is the will of the Father that men be saved from death. To us because in very truth Christ dies instead of us. Death is the natural fruit of sin, an immanent punishment. Man chose to be alienated from God, but having no life in himself and by himself, he dies. Yet there is no sin and, therefore, no death in Christ. He accepts to die only by love for us. He wants to assume and to share our human condition to the end. He accepts the punishment of our nature, as He assumed the whole burden of human predicament. He dies because He has truly identified Himself with us, has indeed taken upon Himself the tragedy of man's life. His death is the ultimate revelation of His compassion and love. And because His dying is love, compassion and co-suffering, in His death the very nature of death is changed. From punishment it becomes the radiant act of love and forgiveness, the end of alienation and solitude. Condemnation is transformed into forgiveness... 

The Destruction of Death 

And, finally, His death is a saving death because it destroys the very source of death: evil. By accepting it in love, by giving Himself to His murderers and permitting their apparent victory, Christ reveals that, in reality, this victory is the total and decisive defeat of Evil. To be victorious Evil must annihilate the Good, must prove itself to be the ultimate truth about life, discredit the Good and, in one word, show its own superiority. But throughout the whole Passion it is Christ and He alone who triumphs. The Evil can do nothing against Him, for it cannot make Christ accept Evil as truth. Hypocrisy is revealed as Hypocrisy, Murder as Murder, Fear as Fear, and as Christ silently moves towards the Cross and the End, as the human tragedy reaches its climax, His triumph, His victory over the Evil, His glorification become more and more obvious. And at each step this victory is acknowledged, confessed, proclaimed -- by the wife of Pilate, by Joseph, by the crucified thief, by the centurion. And as He dies on the Cross having accepted the ultimate horror of death: absolute solitude (My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me!?), nothing remains but to confess that "truly this was the Son of God!..." And, thus, it is this Death, this Love, this obedience, this fullness of Life that destroy what made Death the universal destiny. "And the graves were opened..." (Matthew 27:52) Already the rays of resurrection appear. 

Such is the double mystery of Holy Friday, and its services reveal it and make us participate in it. On the one hand, there is the constant emphasis on the Passion of Christ as the sin of all sins, the crime of all crimes. Throughout Orthros during which the twelve Passion readings make us follow step by step the sufferings of Christ, at the Hours (which replace the Divine Liturgy: for the interdiction to celebrate Eucharist on this day means that the sacrament of Christ's Presence does not belong to "this world" of sin and darkness, but is the sacrament of the "world to come") and finally, at Vespers, the service of Christ's burial the hymns and readings are full of solemn accusations of those, who willingly and freely decided to kill Christ, justifying this murder by their religion, their political loyalty, their practical considerations and their professional obedience. 

But, on the other hand, the sacrifice of love which prepares the final victory is also present from the very beginning. From the first Gospel reading (John 13:31) which begins with the solemn announcement of Christ: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and in Him God is glorified" to the stichera at the end of Vespers -- there is the increase of light, the slow growth of hope and certitude that "death will trample down death..." 

"Hell shuddered when it beheld Thee, the Redeemer of all Who was laid in a tomb. Its bonds were broken; its gates were smashed! The tombs were opened; the dead arose. Then Adam cried in joy and thanksgiving: Glory to Thy condescension, O Lover of man!”


And when, at the end of Vespers, we place in the center of the Church the image of Christ in the tomb, when this long day comes to its end, we know that we are at the end of the long history of salvation and redemption. The Seventh Day, the day of rest, the blessed Sabbath comes and with it -- the revelation of the Life-giving Tomb. 



 Good Friday. Via Crucis 
by Pope Benedict XVI
March 21, 2008
The Byzantine icon has the insignia “King of Glory” which indeed is the true title of the crucified Christ


Dear brothers and sisters, this year too we have walked along the way of the cross, the Via Crucis, evoking again with faith the stages of the passion of Christ. Our eyes have turned to contemplate the sufferings and the anguish that our Redeemer had to bear in the hour of great sorrow, which entailed the highpoint of his earthly mission. Jesus dies on the cross and lies in the tomb. The day of Good Friday, so permeated by human sadness and religious silence, closes in the silence of meditation and prayer. In returning home, we too, like those who were present at the sacrifice of Jesus, beat our breasts, recalling what happened. Is it possible to remain indifferent before the death of the Lord, of the Son of God? For us, for our salvation he became man, so as to be able to suffer and die. 

Brothers and sisters, let us direct today our gaze toward Christ, a gaze frequently distracted by scattered and passing earthly interests. Let us pause to contemplate his cross. The cross, fount of life and school of justice and peace, is the universal patrimony of pardon and mercy. It is permanent proof of a self-emptying and infinite love that brought God to become man, vulnerable like us, unto dying crucified. 


Through the sorrowful way of the cross, the men of all ages, reconciled and redeemed by the blood of Christ, have become friends of God, sons of the heavenly Father. "Friend," is what Jesus calls Judas and he offers him the last and dramatic call to conversion. "Friend," he calls each of us, because he is the authentic friend of everyone. Unfortunately, we do not always manage to perceive the depth of this limitless love that God has for us. For him, there is no distinction of race or culture. Jesus Christ died to liberate the humanity of old of their ignorance of God, of the circle of hate and violence, of the slavery to sin. The cross makes us brothers and sisters. 

But let us ask ourselves, in this moment, what have we done with this gift, what have we done with the revelation of the face of God in Christ, with the revelation of the love of God that conquers hate. Many, in our age as well, do not know God and cannot encounter him in Christ crucified. Many are in search of a love or a liberty that excludes God. Many believe they have no need of God. 

Dear friends: After having lived together the passion of Jesus, let us this night allow his sacrifice on the cross to question us. Let us permit him to challenge our human certainties. Let us open our hearts. Jesus is the truth that makes us free to love. Let us not be afraid: upon dying, the Lord destroyed sin and saved sinners, that is, all of us. The Apostle Peter writes: "He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24). This is the truth of Good Friday: On the cross, the Redeemer has made us adoptive sons of God who he created in his image and likeness. Let us remain, then, in adoration before the cross. 

Christ, give us the peace we seek, the happiness we desire, the love the fills our heart thirsty for the infinite. This is our prayer for this night, Jesus, Son of God, who died for us on the cross and was resurrected on the third day. Amen. 


