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, 18 December 2015

RELIGIOUS LIFE AND THE LAY VOCATION

Monasticism, Clericalism, and the Priesthood of All Believers
July 29, 2014
The essence of monasticism is not clerical service—which is possible only for some—but a radically converted way of life, available to all.
Benjamin Mann
Abbot Nicholas Zachariadis
Abbot Nicholas (second from the left) with ecumenical delegates, Benedictine Abbots' Congress, Rome (2004)

“In the church, the [consecrated] religious are called to be prophets in particular by demonstrating how Jesus lived on this earth, and to proclaim how the kingdom of God will be in its perfection. A religious must never give up prophecy … Let us think about what so many great saints, monks, and religious men and women have done, from St. Anthony the Abbot onward. Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves.” — Pope Francis, La Civilta Cattolica interview, September 2013. 

“When there is no prophecy among the people, clericalism fills the void.” — Pope Francis, daily Mass homily, December 16, 2013. 

In an unusual, perhaps surprising turn of events, we now have a pope who speaks often and explicitly against clericalism: that is, against the erroneous assumption that the Catholic clergy are spiritually superior to the laity and automatically more important to the Church’s mission.

This development is not wholly novel. Past popes have also known that giving laypersons a second-class status causes paralysis, not healthy order. The opposite of clericalism is not chaos, but responsibility: it means a Church in which all believers take responsibility for learning, living, and transmitting the faith.

The backlash against clericalism has spawned false solutions, however. Some laypersons think they should oppose clericalism by taking on priest-like functions, or demanding access to ordination. But this “clericalized” behavior feeds into the very error it opposes.

To overcome clericalism, we must recover some deep truths of faith. Among these truths is the Catholic doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers,” or the “universal priesthood.” Different from the ordained priesthood, but no less important, this is the share in Christ’s priesthood which all the baptized possess.

Aspects of this universal priesthood are already implicit in Christian prayer and practice. But many faithful seemingly do not grasp the importance of the priesthood of all believers, or they lack models for living it.

We need not invent new spiritual models to fill this gap. Christian tradition already contains the resources for understanding and living this universal baptismal priesthood. One resource is the monastic tradition.

For cultural and historical reasons, monasticism has typically not served as a model for lay spirituality in the Christian West, at least in recent centuries. This is a significant loss—especially since monasticism originally developed among laypersons, as a means for living out their baptismal calling to its fullest.

Monasticism is fundamentally a lay movement. Its great founders, like St. Benedict and St. Anthony of Egypt, were not priests, and did not envision communities of priests. The essence of monasticism is not clerical service—which is possible only for some—but a radically converted way of life, available to all.

Many Western Christians see monasticism as remote and inaccessible, very different from ordinary Christian life. Often they associate monasticism with the ordained priesthood—as though ordination were the goal of monastic life, at least for men. Women’s monasticism, meanwhile, is almost off the radar.

All of these impressions are incorrect. Monasticism is a way of life for both men and women. Its goal is not ordination, but the fulfillment of one’s baptismal consecration to God. This is why monasticism can, and should, be a model for the “priesthood of all believers.”

In our Eastern Christian tradition, monastic life is more readily understood as a universal spiritual paradigm—a model of discipleship for all Christians, in any state of life. Not all are called to formal monasticism, but all believers can take lessons and inspiration from this spiritual path.

St. John Paul II noted this in Orientale Lumen, his apostolic letter on the Eastern churches: “…in the East, monasticism was not seen merely as a separate condition, proper to a precise category of Christians, but rather as a reference point for all the baptized…a symbolic synthesis of Christianity” (9).

As representatives of Eastern Catholicism, we believe monastic spirituality can help the laity to live out the priesthood they possess by baptism. This, in turn, can help solve the problem of clericalism in the Church, as laypersons come to understand the holiness and importance of their baptismal calling.

In a deeper sense, too, monasticism is antithetical to the spirit of clericalism that would divide the Church into “superior clergy” and “inferior laity.” Monasticism is profoundly egalitarian: open to both sexes (albeit separately), placing all on the equal footing of humility before God.

Clericalism will not be overcome by shallow or politicized measures, but by a deeper consciousness of our identity in Christ. The monastic tradition offers a means of growing in this awareness—not only for consecrated monastics, but for anyone committed to a shared life of prayer and spiritual discipline.

Clericalism and the “clericalization of the laity”

Though our focus is on this universal application of monastic spirituality, we must begin elsewhere: with a synopsis of clericalism, as well as the false solution that has been called the “clericalization of the lay faithful.”