Station of the Cross Meditations 2016
This year’s meditations for the Stations of the Cross have been written by Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, archbishop of Perugia.In a March 16 interview with L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Bassetti said he chose the title “God Is Mercy” for this year’s meditations. He said the Way of the Cross as well as the Year of Mercy “speak to all men and women of today who seem to me more and more lonely and confused, inserted into a society in continuous movement that rapidly consumes everything — goods, affections and desires — and that seems to have lost both the notion of sin and truth.”People today, he said, “seem to me dramatically unhappy and suffering.”He highlighted how there is currently the “visible suffering” seen in the poor, the migrant, the sick, the alone and the abandoned. “But at the same time, we meet rich men who seem to have everything, but, in reality, have nothing — they live an empty life and, in some cases, even desire death. As someone once wrote, evil, therefore, can also be ‘banal,’ but Jesus on the cross gives another meaning to life and shows a different path: that of conversion.”Cardinal Bassetti said he will make many references to the magisterium and draw on the teachings of John XXIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. But more important than quotes, he said he has tried to “speak to the human heart.”“In every station, I have tried to make reference to current events,” he said, adding that he refers to the “new martyrs” who are being killed for being Christian, migrants and refugees and the scourge of violence against children. “When I wrote those lines, I had the feeling I wasn’t using a pen and a piece of paper, but a chisel on a piece of marble, so much was the suffering in the face of these plagues.”Cardinal Bassetti said the first (Christ’s exchange with Pilate), fourth (Jesus’ encounter with his mother) and 11th (Crucifixion) stations affected him most when writing them. All three, he said, are linked by the “dimension of power”: the “political power” of Pilate, the “generating” power of Mary and the “divine power” of the cross
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/celebrating-holy-week-2016-at-the-vatican/#ixzz43uRbepRG




(Vatican Radio) At St Peter's Basilica, the Preacher of the Pontifical Household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap., gave the homily for the Liturgy of the Lord’s Passion.(English translation courtesy of Zenit):
Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, ofm cp.
“BE RECONCILED TO GOD”
Good Friday Sermon, 2016, in St. Peter’s Basilica

God . . . through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. . . . We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, “At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation.” Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation! (2 Cor 5:18–6:2)
These words are from Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. The apostle’s call to be reconciled to God does not refer to the historical reconciliation between God and humanity (which, as we just heard, already occurred “through Christ” on the cross); neither does it refer to the sacramentalreconciliation that takes place in Baptism and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It refers to an existential and personal reconciliation that needs to be implemented in the present. The call is addressed to baptized Christians in Corinth who belonged to the Church for a while, so it is therefore also addressed to us here and now. “The acceptable time, the day of salvation” for us, is the Year of Mercy that we are now in.
But what does this reconciliation with God mean in its existential and psychological dimension? One of the causes, and perhaps the main one, for people’s alienation from religion and faith today is the distorted image they have of God. What is the “predefined” idea of God in the collective human unconscious? To find that out, we only need to ask this question: “What ideas, what words, what feelings spontaneously arise in you without thinking about it when you say the words in the Lord’s Prayer, ‘May your will be done’”?
People generally say it with their heads bent down in resignation inwardly, preparing themselves for the worst. People unconsciously link God’s will to everything that is unpleasant and painful, to what can be seen as somehow destroying individual freedom and development. It is somewhat as though God were the enemy of every celebration, joy, and pleasure—a severe inquisitor-God.
God is seen as the Supreme Being, the Omnipotent One, the Lord of time and history, that is, as an entity who asserts himself over an individual from the outside; no detail of human life escapes him. The transgression of his law inexorably introduces a disorder that requires a commensurate reparation that human beings know they are not able to make. This is the cause of fear and at times hidden resentment against God. It is a vestige of the pagan idea of God that has never been entirely eradicated, and perhaps cannot be eradicated, from the human heart. Greek tragedy is based on this concept: God is the one who intervenes with divine punishment to reestablish the order disrupted by evil.
Of course in Christianity the mercy of God has never been disregarded! But mercy’s task is only to moderate the necessary rigors of justice. It was the exception, not the rule. The Year of Mercy is a golden opportunity to restore the true image of the biblical God who not only has mercy but is mercy.
This bold assertion is based on the fact that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8, 16). It is only in the Trinity, however, that God is love without being mercy. The Father loving the Son is not a grace or a concession, it is a necessity; the Father needs to love in order to exist as Father. The Son loving the Father is not a mercy or grace; it is a necessity even though it occurs with the utmost freedom; the Son needs to be loved and to love in order to be the Son. The same can be said about the Holy Spirit who is love as a person.
It is when God creates the world and free human beings in it that love ceases for God to be nature and becomes grace. This love is a free concession; it ishesed, grace and mercy. The sin of human beings does not change the nature of this love but causes it to make a qualitative leap: mercy as a gift now becomes mercy as forgiveness. Love goes from being a simple gift to become a suffering love because God suffers when his love is rejected."The LORD has spoken: ‘Sons have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me’” (Is 1:2). Just ask the many fathers and mothers who have experienced their children’s rejection if it does not cause suffering—and one of the most intense sufferings in life.
***
But what about the justice of God? Has it been forgotten or underestimated? St. Paul answered this question once and for all. The apostle begins his explanation in the Letter to the Romans with this news: “Now the righteousness of God has been manifested” (Rom 3:21). We can ask, what kind of righteousness is this? Is it the righteousness that gives “unicuique suum,” each person his or her due, and distributes rewards and punishments according to people’s merits? There will of course come a time when this kind of divine righteous justice that gives people what they deserve will also be manifested. The apostle in fact wrote shortly before in Romans that God
will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. (2:6-8
But Paul is not talking about this kind of justice when he writes, “Now the righteousness of God has been manifested.” The first kind of justice he talks about involves a future event, but this other event is occurring “now.” If that were not the case, Paul’s statement would be an absurd assertion that contradicts the facts. From the point of view of distributive justice, nothing changed in the world with the coming of Christ. We continue, said Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, to see the guilty often on the throne and the innocent on the scaffold. But lest we think there is some kind of justice and some fixed order in the world, although it is upside down, sometimes the reverse happens and the innocent are on the throne and the guilty on the scaffold.[1] It is not, therefore, in this social and historical sense that the innovation brought by Christ consists. Let us hear what the apostle says:
Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:23-26)
God shows his righteousness and justice by having mercy! This is the great revelation. The apostle says God is “just and justifying,” that is, he is just to himself when he justifies human beings; he is in fact love and mercy, so for that reason he is just to himself—he truly demonstrates who he is—when he has mercy.
But we cannot understand any of this if we do not know exactly what the expression “the righteousness of God” means. There is a danger that people can hear about the righteousness of God but not understand its meaning, so instead of being encouraged they are frightened. St. Augustine had already clearly explained its meaning centuries ago: “The ‘righteousness of God’ is that by which we are made righteous, just as ‘the salvation of God’ [see Ps 3:8] means the salvation by which he saves us.”[2] In other words, the righteousness of God is that by which God makes those who believe in his Son Jesus acceptable to him. It does not enact justice but makes people just
Luther deserves the credit for bringing this truth back when its meaning had been lost over the centuries, at least in Christian preaching, and it is this above all for which Christianity is indebted to the Reformation, whose fifth centenary occurs next year. The reformer later wrote that when he discovered this, “I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates.”[3] But it was neither Augustine nor Luther who explained the concept of “the righteousness of God” this way; Scripture had done that before they did:
When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy” (Titus 3:4-5).
God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our own trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved. (see Eph 2:4-5)
Therefore, to say “the righteousness of God has been manifested” is like saying that God’s goodness, his love, his mercy, has been revealed. God’s justice not only does not contradict his mercy but consists precisely in mercy!
***
What happened on the cross that was so important as to explain this radical change in the fate of humanity? In his book on Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI wrote, “That which is wrong, the reality of evil, cannot simply be ignored; it cannot just be left to stand. It must be dealt with; it must be overcome. Only this counts as a true mercy. And the fact that God now confronts evil himself because men are incapable of doing so—therein lies the ‘unconditional’ goodness of God.”[4]
God was not satisfied with merely forgiving people’s sins; he did infinitely more than that: he took those sins upon himself, he shouldered them himself. The Son of God, says Paul, “became sin for us.” What a shocking statement! In the Middle Ages some people found it difficult to believe that God would require the death of his Son in order to reconcile the world to himself. St. Bernard responded to this by saying, “What pleased God was not Christ’s death but his will in dying of his own accord”: “Non mors placuit sed voluntas sponte morientis.”[5] It was not death, then, but love that saved us!
The love of God reached human beings at the farthest point to which they were driven in their flight from him, death itself. The death of Christ needed to demonstrate to everyone the supreme proof of God’s mercy toward sinners. That is why his death does not even have the dignity of a certain privacy but is framed between the death of two thieves. He wants to remain a friend to sinners right up to the end, so he dies like them and with them.
***
It is time for us to realize that the opposite of mercy is not justice but vengeance. Jesus did not oppose mercy to justice but to the law of retaliation: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Ex 21:24). In forgiving sinners God is renouncing not justice but vengeance; he does not desire the death of a sinner but wants the sinner to convert and live (see Ez 18:23). On the cross Jesus did not ask his Father for vengeance.
The hate and the brutality of the terrorist attacks this week in Brussels help us to understand the divine power of Christ’s last words: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:24). No matter how far the hate of human beings can go, the love of God always has been, and will be, greater. In these current circumstances Paul’s exhortation is addressed to us: “Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21).
We need to demythologize vengeance! It has become a pervasive mythic theme that infects everything and everybody, starting with children. A large number of the stories we see on the screen and in video games are stories of revenge, passed off at times as the victory of a good hero. Half, if not more, of the suffering in the world (apart from natural disasters and illnesses) come from the desire for revenge, whether in personal relationships or between states and nations.
It has been said that “Beauty will save the world.”[6] But beauty, as we know very well, can also lead to ruin. There is only one thing that can truly save the world, mercy! The mercy of God for human beings and the mercy of human beings for each other. In particular, it can save the most precious and fragile thing in the world at this time, marriage and the family.
Something similar happens in marriage to what happened in God’s relationship with humanity that the Bible in fact describes with the image of a wedding. In the very beginning, as I said, there was love, not mercy. Mercy comes in only after humanity’s sin. So too in marriage, in the beginning there is not mercy but love. People do not get married because of mercy but because of love. But then after years or even months of life together, the limitations of each spouse emerge, and problems with health, finance, and the children arise. A routine sets in that quenches all joy.
What can save a marriage from going downhill without any hope of coming back up again is mercy, understood in the biblical sense, that is, not just reciprocal forgiveness but spouses acting with “compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness and patience” (Col 3:12). Mercy adds agape to eros, it adds the love that gives of oneself and has compassion to the love of need and desire. God “takes pity” on human beings (see Ps 102:13). Shouldn’t a husband and wife, then, take pity on each other? And those of us who live in community, shouldn’t we take pity on one another instead of judging one another?
Let us pray. Heavenly Father, by the merits of your Son on the cross who “became sin for us” (see 2 Cor 5:21), remove any desire for vengeance from the hearts of individuals, families, and nations, and make us fall in love with mercy. Let the Holy Father’s intention in proclaiming this Year of Mercy be met with a concrete response in our lives, and let everyone experience the joy of being reconciled with you in the depth of the heart. Amen!