Clericalism is based on a distortion of certain truths. The ministerial priesthood, conferred by ordination, does convey responsibilities and rights which do not belong to laypersons. The ordained priesthood differs, not just in degree but in kind, from the priesthood of all the baptized (Lumen Gentium, 10).

Nonetheless, Christianity is not a religion centered on the clergy. The baptismal vocation of laypersons is not inferior to the vocation of those ordained. A differentiation of roles in the Church is not a stratification of “important clergy” and “unimportant laity.”

Still, clericalism makes some laypersons feel like spectators—rather than protagonists in salvation history—simply because they are not ordained, and often cannot be ordained, to the ministerial priesthood.

Even consecrated life has suffered from clericalism. Deviating from tradition, medieval Western men’s monasteries became clericalized: divided into “choir monks” chosen for ordination, and lower-ranking “lay brothers” focused on manual labor. This division has long affected the Western Church.

Along with the problem of clericalism, the Church now also faces a misguided backlash against this phenomenon.

Unfortunately, this overreaction to clericalism has not promoted a proper understanding of gifts and vocations within Christ’s Body. Instead, we have witnessed power struggles, confusion about the priesthood, and what St. John Paul II called the “clericalization of the lay faithful” (Christifideles Laici, 23).

Ironically, the backlash against clericalism often proceeds from the same basis as clericalism itself. Many opponents of clericalism implicitly accept the false premise that ministerial service within the Church—in liturgical, sacramental, and pastoral contexts—signifies superiority and importance.

Rather than rooting out this error, these opponents demand that such ministries be open to laypersons. They desire to take up priestly or priest-like duties—distributing Communion, serving in the sanctuary, or exercising pastoral governance—in order to prove their importance and worth in the Church.

In the worst case, this mindset generates tension between clergy and clericalized laity, who see themselves as competitors for status and influence. Such misunderstandings reach their height in the demand for women’s ordination, often framed in terms of “equal dignity” or “equal worth.”

Sadly, these protests stem from basic misconceptions: not only about the ordained priesthood, but—more fundamentally—about the source of dignity and worth in the Church, which is found not in ordination but in our common baptism.

Holiness is one single reality, the reality of our transformation in—and into—Christ. By baptism, all are called to this holiness. Yet the Lord desires the differentiation of gifts and roles in his Church: “that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11).

Laypersons should not try to approximate or appropriate the clerical state—either by demands for ordination, or by the “soft clericalism” that demands special roles in the sanctuary and the parish.

Instead, all Church members—clergy and laity—should reflect on the tremendous baptismal calling of all the faithful. Our shared baptismal vocation is a priesthood in its own right, the “priesthood of all believers” in the authentic, Catholic sense.

Though different from the ordained ministry, this priesthood is not inferior. Indeed, it is more fundamental: the whole Church comprises “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). This universal priesthood is a participation in the mystery of Christ, who is “priest, prophet, and king” (CCC 783-784).

The consecrated monastic vocation emerged as a way for both men and women to live this universal priesthood. Later developments or distortions notwithstanding, this is still the essence of monasticism.

Furthermore, it is the reason why monasticism can serve as “a reference point for all the baptized.” To see how this is possible, we must first examine the priesthood of all believers.

The universal priesthood of the baptized

Though it is an authoritative teaching of the Church, many Catholics seem unaware that there is a universal priesthood of all believers, in which we share because of our baptism into Christ the Eternal High Priest.

This priesthood—like the entire reality of Christ and his Church—is a great mystery. But we can grasp several of its essential aspects. These include: intercession, sacrifice, mediating grace to others, offering creation back to God in thanksgiving, and the contemplative work of “standing before God.”

Individually, these aspects of the universal priesthood will be more or less familiar. What is lacking is a vision of the whole, connecting these spiritual practices through our participation in Jesus’ priesthood.

Our intercessory prayer is a participation in the priesthood of Christ, “who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us” (Rom. 8:34). Hebrews 7 makes this clearer: “[H]e holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (v. 24-25, RSV-CE)

Since the Church prays “in Jesus’ name,” our prayers are joined with that single, definitive divine-human intercession which Christ makes before his Father for the world. Since Christ is both God and man, we pray both to him and, in a sense, with him—in union with this eternal intercession.

Likewise, our sacrificial acts and redemptive sufferings are a participation in Christ’s priesthood. Jesus suffers in the members of his Mystical Body (Acts 9:5); and while his sacrifice alone redeems us, our struggles can sanctify the Church and bring the grace of Christ’s Passion into the world (Col. 1:24).

Similarly, our share in the priesthood of Christ makes us mediators of God’s grace. We become “sacraments” of God’s love: signs which embody the very reality that they signify. Baptized into Christ, we live for others as tangible manifestations of the grace given to us.