[1] See Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, “Sermon sur la Providence” (1662), inOeuvres de Bossuet, eds. B. Velat and Y. Champailler (Paris: Pléiade, 1961), p. 1062. 
[2] See St. Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, 32, 56, in Augustine: Later Works, trans. and intro. John Burnaby (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), p. 241; see also PL 44, p. 237.
[3] Martin Luther, Preface to Latin Writings, in Luther’s Works, vol. 34 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), p. 337.
[4] Joseph Ratzinger [Benedict XVI], Jesus of Nazareth, Part II (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), p. 133.
[5] St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter 190, “Against the Errors of Abelard,” in Anthony N. S. Lane, Theologian of the Cross (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013), pp. 201-202. See also PL 182, p. 1070.

[6] Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot, III, 5, trans. Henry and Olga Carlisle (New York: New American Library, 1969), p. 402



Wednesday, 23 March 2016

MAUNDY THURSDAY 2016


On Palm Sunday, the Church celebrates the main theme of Holy Week:: Christ enters Jerusalem to take up his messianic throne and thus inaugurate the kingdom.  The people greet him, waving branches, while the children call out, "Hosanna!" which is an invocation, calling on God to support him in his messianic role.  The people are greeting him with the ceremonial of the annual Feast of Tabernacles, recognising him as Messiah.

Little do the people know that God's kingdom is utterly different from the Roman Empire or Herod's kingdom, totally different from all other kingdoms in this world, built on a completely new set of principles.

Kingdoms of this world are supported by force and, if necesary, defended with violence.   The kingdom of God is supported by an even greater force, the one that created the universe, God's kenotic, self-emptying love.  In order to function, it needs people who will heroically place themselves at God's disposition, at whatever the cost to themselves, so that God's power can flow through them.  Central to the establishment of this kingdom is Christ's own vocation, whose way is the way of obedience to his Father, even under the most extreme circumstances This central theme is expressed in the words of St Paul:
 As Pope Francis tells us, the only authority in the Church is that of service, and authority is measured by how many feet a person can wash; and the only power in the Church is the power of the Cross.  The Cross is Christ's royal throne: the very act of total self-surrender is the very act by which he assumes power over the new heaven and the new earth which already began to exist in Our Lady and St John at the foot of the Cross.



The new law is that of love, as the Maundy Thursday liturgy  teaches us:
The very first service of Maundy Thursday is the Mass for the blessing of the Chrism and other oils; and it is also the Mass at which the bishop and priests celebrate their common priesthood, and where the diocese, more than any other time, manifests itself as a single body.  As St Ignatius of Antioch tells us, across the centuries, from primitive Christianity:
``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D
The triduum is, above all, the Catholic Church being itself across the ages: we all celebrate because we have been made one with the whole body of Christ. That is why there used to be so many bitter arguments on the date of Easter: all felt that they should be celebrating the triduum at the same time.  Unfortunately, we have so far failed to agree on a single date.  Nevertheless, the centre of all celebrations of the Triduum are the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ which have become, for all of us, the only Way to heaven with Christ.  For this reason, the Triduum opens with the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Maundy Thursday, and ends with the Easter Mass of the Easter Vigil.  At every Mass, in so far as we make Christ's sacrifice our own, we enter into the reality in which heaven and earth are dimensions of the same creation, and God is All in all.

Maundy Thursday
The Last Supper, by Jaume Serra
  
 Nos autem gloriae (Introit)

This day, Maundy Thursday (also "Holy Thursday" or "Shire Thursday"1) commemorates Christ's Last Supper and the initiation of the Eucharist. Its name of "Maundy" comes from the Latin word mandatum, meaning "command." This stems from Christ's words in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you." It is the first of the three days known as the "Triduum," and after the Vigil tonight, and until the Vigil of Easter, a more profoundly somber attitude prevails (most especially during the hours between Noon and 3:00 PM on Good Friday). Raucous amusements should be set aside... 

The Last Supper took place in "the upper room" of the house believed to have been owned by John Mark and his mother, Mary (Acts 12:12). This room, also the site of the Pentecost, is known as the "Coenaculum" or the "Cenacle" and is referred to as "Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches" in St. James' Liturgy. At the site of this place -- our first Christian church -- a basilica was built in the 4th century. It was destroyed by Muslims and later re-built by the Crusaders. Underneath the place is the tomb of David. 

After the Supper, He went outside the Old City of Jerusalem, crossed the Kidron Valley, and came to the Garden of Gethsemani, a place whose name means "Olive Press," and where olives still grow today. There He suffered in three ineffable ways: He knew exactly what would befall Him physically and mentally -- every stroke, every thorn in the crown He would wear, every labored breath He would try to take while hanging on the Cross, the pain in each glance at His mother; He knew that He was taking on all the sins of the world -- all the sins that had ever been or ever will be committed; and, finally, He knew that, for some people, this Sacrifice would not be fruitful because they would reject Him. Here He was let down by His Apostles when they fell asleep instead of keeping watch, here is where He was further betrayed by Judas with a kiss, and where He was siezed by "a great multitude with swords and clubs, sent from the chief Priests and the ancients of the people" and taken before Caiphas, the high priest, where he was accused of blasphemy, beaten, spat upon, and prepared to be taken to Pontius Pilate tomorrow morning. 

As for today's liturgies, in the morning, the local Bishop will offer a special Chrism Mass during which blesses the oils used in Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Unction, and the consecration of Altars and churches.


At the evening Mass, after the bells ring during the Gloria, they are rung no more until the Easter Vigil (a wooden clapper called a "crotalus" is used insead). Parents explain this to their children by saying that the all the bells fly to Rome after the Gloria of the Mass on Maundy Thursday to visit the Popes. Children are told that the bells sleep on the roof of St. Peter's Basilica, and, bringing Easter eggs with them, start their flight home at the Gloria at the Easter Vigil, when when they peal wildly. 

Then comes the Washing of the Feet after the homily, a rite performed by Christ upon His disciples to prepare them for the priesthood and the marriage banquet they will offer, and which is rooted in the Old Testament practice of foot-washing in preparation for the marital embrace (II Kings 11:8-11, Canticles 5:3) and in the ritual ablutions performed by the High Priest of the Old Covenant (contrast Leviticus 16:23-24 with John 13:3-5). The priest girds himself with a cloth and washes the feet of 12 men he's chosen to represent the Apostles for the ceremony. 

The rest of the Mass after the Washing of the Feet has a special form, unlike all other Masses. After the Mass, the priest takes off his chasuble and vests in a white cope. He returns to the Altar, incenses the Sacred Hosts in the ciborium, and, preceded by the Crucifer and torchbearers, carries the Ciborium to the "Altar of Repose," also called the "Holy Sepulchre," where it will remain "entombed" until the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday. 

Then there follows the Stripping of the Altars, during which everything is removed as Antiphons and Psalms are recited. All the glorious symbols of Christ's Presence are removed to give us the sense of His entering most fully into His Passion. Christ enters the Garden of Gethsemani; His arrest is imminent. Fortescue's "Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described" tells us: "From now till Saturday no lamps in the church are lit. No bells are rung. Holy Water should be removed from all stoups and thrown into the sacrarium. A small quantity is kept for blessing the fire on Holy Saturday or for a sick call." The joyful signs of His Presence won't return until Easter begins with the Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday evening.

And, of course, tomorrow's Matins and Lauds may be read as part of the "tenebrae service" (see Spy Wednesday).




an excerpt from:
Washing For All. The Holy Thursday of Francis
The washing of feet now overshadows the Mass of the last supper. The pope has admitted women to the ceremony, as long as they belong to the Church. But he is pushing even farther, and is also washing the feet of Muslims 

by Sandro Magister





ROME, March 22, 2016 – As a reformer, Pope Francis also distinguishes himself in the liturgical field. And the day after tomorrow, on Holy Thursday, in churches all over the world there will be plain for all to see the innovation that he has introduced in the ceremony of the washing of feet, to which women too are now admitted.

As the theatre of the ceremony he will celebrate, this time Francis has chosen a refugee center, while in past years he has gone to a juvenile detention center, in 2013, to a hospice for the disabled, in 2014, and last year to a big prison. Always, therefore, to places of suffering humanity.

The day after tomorrow [today] will therefore be the first Holy Thursday following the reform. But Jorge Mario Bergoglio has put it into practice since the first year of his pontificate, even then washing the feet of women too.

Moreover, the pope has gone beyond what is allowed by his own reform, washing the feet - more than once - of persons not belonging to the Church.

But first things first. Francis enunciated the general criterion from which he draws his inspiration for innovating in the liturgical field in the 2013 agenda-setting interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica” and twelve other magazines of the Society of Jesus:

“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture. . . Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation.”


The conception of the liturgy as a pedagogical act dictated by current events is an impoverishment that has understandably disconcerted the experts on this subject. Including Cardinal Robert Sarah, who was nonetheless promoted by Francis in 2014 as prefect of the Vatican congregation for divine worship.


COMMENTARY

"The washing of feet now overshadows the Mass of the last supper."
The above sentence is utter rubbish.  Of course, it is the most newsworthy element in the Mass because the pope is using the Washing of Feet as a prophetic gesture to express his conviction that the Church must reach out to the marginalised; but there is nothing in the ceremony to "overshadow the Mass  of the last supper."   On the contrary, it emphasizes the truth that, in the Last Supper, Christ manifested the true significance of his death as a complete gift of himself to the Father and to humankind, and that we who share in his chalice must love with the same love, with a love that crosses every barrier.  The gesture adds to the meaning of the ceremony commemorating Christ washing his disciples feet: it doesn't replace it, nor does it make the gesture a liturgical norm.

It must be remembered that Cardinal Sarah is Pope Francis' appointment as head of liturgy; and he was told by Pope Francis to continue with Pope Benedict's "reform of the reform".  When Cardinal Sarah produces the next version of the Misa Normativa, it will be as much Francis' policy as Cardinal Sarah's.  Pope Francis has said, several times, that our horizontal relationships are formed out of our common vertical experience of God in Christ.  In this, he and Pope Benedict are in complete agreement; but he has the pastoral experience as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and appreciates the misa normativa as we now have it.  He does not look for Catholic truth in one school of thought, but in the "dialogue in love" between us all. This was evident in the Synods. Hence, Cardinal Sarah is as important to his project as anyone else.