Jesus himself is the singular, absolute “sacrament” of God’s love in this sense. But we, in him, are transformed into reality-bearing signs of the same grace. Through our incorporation into Christ the One Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), our presence also becomes a conduit of grace between God and the world.

Another universally-shared aspect of Jesus’ priesthood is the work of thanksgiving: to receive God’s creation as a gift, and to respond by rendering it back to God, with gratitude and rightful use.

In this respect, Jesus—in his incarnate priesthood—succeeds where Adam failed. Creation was made for man’s use and God’s glorification, with the intention that all gifts would be referred and offered up to the divine Giver. But mankind shattered this relationship by transgressing against God’s generosity.

In Christ—and subsequently, his Church—the relationship is restored: creation shows forth its meaning as a sign of God’s grace, and mankind can offer creation back to God. Though it is not among the Seven Sacraments, our grateful reception and blessing of God’s gifts is “sacramental” in this broader sense.

We end our summary of the priesthood of all believers, with the work that St. Edith Stein called “standing before God for all.” Rooted in the Old Testament and Christian mysticism, this is the simple yet profound task of bringing the world into God’s presence, and God’s presence into the world, within oneself.

Because of the original unity and solidarity of the human race (cf. CCC 404), one person’s presence before God brings grace, in some way, to the whole world. All prayer, and especially that prayer which consists in simply “practicing the presence of God,” is implicitly offered “in behalf of all and for all” (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora).

But what makes this possible? Again, it is the grace of Christ—in whom we are united with one another and with God. Belonging fully to eternity and time, to the world and the Trinity, he makes each present to the other. It is the Eternal Word who first “stands before God for all.” Yet in him, the same work is ours.

Monasticism and the universal priesthood

A deep connection exists between monasticism and the “priesthood of all believers.” In the West, this link was obscured by the later clericalization of men’s monasteries—the ordination of nearly all monks judged capable of priestly service—and by the functional specialization of later, semi-monastic religious orders.

These developments are at variance with the original monastic tradition—which was devoted to prayer, and involved celibacy, but which had no essential connection to the priesthood or any other ordained ministry. Early monks were in fact strongly discouraged from seeking or desiring ordination.

Open equally to both men and women, in a spirit of true Christian egalitarianism, monasticism is not essentially ordered toward the ordained priesthood. But it is very much ordered toward the universal priesthood shared by all believers through their baptism.

Having enumerated some central facets of our common priesthood—its intercessory, sacrificial, mediational, offertory, and contemplative aspects—we can see how this is so. For we find the same elements present in monastic life, only in a more developed and explicit form.

Every Christian can offer intercessory prayer in union with Christ “who indeed intercedes for us.” The intercessory prayer of monks has no more inherent power than that of laypersons; but both derive their strength from our share in Jesus’ priesthood and his divine-human mediation.

Monastics offer intercession regularly, in the daily cycle of services. But any layperson can perform the same work—by praying some of the canonical hours, or simply following a personal prayer rule with an intercessory dimension. Indeed, intercession for others should be part of the laity’s daily prayers.

Through physical asceticism, and especially the discipline of fasting, monks and nuns learn to consecrate the entire experience of human life—including its inevitable struggles and sorrows—to God through Christ. Yet this work, too, belongs just as properly to all the baptized.

The Christian East and West offer fasting traditions which should be robustly revived among Catholics and other Christians. But asceticism is not an end in itself, either for laypersons or monastics: through it, we share in Christ’s priesthood, by entering into his solidarity with the sufferings of all humanity.

It is said that consecrated religious men and women are “signs of grace” in the world. This is more deeply true than some realize: for they should be “signs” in the sacramental sense, encapsulating and transmitting the reality they signify. Yet we must not think this task belongs only to consecrated religious.

Every Christian is, by baptismal adoption, a “son of God” (CCC 460, 654, 2782). Thus, all believers—not only consecrated religious—ought to be, like the eternal Son of God, a “light to the nations” and a channel of grace between God and mankind. Christian life and social activism should be rooted in this awareness of our status as channels of grace.

The material simplicity of monastic life has an ascetical purpose; yet it is also oriented toward the original “offertory” purpose of creation, in which we receive all things as gifts from God and offer them back to him in gratitude. Simplicity reminds us that all things are gifts, to be received with appreciation.

Non-monastic laity share equally in this sacred task. By cultivating a measure of monastic simplicity in their lives, all believers can participate more deeply in Jesus’ incarnate priestly work of receiving and blessing creation. Every gift of God can be received and offered back, in a “sacramental” spirit.

Even the contemplative work of “standing before God for all”—bringing the world into the Lord’s presence, and vice versa, within oneself—is not limited to a particular group or class of Christians. It is an aspect of Christ’s priesthood which he shares with all members of his Mystical Body.