"The conception of the liturgy as a pedagogical act dictated by current events is an impoverishment that has understandably disconcerted the experts on this subject."

It certainly would be an impoverishement if that were the case  There is nothing in Pope Francis' behaviour to suggest that this is his understanding of liturgy, and much to suggest otherwise.  Putting Cardinal Sarah in charge of liturgical reform is a good example.  I believe Sandro Magister's fundamental mistake is that he interprets Francis' choices as "either - or" - if he chooses one option, he is rejecting the other.    I don't think the evidence points in this direction.  He is in favour of "both...and."  He believes in a "listening church" in which everybody is open to everyone else, and where "conservatives" and "progressives" all feel at home.



HOMILY OF THE ABBOT OF BELMONT ABBEY (uk)

Maundy Thursday 2016

“It was before the festival of Passover, and Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to pass from this world to the Father. He had always loved those who were his own in the world, but now he showed how perfect his love was.”

St John begins his account of the Passion, a narrative that will take up a third of his gospel, with the washing of the disciples’ feet. It is a living parable in which Jesus demonstrates the true meaning of his life. Like all parables, it invites us to contemplate the mystery of Christ and what that means for us. The washing of the feet turns our understanding of God upside down, for the Master becomes a slave, showing his disciples that this is the only way in which they can follow him and become what God wants them to be. “If I do not wash you, you can have nothing in common with me,” Jesus says to Peter. Let us take a closer look.

The first thing we notice is the presence of Judas at table with Jesus and the others. The devil has already put it into his mind to betray Jesus, but he is still there with the disciples, and Jesus will wash his feet too. Jesus does not judge us, but bestows his gifts lavishly on us all, even if we have it in mind to betray him. Unfortunately, Judas learns nothing from the humility of Jesus. Filled with fear and despair, he will commit suicide, unable to accept that Jesus still loves him and longs to forgive and save him.

Then Jesus gets up from the table, removes his outer garment, wraps a towel round his waist, pours water into a basin and begins to wash his disciples’ feet. What Jesus did that night was something quite extraordinary, in fact, revolutionary. It was no ordinary washing of feet, certainly not the usual ritual offered to travellers and guests even today in many cultures and societies. Now a Jewish servant might wash the feet of his master and of his master’s family and guests. It’s a very intimate thing to do. Who washes your feet? Whose feet do you wash? Only a Roman slave would take off his outer garment and set about washing people’s feet in his tunic, a sort of undershirt: it wasn’t usual in a Jewish household. Moreover, Jesus himself pours water into the bowl for the washing, and that was woman’s work. His actions turn the world on its head. The disciples had never really understood what he was telling them about himself: would tonight be any different?

When he comes to Peter, there’s bound to be trouble. Peter is a proud, outspoken man, never afraid to confront and question Jesus. “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” The English translation is rather weak and doesn’t convey the power of the Greek. “What? YOU wash MY feet? Are you out of your mind?” St John Chrysostom tells us that the words express Peter’s love, but that it’s a defective love. It lacks the humility illustrated in what Jesus is doing. In Peter’s response we see pride and self-will, the very causes of sin, for which only the Cross can atone. Peter still has the “get-thee-behind-me-Satan” syndrome and he still doesn’t understand.

Jesus knows that what he’s doing is bewildering, almost scandalous, for the disciples. “At the moment you do not know what I am doing, but later you will understand.” Only after the Resurrection will they begin to understand that in the Church, the Body of Christ, there can be no room for those who refuse to be cleansed by his atoning death and washed clean in the blood of the Lamb, for it is into his death that we are baptised. Likewise, only afterwards will they come to understand that communion with Christ depends on celebrating and entering into the great Sacrament of love, the Eucharistic sacrifice, with all its practical implications of mercy and charity.

Yet, even now, as their understanding fails them, Jesus tells them that their love, like his, must go beyond all limits. Once he had taught them to forgive, “Not seven times, but seventy times seven.” Now he says, “If I, then, the Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you should wash each other’s feet.” Because they have been redeemed by the death of the Servant Son of God, they must show their gratitude in service to others, a service of love and sacrifice. We are called in Christ to be ministers of the love of God in all patience and humility. Only through love can we die with Christ, so as to rise and live with him, and there can be no true love without taking up the Cross of Jesus.


May the good Lord grant us all the grace to follow his example in loving others, without exception, just as he has loved us. Amen


Customs
As to customs, many families have a practice of visiting the tabernacles of three or seven nearby churches after the Mass on this day as a sort of "mini-pilgrimage" (any nearby Catholic churches will do). Some families visit the churches directly after the evening Mass; others go home and wake up in the middle of the night to make the visits (though since churches are rarely open all night these days, this would be hard to do). The spirit of the visits to the churches is keeping vigil in the Garden of Gethsemani while Jesus prayed before His arrest. Matthew 26:36 "Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani; and he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray."

In Germany, Maundy Thursday is known as "Green Thursday" (Grundonnerstag), and the traditional foods are green vegetables and green salad, especially a spinach salad. In Latin countries, Jordan almonds ("confetti") are eaten today and also throughout Eastertide.

Back when Kings and Queens of England were Catholic, they, too, would wash the feet of 12 subjects, seeing the footwashing rite also as an example of service and humility. They would also give money to the poor on this day, a practice is said to have begun with St. Augustine of Canterbury in A.D. 597, and performed by Kings since Edward II. Now the footwashing isn't done (it was given up in the 18th c.), but a special coin called "Maundy Money" is minted and given to the selected elderly of a representative town. 

H.M. the Queen & Prince Philip on Maundy Thursday 2015 at York Minster

On this day, one may gain a plenary indulgence, under the usual conditions, by reciting the Tantum Ergo (Down in Adoration Falling).


Footnotes:1 The name "Shire Thursday" is explained in "Festival" printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1511: "Yf a man aske why Shere Thursday is called so, ye may saye that in Holy Churche it is called (Cena Domini) our Lordes Souper daye; for that day he souped with this Discyples openly; and after souper he gave them his flesshe and his blode to ete and drynke. It is also in Englysshe called Sher Thursdaye, for in olde faders dayes the people wold that daye sher there heedes, and clyppe theyr berdes, and poll theyr heedes, and so make them honest ayenst Ester Day."  

Tuesday, 22 March 2016

THE PHENOMENON OF THE ORTHODOX ICON: A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE.

Note
I am afraid I cannot find the publication from which I have borrowed this excellent article and, hence, cannot attribute it to its author.  If anyone knows where the article is to be found, please tell me, and I will correct my mistake.  I apologise for having been so careless. (Fr David)
On the first Sunday of Great Lent the church commemorates the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” which is also known as the Week of Orthodoxy. This feast originated in the 9th century in light of the final victory of the faithful over the heresy of iconoclasm. Nowadays, this feast signifies the victory of the orthodox over all heresies, false teaching and schisms. It is a feast day of the Truth and the victory of Christ over all the weaknesses and mistakes that go against the teachings of the church.

The iconoclasm heresy originated in the 8th century in present day Greece and very quickly spread throughout the Christian world. Christians were persecuted for painting, venerating and simply having the holy icons. In fact, many were martyred, imprisoned and killed.
The seventh Ecumenical Council (787) reaffirmed the need and importance of venerating icons. However, persecutions continued until 843 when the pious empress Irina supported the final triumph of Orthodoxy over the iconoclasm heresy. Since then, a special service was created in honor of this victory in orthodox cathedrals when a bishop is present on the first Sunday after the start of the Great Lent.

Many people were ready to give up their lives while defending the holy icons. So what is an icon? What is its meaning? All of these questions are answered in a talk with Father Sergious, who is in charge of the icon-painting studio and icon painting school at St. Elisabeth Convent.



What is an icon and how can one describe an icon using only three words?


The first word is “picture”. Since an icon is indeed a picture of a person, a human. Nevertheless, not every picture is an icon.   Initially it can be very difficult to establish the necessary requirements for a picture to be referred to as an icon and to determine what is and what is not an icon. For example, if we take The Return of the Prodigal Son by Rembrandt, the painting is essentially not an icon. 

However, the painting expresses a
theological and very profound love of God towards man in comparison to some of the more contemporary images of the same biblical event. Of course, according to the church canons we cannot place this painting into the iconostasis of the church or serve and venerate it. Still, from the point of view of a “picture” there is a definite and concrete theological perspective that the painting does indeed contain.    

Of course, according to the church canons we cannot place this painting into the iconostasis of the church or serve and venerate it. Still, from the point of view of a “picture” there is a definite and concrete theological perspective that the painting does indeed contain.

Very often in the fragments of icons, mosaics, or frescoes one could see emperors, empresses, as well as rich donors praying in from of the Lord or the Mother of God. What is more interesting is that the image is created in accordance with the church canons.

This is because even the most “correct” and canonical icons can include images of regular, earthly and secular people. Such people are not the center of the icon because Christ is and must be the center but these people are still be depicted as they are turned to Christ. So even the most plain and regular person has the right to be pictured. Even if he or she is still alive. From this, you can see that an icon is much more complex than originally perceived.

An icon is a picture, along with the presence of the Image of God, but this Image cannot be captured, it cannot be grasped by any human logic and it cannot be contained in any amount of words or paragraphs which say which icon has this “image” and which does not.


If an icon is present then God is present as well.

“The idea of a New Testament icon, as interpreted by the Holy Fathers, is to properly express, clearly explain as much as possible through artistic expression, the truth of God’s incarnation. The image of Jesus is the image of God. (L. Ouspensky “Theology of the Icon”)

If we take this quote and look at the icon of Christ from the Zvenigrod Deesis - an image that is undoubtedly an icon, then we can conclude that here the icon expresses the dogmatic truth of incarnation with extreme precision and fullness that is not easily accomplished. There can be no argument here and I think that while looking at the image one can start to assert that if such an icon exists, then there is a God (Father George Florensky said something very similar: “If there is an icon of the holy Trinity then there is a God.)

The height of such artistic expression, that is presented to us, also prompts us to think that masterpieces cannot reach such levels alone, without  God and the acknowledgement of his existence. Here, while looking at this icon (Christ from the Zvenigrod Deesis) the incarnation of God is expressed with such emphasis that you do not always see in contemporary icons. Icons may have all the canonical aspects, gold leaf plating and other features but you do not always see the most important aspect, the truth of our Lord’s incarnation  -  is not there

An Uncontainable Combination

Everyone knows that artistic forms of expression existed long before the time of Christ. Ancient art forms are still unattainable…but these masterpieces generally depicted secular, human beauty which was often very generic, distant and cold. For example, take the image of Aphrodite. The image is one of beauty and harmony but at the same time, she is not alive, not real and therefore very distant to the everyday person. These art forms either depicted false idols or gods and the beauty was rather fictional and unattainable rather than being real and personal.


Christ comes into the world that appears to be beautiful but also deceitful at because the world that our Savior comes into is filled with sin. Christ is able to show us true beauty. Beauty that is very human in one sense and one that each one of us can feel. That same beauty is also filled with the Devine. An icon is also a phenomenon and a true wonder of the world because it processes the Devine and at the same time is made up of earthly materials such as wood and paint. Even the person who paints the icon is typically an ordinary human being and not always a saint.

You see, in a way an icon repeats this unique paradox - where the uncontainable and combinable is combined, the same way as it is in Christ. It is difficult to imagine God and Man in one. It is hard to comprehend because everything human is always limited in understanding and miniscule but everything related to God is grand and uncontainable. The icon also connects the Devine and the human aspects and we in turn can see its beauty, its phenomena and its complexity. Once again, since we can not explain God in a few paragraphs we cannot in the same way explain an icon and its mystery. This is why we need to look further and more in depth. The ability to understand and interpret an icon comes with the experience of every individual meeting with God and their individual connection to their Maker. This is because our entire life is a path towards meeting the Lord and so our closeness to God is proportional to our ability to feel the beautiful mystery of the icon.

We need each other

 It is almost as if all the iconographers are in essence doomed: when we sit with our paintbrushes and we feel a colossal pressure of sin, our personal and that of the rest of the world. It is difficult for us because we need to depict the Truth of our Lord’s incarnation. Maybe people no longer need this Truth. It is very important to have people in this world who are in need of this truth and the Image of God. If we have people like that then we will still be able to do something. Even if we are “overeducated” and we have the most ideal sketches in front of us:  We will not be able to do anything.



Why did Andrei Rublev paint icons the way he did?

It is because in his time people needed God. People could not live without God. This was his real inspiration that enabled him to depict Christ. Only this. It was not his personal talent, which without a doubt he did possess as an artist. Moreover, he was quite talented, may I add.  Nevertheless, along with the talent there was a desire to be with God. In addition, if we can talk to people about God, show them the true beauty of the icon, maybe this might help people get back to the one main beauty - which we see in Christ.


This is why we have a very serious duty and responsibility in front of others.

Source: http://www.helleniccomserve.com/victory_of_icons.html

Lecture on the Occasion of the Feast of the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Pan-Orthodox Vespers, St. Elias Eastern Orthodox Church, Battle Creek , Michigan Sunday, March 4, 2001
my source: pravmir.com
Source:  http://www.helleniccomserve.com/victory_of_icons.html
In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. With thankfulness to Almighty God for this glorious day that has dawned upon us and for the approaching night, I wish to express my gratitude toward the worshiping community of St. Elias and your pastor, Fr. Michael St. Andrew, for the opportunity afforded to me this afternoon to worship with you, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and to share with you a few thoughts about the great feast worldwide Orthodoxy celebrates today. My homily this evening is entitled: “The Triumph of the Icons: History, Theology, and Implications for Orthodox Worship Today.”     