The essence of inward prayer is simply being present to God, opening ourselves to his transcendent love. Yet one cannot really do this without including, in some way, the whole of humanity in the same act. All true prayer is prayer for all: even a simple prayer—such as, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me”—includes all people, in all times and places, when offered “in spirit and truth.”

To intercede with God in prayer; to be a mediator of grace, and a “living sacrifice”; to receive and offer up creation as a sacramental gift, and to “stand before God for all”: these tasks belong to monks and nuns, but also to all believers. They are priestly works, but not the privilege of a particular subgroup. They are the extraordinary, grace-filled, eternally-consequential tasks of the ordinary, everyday Christian life.

Monasticism offers a structure in which those works—the works of the universal priesthood—are the main substance of life. Yet such a life is always possible—for all who, in baptism, “have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). This is how monasticism serves as a model for the priesthood of all believers.

Overcoming clericalism, appreciating baptism

Lived out on a Church-wide scale, this spirituality of the universal priesthood would render clericalism obsolete.

Clericalism is, above all, a diminution of baptism and an over-valuing of ordained ministry. The answer to clericalism is not in “clericalization of the laity,” or struggles about who may be ordained. Without diminishing the ordained priesthood, we must take a higher view of baptism.

Sharing actively in Christ’s priesthood, as well as his royal anointing and prophetic office, laypersons would feel no need for special, quasi-clerical tasks within their parishes. Nor would they be inclined—alternatively—to rest in complacency, letting priests and bishops do the spiritual “heavy lifting.”

As a “reference point for all the baptized,” monasticism offers the means for a true, spiritual empowerment of the laity: not a usurpation of ministerial duties, but a growth toward “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).

The Church needs men and women who will follow God’s call to formal, consecrated monastic life. But the Church also needs those who, without renouncing property or marriage, will look to the monasteries for inspiration in living as baptized members of Christ, participants in the mystery of his priesthood.

Monks and nuns are not a special, elite class of Christians. Fundamentally, they are baptized believers who have renounced certain natural goods to pursue the supernatural end to which all people are called: union with God, and with one another, in Christ.

Their vocation, in that sense, is simply the one Christian vocation—the universal human call that went out from the Upper Room at Pentecost:


In practice…there is only one vocation. Whether you teach or live in the cloister or nurse the sick, whether you are in [consecrated life] or out of it, married or single, no matter who you are or what you are, you are called to the summit of perfection: you are called to a deep interior life, perhaps even to mystical prayer, and to pass the fruits of your contemplation on to others. And if you cannot do so by word, then by example. (Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain)



Archimandrite Nicholas Zachariadis is the founding abbot of Holy Resurrection Monastery, an Eastern Catholic monastery in Saint Nazianz, Wisconsin.


Benjamin Mann is a member of Holy Resurrection Monastery, due to be tonsured a monk in April 2015. He writes a regular column for Catholic Exchange and released a short autobiographical book entitled "Shouting Through The Water" in October 2014

my source: National Catholic Reporter
Vatican affirms religious brothers, says lay men and women exercise priesthood
by
Joshua J. McElwee  |  Dec. 14, 2015
Franciscan Brother Juan Turios prays in 2013 with immigration reform advocates in Washington. (CNS/Jim West)
VATICAN CITY The Vatican has roundly affirmed the vocation of the lay religious brother in the Catholic church, saying that men -- and women -- who are not ordained as priests still exercise a daily priesthood in their work in the world by the fact of their baptism.
In a long-awaited document dedicated to the vocation of men who serve in religious orders but not as priests, the Vatican says the first title Jesus assumed for himself and for his disciples was that of brother.

“Jesus Christ first of all became brother, shared our flesh and blood and was in solidarity with the sufferings of his brothers and sisters,” states the document, released by the Vatican’s congregation for religious Monday. “This is the title Jesus gives his disciples after his Resurrection.”

“The Religious Brother, living his lay state through a special consecration, is witness to the value of the common priesthood received in Baptism and Confirmation,” it states earlier. “His religious consecration is in itself an exercise in the fullness of the priesthood of all the baptized.”

“Rooting his life deeply in God, the Brother consecrates all creation, recognizing the presence of God and the Spirit’s action in creation, in cultures and in daily events,” it continues.

Email-ad_NCRxmas.jpgOrder a gift subscription to NCR, and we'll throw in a little something extra for you! Learn more.
“Because he recognizes this active presence, he can proclaim it to his contemporaries,” it states. “This ability is the fruit of an ongoing process of openness to God through consecration, that is, through the daily experience of his baptismal priesthood.”

The new Vatican document -- titled “Identity and Mission of the Religious Brother in the Church” -- focuses on the role non-ordained men play in various religious orders around the world. Commonly referred to as brothers, such men do not receive priestly ordination but are normally consecrated or anointed into a life of service with their order.

The Vatican estimates that such men make up about a fifth of all male religious in the global church. Catholics in the U.S. may be familiar with brothers in the large Jesuit or Franciscan orders, or in orders dedicated only to brothers, such as the Christian Brothers of De La Salle or the Marist Brothers.

Monday’s document had been known to be in development for years by the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, but had been rumored to have been delayed several times over disagreements over how the role of the brother would be explained in relation to that of the priest.

The released document does not exactly address that issue specifically, but rather affirms that brothers, while not ordained as priests, can serve priestly roles in their various ministries of service. It also states that its reflections about brothers can be equally applied to women religious in the church, commonly known as sisters, because of the similarities in their vocation and work.

Fifty-four pages in length, the document addresses the identity of the religious brother in three ways: First, as a mystery of a gift received; second, as a communion of a gift shared; and, third, as a mission of a gift to be given away.

The document addresses the idea of the baptismal priesthood in each of those three sections, speaking of brothers’ communities that develop that priesthood and emulate the ministry of Jesus, “the Good Shepherd.”

At one point the document compares the priesthood exercised by the religious brother with that exercised by the “committed lay Christian.”

“The Brother develops his baptismal priesthood through brotherhood,” the document states. “Through it he becomes a bridge between God and his brothers, anointed and sent by the Spirit to bring the Good News of the love and mercy of God to all, especially to the least of his brothers, the weakest members of humanity.”

“The Religious Brother and the lay Christian who is committed in secular society live the universal priesthood in different ways,” it continues. “Both express the complex richness of this priesthood which implies closeness to God and closeness to the world, belonging to the Church as servant of the Lord and to the Church which is built in the world, for God.”

The document also calls brothers’ communities “a prime manifestation of the baptismal priesthood.”

“The community organizes its life so as to be able to see the action of God present in its daily life and to discover the history of salvation that is being fulfilled every day,” it states. “In the same contemplation, the community discovers itself as a mediator in the saving action of God. It gives thanks, celebrates and offers itself to continue, as a useful instrument, in the history of salvation.”

“The substance of the priestly offering of the community is the very same reality of the Brothers, with the limitations, poverty and weaknesses of each one,” it continues. “The Brothers build the community through the joyful gift of themselves. It is a eucharistic experience, by which they are joined to Christ in his offering to the Father, to continue his redemptive work through their community.”

In its section on the mystery of the gift received by brothers, the document says that by their consecration religious brothers express “that the mystery of Christ the Savior is being fulfilled here today, in this world and through the Church today.”

“Therefore consecrated people should frequently ask themselves how to be witnesses of the Lord today,” it recommends. “What kind of presence should we live so that the Lord Jesus can be seen, experienced, by people today?”

The document also speaks movingly of the brothers’ mission in the church, using evocative imagery from both the Gospels and the Old Testament, such as: Jesus’ sharing of bread, his wearing a towel to wash the feet of the apostles, the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, the Good Samaritan who helps the person in need, and Moses declaring the “covenant of the people.”

The brother’s mission, it states, “is not ‘what he does’ but rather his very life itself made communion with the least.”

“More than in external works, the mission consists in making Christ present to the world through personal witness,” it continues, saying that ministries “may vary or even disappear because of illness or old age, but the mission always remains.”

“It is, therefore, not a question of task but of identity,” states the document. “The minister is the whole person of the Brother: consecrated, member of a community, identified with the mission. All of him assumes the privilege and responsibility of representing the Church to the Good Shepherd who gives his life for the sheep.”

Towards the end of its reflections, the document proposes five different types of prophecy religious brothers might practice in today’s word: hospitality, “the meaning of life,” “the affirmation of feminine values,” care and protection of life, and “wise use of new technologies.”

On the third type, the document suggests brothers can emphasize the role of feminine values “in the history of humanity.”

“Female religious have a main role in providing the feminine vision of life, thereby opening new horizons for evangelization in general,” it states. “Religious Brothers contribute to deepening this prophetic aspect with their fraternal support and their appreciation of the presence of women, religious and lay, in evangelization.”

The document ends by calling on the global church to value the “new wine” represented by religious brothers by making new wineskins “to ensure that this new wine not only is not lost, but can mature in quality.”

“Pastors and the hierarchy of the Church are encouraged to promote knowledge and appreciation of the Religious Brother in the local Churches … ensuring that Religious Brothers and Sisters participate actively in the organs of consultation, decision-making and implementation within the local Church,” it states.