        It is true that the non-Orthodox world tends to identify Orthodox Christianity primarily with our use of icons in worship. It sees the icon as that one distinct element that distinguishes Eastern Christianity from the other expressions of Christianity. To a degree, this is not necessarily an incorrect view, given the fact that the icons in our Church tell so much more than just a story of the sainted person’s life. The holy icons are theological statements, which in their form and manner of depiction, explicate the teachings and doctrine that are central to the one true Faith, upon which the universe is founded. The triumph of the holy icons then on this First Sunday of the Great and Holy Lent is not simply a historical victory over the Iconoclasts, or opponents of the icons, but a celebration of the very essence of the Church’s Faith, which is best expressed in our liturgical worship.

            In order to understand the significance of this victory for the Orthodox Church and the ramifications of iconic use in the churches, proper procedure requires us to step back into history and examine, albeit in brief, those important events that lead us to celebrate this 1,158th Sunday of Orthodoxy. By exploring the historical background, we will encounter the theological positions on both sides of the Iconoclastic controversy, as well as the Church’s faithful persistence in formulating its Spirit-inspired dogma regarding the holy icons.

The Historical Overview

            The debate surrounding the importance of the holy icons and their liturgical usage spanned over a century, covering the historic period from 726-843 AD. The debate, known historically as the Iconoclastic controversy, mainly preoccupied the Eastern regions of the Byzantine Empire, with only a few repercussions in the West. It was a time of great political unrest, highlighted by various degrees of Byzantine intrigue, heresy, persecution, and even death. The Church, during this time, produced several martyrs and confessors for the Faith, men and women who refused to surrender the God-inspired teachings and Tradition of their Fathers. The end result was the final triumph of Orthodoxy over heresy, and once again, as during the first few centuries of Christianity, the Church was preserved upon and edified by the very blood shed by the holy martyrs for Christ our God.

            The conflict began during the reign of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (726-741) who, ten years into his reign, publicly began speaking out against the icons and sought to eliminate “those who worship them” (Iconodules). To affirm his authority, he sent a representative to remove the icon over the Chalke (Bronze) Gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople and replace it with a cross. The representative was apprehended, needless to say, by a mob of citizens who favored the icons, mostly women, and was killed. Leo then retaliated fiercely against the Iconophiles (“those who love the icons”) and began his widespread campaign throughout the Empire.

            In the West, Pope Gregory II rejected Leo’s theological claims [we shall look at the Iconoclastic position in a few minutes] but sought to boost Leo’s popularity in Italy because of the need for Byzantine troops in the West to defeat the approaching Lombard hoards from the North. In 730, Leo passed an edict ordering the destruction of all icons in the Empire. Patriarch Gelasios refused to sign this document and was aptly deposed. A new Iconoclastic patriarch, Anastasios, was chosen and ecclesiastically sanctioned the edict. Even two representatives of Pope Gregory III from Rome were imprisoned for standing against Leo. Consequently, a great rift was created from this time forth between both East and West. In 754, after the Lombards captured Ravenna, the papacy formally aligned itself with the Frankish king Pepin, establishing the foundations for the new Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne in 800 AD.

            Leo’s successor, his son Constantine V (741-775), intensified the persecutions against the Orthodox, the term that by this time was gaining popularity to describe the “correct” teaching of the Church. In Hieria, in the year 754, 338 carefully selected Iconoclastic bishops (minus the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) convened at a council ordered by the theologically articulate Constantine, to establish their own dogma against the icons. Consequently, great figures such as St. John of Damascus, a champion for the Orthodox cause, were excommunicated. The total destruction of all the icons was ordered. Monasteries, the centers of theological learning and certainly from which the greatest support for the icons came, were forcibly closed. Many monks and clergy were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or killed for their faith.

            Constantine’s son, Leo IV (775-780) was a moderate defender of his father’s holocaustic campaigns, abandoning his father’s anti-monastic persecutions. Leo’s premature death made his wife Irene co-emperor and regent for their ten-year-old son Constantine VI. Resolute in her commitment to restore the icons, Irene appointed the Iconophile patriarch Tarasios to the throne of Constantinople and convened the 7th Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 787 AD, composed of 350 bishops from all over the Empire and giving the Church its first respite. (As we shall see, there was a second wave of Iconoclastic persecution!) Iconoclastic writings were condemned and ordered to be burned, and the icons, along with St. John the Damascene, were restored to their rightful place in the Empire. In 802, Charlemagne from the West acknowledged that there was no emperor in Byzantium, by virtue of the fact that Irene was a woman and had actually  overthrown her son, making her the sole monarch in the East. Charlemagne’s proposal to Irene to marry him (in order for him to increase the size of his empire) was rejected and Irene was exiled to a monastery, where she later died.

            In 813, the second round of Iconoclastic persecutions resumed with Leo V the Armenian (813-820). He appointed Patriarch John Grammatikos as the theological voice of Iconoclasm and sought to reconvene a council to depose the icons once again. Two rivals, the former patriarch Nikephoros and St. Theodore of the Monastery of Studion, joined forces to fight against Leo. In the spring of 815, a new council was convened, condemning the Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and restoring the decisions of the one in Hieria in 754.

Following this change of events, the Iconoclastic emperor, Michael II the Amorian (820-29), ascended the throne, a moderate who did not continue the persecutions against the Iconophiles and actually recalled Patriarch Nikephoros and St. Theodore from exile. The final Iconoclastic Emperor Theophilos (829-842), influenced under the tutelage of John Grammatikos, fiercely persecuted the Orthodox, targeting especially the monasteries in an attempt to destroy once and for all the preservers of the true Faith. His death on January 20, 842, led to the ascent to the throne of his wife, the famous Empress Theodora, who also served as regent of their son Michael III (842-867).

            Empress Theodora deposed the Iconoclastic patriarch John Grammatikos and reinstated Patriarch Methodios to his rightful see. Convening a council in 843, the Church and State permanently established the holy icons in the churches and on March 11, the first Sunday of Great Lent, the decree was solemnized as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. To this day, our Church celebrates this victory by blessing God and those saints and martyrs who fervently and unshakably supported the Orthodox Christian Faith.

The Theological Positions in the Debate

            The theological arguments of the Church in support of the holy icons may be attributed to the writings of three important Church Fathers: St. John of Damascus (who shined during the first phase of the controversy), St. Theodore the Studite, and Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople (both of whom championed the cause during the second phase). Their theological positions may be viewed in four areas: (1) the argument about the Mosaic prohibition of idols (Ex 20.4-5); (2) the nature of the image itself; (3) the Christological argument; and (4) the issue of worship vs. veneration.