The new document was released by the Vatican Monday in several languages, but is as yet unavailable online. It is signed by the head of the religious congregation, Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, with the date of Oct. 4, the feast of St. Francis of Assisi.

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @joshjmac.]

Here are some excellent videos on monastic life (if you understand French)





Wednesday, 16 December 2015

THE ADVENT SEASON'S BRIGHTEST JEWELS

The Advent Season’s Brightest Jewels
December 17, 2014 by Fr. Thomas Rosica 
“Come, Lord Jesus!”  “Tomorrow, I will be there!”During the final week of Advent the Church offers us an intense time of preparation for the feast of the Nativity, and the Roman Church in particular sings a series of antiphons at Vespers that magnificently set forth the nature of the coming One.In the Liturgy of the Hours, Evening Prayer, also know as Vespers, always includes Mary’s great hymn known as the Magnificat. Each evening, the Magnificat is preceded by a short verse or “antiphon” that links the prayer to the feast of the day or the season of the year. In the last seven days of Advent (December 17-24), the antiphons before the Magnificat are very special.  Each begins with the exclamation “O” and ends with a plea for the Messiah to come. As Christmas approaches the prayer becomes increasingly urgent.It is believed that the “O Antiphons” were composed in the 7th or 8th century when monks put together texts from the Old Testament, particularly from the prophet Isaiah that looked forward to the coming of our salvation. They form a rich mosaic of scriptural images. The “O Antiphons” became very popular in the Middle Ages when it became traditional to ring the great bells of the church each evening as they were being sung.
Each of the O Antiphons highlights a different title for the Messiah: O Sapientia (O Wisdom), O Adonai (O Lord), O Radix Jesse (O Root of Jesse), O Clavis David (O Key of David), O Oriens (O Rising Sun), O Rex Gentium (O King of the Nations), and O Emmanuel.  Also, each one refers to the prophecy of Isaiah of the coming of the Messiah.  A particularly fascinating feature of the O Antiphons is that the first letter of each invocation, when read backwards, forms an acrostic in Latin: the first letters of Sapientia, Adonai, Radix, Clavis, Oriens, Rex, and Emmanuel in reverse form the Latin words: ERO CRAS.  These can be understood as the words of Christ, responding to his people’s plea, saying  “Tomorrow I will be there.”
Here is a rendering of this ‘season’s brightest jewels’ that can help us understand more clearly how Jesus has fulfilled the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Israel.
O antiphons 1December 17 

 O Wisdom, O Holy Word of God (Sir. 24:3), you govern all creation with your strong yet tender care (Wisd. of Solomon  8:1).  Come and show your people the way to salvation (Isa. 40:3-5).

December 18  O Sacred Lord of Ancient Israel (Exod. 6:2, 3, 12), who showed yourself to Moses in the burning bush (Exod. 3:2), who gave him the holy law on Sinai mountain:  come, stretch out your mighty hand to set us free.

December 19  O Flower of Jesse’s Stem, you have been raised up as a sign for all peoples (Isa. 11:10; Rom. 15:12); kings stand silent in your presence (Isa. 5:15); the nations bow down in worship before you.  Come, let nothing keep you from coming to our aid (Hab. 2:3; Heb. 10:37).

December 20  O Key of David, O royal Power of Israel, controlling at your will the gate of heaven (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 3:7); come, break down the prison walls of death for those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death; and lead your captive people into freedom (Isa. 42:7; Ps. 107:14; Luke 1:79).

December 21  O Radiant Dawn (Zech. 6:12), splendor of eternal light (Heb. 1:3), sun of justice (Mal 4:2):  come, shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death (Luke 1:78-79; Isa. 9:2).

December 22  O King of all the Nations, the only joy of every human heart (Hag 2:8); O Keystone (Isa. 28:16) of the mighty human arch (Eph. 2:14); come and save the creature you fashioned from the dust (Gen. 2:7).

December 23  O Emmanuel (Isa. 7:14; 8:8), king and lawgiver (Isa. 33:22), desire of the nations (Gen. 49:10), Savior of all, come and set us free, Lord our God.

O Virgo virginum
my source: The Anglo-Catholic
December 23, 2009 Church Year, General Advent, Blessed Virgin Mary, Dom Prosper Guéranger, Expectation of the BVM, Great "O" Antiphons, Liturgical YearChristian Clay Columba CampbellDecember 23: The Expectation of the Blessed Virgin Mary – Eighth Antiphon (according to the Sarum Use / Book of Common Prayer)

O Virgo virginum, quomodo fiet istud? quia nec primam similem visa es, nec habere sequentem. Filiae Jerusalem, quid me admiramini? Divinum est mysterium hoc quod cernitis.

O Virgin of virgins, how shall this be? for neither before thee was any like thee, nor shall there be after: Daughters of Jerusalem, why marvel ye at me? The thing which ye behold is a divine mystery.

This feast, which is now kept not only throughout the whole of Spain but in many other parts of the Catholic world, owes its origin to the bishops of the tenth Council of Toledo, in 656. These prelates thought that there was an incongruity in the ancient practice of celebrating the feast of the Annunciation on the twenty-fifth of March, inasmuch as this joyful solemnity frequently occurs at the time when the Church is intent upon the Passion of our Lord, so that it is sometimes obliged to be transferred into Easter time, with which it is out of harmony for another reason; they therefore decreed that, henceforth, in the Church of Spain there should be kept, eight days before Christmas, a solemn feast with an octave, in honour of the Annunciation, and as a preparation for the great solemnity of our Lord's Nativity. In course of time, however, the Church of Spain saw the necessity of returning to the practice of the Church of Rome, and of those of the whole world, which solemnize the twenty-fifth of March as the day of our Lady's Annunciation and the Incarnation of the Son of God. But such had been, for ages, the devotion of the people for the feast of the eighteenth of December, that it was considered requisite to maintain some vestige of it. They discontinued, therefore, to celebrate the Annunciation on this day; but the faithful were requested to consider, with devotion, what must have been the sentiments of the holy Mother of God during the days immediately preceding her giving Him birth. A new feast was instituted, under the name of the Expectation of the blessed Virgin's delivery.

This feast, which sometimes goes under the name of Our Lady of O, or the feast of O, on account of the great antiphons which are sung during these days, and, in a special manner, of that which begins O Virgo virginum (which is still used in the Vespers of the Expectation, together with the O Adonaï, the antiphon of the Advent Office), is kept with great devotion in Spain. A High Mass is sung at a very early hour each morning during the octave, at which all who are with child, whether rich or poor, consider it a duty to assist, that they may thus honour our Lady's Maternity, and beg her blessing upon themselves. It is not to be wondered at that the Holy See has approved of this pious practice being introduced into almost every other country. We find that the Church of Milan, long before Rome conceded this feast to the various dioceses of Christendom, celebrated the Office of our Lady's Annunciation on the sixth and last Sunday of Advent, and called the whole week following the Hebdomada de Exceptato (for thus the popular expression had corrupted the word Expectato). But these details belong strictly to the archaeology of liturgy, and enter not into the plan of our present work; let us, then, return to the feast of our Lady's Expectation, which the Church has established and sanctioned as a new means of exciting the attention of the faithful during these last days of Advent.


Most just indeed it is, O holy Mother of God, that we should unite in that ardent desire thou hadst to see him, who had been concealed for nine months in thy chaste womb; to know the features of this Son of the heavenly Father, who is also thine; to come to that blissful hour of his birth, which will give glory to God in the highest, and, on earth, peace to men of good-will. Yes, dear Mother, the time is fast approaching, though not fast enough to satisfy thy desires and ours. Make us redouble our attention to the great mystery; complete our preparation by thy powerful prayers for us, that when the solemn hour has come, our Jesus may find no obstacle to his entrance into our hearts

A HAPPY AND - EVEN MORE IMPORTANT - A HOLY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL (WHATEVER CALENDAR YOU FOLLOW!!)
from Fr David Bird o.s.b.

(-

Monday, 14 December 2015

THE HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL OF 2016 by various Orthodox authors

AT LAST, A COUNCIL FOR THE AGES?
THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN 2016
by John Chryssavgis
the Church of Hagia Irene
Constantinople

A Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church has been scheduled for 2016. In March of 2014, the leaders of all the autocephalous (independent) Orthodox Churches met in Istanbul, the sacred see of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which historically (since at least the fifth century) coordinates such assemblies, facilitating unity while serving as a center of appeal among these churches. Arguably the foremost decision unanimously agreed upon at that assembly of church heads was the convocation of a Great Council in 2016, tentatively planned to be held in the Church of Haghia Irene—the site of the second ecumenical council of 381, which completed the “creed” recited by most Christians today. Haghia Irene is now a museum in Istanbul, never having been converted into a mosque since the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

The council of 2016, which has been on the table for discussion and preparation since at least 1961 (although there were earlier proposals for such a council in the 1920s and 1930s), will for the first time ever gather representatives from all fourteen independent Orthodox Churches. The very conception, let alone the convocation of such a great or general council, is entirely unprecedented. It will be attended by patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops from the fourteen autocephalous Orthodox Churches, including those from all of the ancient patriarchates, with the exception of Rome.