            The opponents of the holy icons and the positions they took were highly influenced by three dominant religious philosophies of the time: Judaism, Islam, and Manichaeanism, a heresy which taught that the material world was evil and not a creation of God. Judaism and Islam both advocate a “spiritual” worship of God and thus reject any graven or material image. The Iconoclasts were clearly following this line of reasoning when they rallied around the biblical prohibition of graven images in Exodus and Deuteronomy. For them, the icons were made by imperfect human hands, and the perfect and infinite God could never be controlled nor mastered nor circumscribed by visible human efforts and profane physical matter. Countering this stance, St. John of Damascus argued that although the worship of God is indeed primary among the Orthodox, God still commanded the tabernacle to be decorated with religious images, such as the cherubim and seraphim. These images were to lead the Israelites to a greater worship of God. Secondly, the Fathers taught that God made images of Himself, first and foremost being Christ Jesus, ‘the likeness of God” and “the image of the invisible God” (cf. 2 Cor 4.4; Col 1.15). Thus, the birth of God in the flesh, the Incarnation, surpassed all Old Testament prohibitions. Thirdly, humanity itself was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1.26). Hence, since God dwells in each human being, and since man’s image was depicted everywhere else in the world, how could Christ’s holy image not be depicted upon the holy icons?

Regarding the nature of the image, the Iconoclasts claimed that a true image must have the same essence (homoousios) as the original person (prototype) being depicted. The icons were not of the same essence with their prototypes. The Orthodox Fathers never regarded the holy icons as being of the same substance with the prototype. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council it was stated that, “. . . the icon resembles the prototype, not with regard to the essence, but only with regard to the name and to the position of the members which can be characterized . . .” (D. Sahas, Icon and Logos, p. 77). The honor then passed from the visible image to the prototype depicted upon the icon. St. Basil the Great likened the homage paid to the image of the Emperor with the honor given the holy icons (On the Holy Spirit 18.45). The people always respected the bust of the Byzantine Emperor in the squares and marketplaces, considering the material statue itself the “Emperor” but realizing that there were not two Emperors, but one. In addition, Theodosios the Great established a legal precedent, that any person seeking political asylum at the statue of the Emperor in the city could not be apprehended for ten days, out of reverence for the imperial icon and its prototype. 

            As for the Christological arguments, the Iconoclasts claimed that if the icons  depicted only the humanity of Christ and not the divine nature, then their opponents were in violation of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (451 AD), which taught that Christ is perfect God and perfect Man and were thus either monophysites (they believed that the divine was subsumed in the human) or Nestorians (Christ’s divine nature was denied). Furthermore, if the icons depicted somehow Christ’s divinity, then Christ was not divine since it was impossible to depict divinity by imperfect human means. St. John of Damascus writes this classic apology in defense of depicting the incarnate Word of God:

But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter: I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation! I honor it, but not as God (St. John of Damascus, First Apology 16).

He further adds that “what can be assumed can be saved.” The only way for Christ to save the world and restore it was to be born in it and to sanctify matter, by becoming matter Himself. Indeed, the Incarnation of the Son of God then not only made the veneration of icons possible within Orthodox Christianity but a downright necessity. St. Theodore the Studite wryly states that if only mental worship was sufficient, then God would not have become human and endured the Cross. He could just as easily have communicated with humans mentally (see First Refutation 7). What’s more, only the person of Christ (His hypostasis), and not His two natures could be depicted on an icon. The human and divine natures of Christ, perfectly united but never confused, co-existed in the mystery of the incarnate Son and Word of God.

            A final word on the distinction between worship and veneration. While worship is reserved only for God, veneration, or honor, is extended beyond the image to the prototype in the icon. The respect and honor do not stop at the icon, nor is the icon the recipient of our worship and praise. The icon serves as a reminder of the spiritual life that co-exists alongside our world, a window even, through which we envision the deified world of the Kingdom. Indeed then, as one writer put it very succinctly, “The appropriate encounter with the icon, despite its powerful presence as a visual image, is an encounter that goes beyond the icon itself to the greater transcendent reality of God” (A. Vrame, The Educating Icon, p. 44).

Implications for Orthodox Worship Today

            As material objects depicting the transformed, defied life of the Kingdom, the holy icons are used today primarily because of two very basic Orthodox teachings: (1) that matter is by nature good; and (2) that Christ’s incarnation rendered matter an instrument of salvation. These two very important doctrinal truths suggest to us various implications in our liturgical worship. I wish to share with you three of these.

            First, just as we live in a very material world, we also worship in a very material Church. The basic Orthodox belief in the goodness of all matter is the fundamental reason for our use of physical items in our worship: bread, wine, water, oil, incense, candles, icons, and music. We can take the famous pop singer Madonna’s verses, “We live in a material world, and I am a material girl” and modify them to apply to our Church’s liturgical worship: “We pray in a material Church, and I am a material worshiper.” The major difference here though is that Christ, through His incarnation, not only affirmed the goodness of matter, but also transformed it to serve as a means of divine grace, through which we are saved. The secular, material world seeks not the transformation and redemption of man, but rather his separation from God. In the secular world, matter is not a means to God but an end to itself, an idol, a god. In Orthodox worship, all our senses are engaged to praise and glorify the God of all.

            Second, the icons affirm not only the Incarnation, but also every single event Christ our Lord effected for our salvation. In our liturgical worship, God acts mystically when man acts physically. In other words, the various prayers and actions and gestures, the various material items we use in church, become the media, the instruments, through which the Lord acts in our lives to bless us and help us and save us. Through faith, and only through faith, can we see the hand of God acting mystically through the unworthy hand of the priest. Only through faith can we behold the glory of God in human beings. Put simply, faith allows us through physical worship to relive the salvific acts of Christ and to witness firsthand God’s continued involvement in the lives of His people.

            Finally, as the icons are holy images which point to a greater, transcendent reality, so too are we icons of God, in whom God dwells forever. As St. Paul says, we are living temple of the Holy Spirit and, as such, each of us created in “God’s image and likeness” (Gen 1.26) requires the respect and honor which is our due. This means that both inside and outside of worship, we are to treat others and be treated ourselves with the holiness and respect and piety due the holy icons, because God lives in each of us. Beyond our physical appearance, in our souls, God exists and makes His abode inside of each of us. For this reason does Christ command us to “love one another, as I have loved you”, for the simple reason that in loving another human being, no matter who he or she is, we love God. As St. John the Evangelist writes,  “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” (1 Jn 4.20). Indeed then, we are all icons for each other’s salvation, through whom we cannot help but see, with the eyes of faith, the presence of Almighty God.


            May this holy feast of our Church, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, instruct us and inspire us all in our Orthodox Christian Faith, and raise us to honor the incarnate Son and Word of God, His saints, and His people, one another, who are living icons of the glory of God. Amen.


LENTEN LITURGY
"LET MY PRAYER ARISE!"




The Door of Repentance open unto Me





NOW THE POWERS OF HEAVEN...



 

Search This Blog

La Virgen de Guadalupe

La Virgen de Guadalupe

Followers

My Blog List

Fr David Bird

Fr David Bird
Me on a good day

Blog Archive