Theological commentators and historical analysts should bear in mind that the process in the Orthodox Church may undoubtedly not appear as orderly or organized as that in some Western churches precisely because it involves a consensus among all churches, rather than the imposition of one church or leader. However, it is naïve to dismiss disagreements among various churches sweepingly, implying that these merely result from rivalries of power. While such a perception may not be entirely erroneous, and while such a process may be frustrating to those inside as to those outside the Orthodox Church, it is in some ways a profoundly—even if often painful—democratic method than frequently perceived.

The issues for discussion and decision at the Great Council have been painstakingly determined since the early 1970s, with some of them going back to the early 1960s. The topics and texts include some esoteric items, such as the ranking of churches and discussion about a common calendar; but they also include problems that emerge from adapting an ancient faith to a modern reality—like precepts of fasting and, in particular, regulations of marriage in a multicultural and interreligious world.

Most importantly, the documents tackle sensitive matters, such as relations of the Orthodox Church with the other Christian confessions, the role and response of the Orthodox Church to the contemporary challenges of our age, as well as “unorthodox” (or uncanonical) governance issues facing the Orthodox Church in the Western world.

While the last three issues may seem uncomplicated or unsophisticated to the outsider, they are vital to the growth of the Orthodox Church. For instance, the ecumenical openness of an otherwise profoundly traditional church is of crucial importance, especially in light of conservative and traditionalist circles in the Greek and Slavic worlds. The way that the Orthodox Church handles modernity is of profound relevance for the resonance of its teaching in the public sphere.

The third item concerns the role of the Orthodox Church in non-Orthodox countries (often referred to as Orthodoxy in the “diaspora”). This relates to the manner of achieving the proper canonical status of one bishop per diocese (or city) when an existing diocese currently has a number of ethnic Orthodox Churches and, therefore, more than one bishop. Will church leaders grant some standing of autonomy? More importantly, will leaders in countries such as the United States of America be interested in a unified, collaborative organization? Or will they remain obsessed with narrowly nationalistic interests?

Certain commentators are quick to criticize the forthcoming council as being of little significance or consequence. Detractors are fond of claiming that no doctrinal issue will be discussed or defined. I’m not quite sure that bishops attending earlier councils were themselves aware that they were about to settle theological disputes and ecclesiastical controversies in an inspired way; they simply dealt with the issues at hand.

However, there are at least two issues up for discussion at the Great Council that encompass universal and unparalleled authority. The first is the way in which the Orthodox Churches will respond to religious fundamentalism and fanaticism. A united and unequivocal response to extremist and subversive elements and factions—sometimes within circles influenced by rigid or reactionary monastics—would be a compelling and committed emphasis on the “royal way” of discernment and moderation adopted by the classic teachers of the early church. Will we see a condemnation of separatist groups and a new commitment to ecumenical openness?

Perhaps the most consequential and enduring pronouncement of the great council will be its deliberation and determination regarding the organization and administration of the Orthodox Church throughout the world. The question is whether churches abroad, such as in the United States, Western Europe, and Australasia—comprised of Orthodox immigrants and converts long established in their new homelands, miles away and cultures apart from the “mother Churches, where they originated—have reached the maturity or acquired the single-mindedness and commitment to minister to their people and manage their affairs in unity. Regrettably, however, most Orthodox Churches seem to be retreating into a stifling, sheltered and safe provincialism, which they explain—or excuse—as attending to internal affairs, which in turn are reckoned as more important pastorally than concerns for collaboration or collegiality. What is more unfortunate is that contemporary bishops, who have been exposed to and educated in the modern world and its global challenges—at least by comparison with their predecessors, who were restricted by the “iron curtain” or oppressive xenophobia—appear less interested in transcending any prejudice and parochialism.

Time will show just how much the Orthodox want to realize the Great Council of 2016 and how the status of this council will be received by the Orthodox Churches themselves. It will be telling indeed to observe just how much each independent church is willing to lay aside trends of supremacist nationalism and the temptations of secular power.


John Chryssavgis is Archdeacon and theological advisor to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

The Fragile Promise of the Pan-Orthodox Council
by Father Cyril Hovorun (Orth.)

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople celebrates an Orthodox liturgy for the feast of the Dormition of Mary at the Panagia Soumela Monastery near Trabzon, Turkey in August 2010. The Patriarch will preside over the Orthodox council to be held in Constantinople in 2016. (CNS photo/Umit Bektas, Reuters)


An Assembly (Synaxis) of the Primates of the local Orthodox Churches, meeting March 6-9, 2014 in Istanbul, has agreed to convene a Pan-Orthodox council. A “Communiqué of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches” released on March 9th stated that “the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church … will be convened and presided by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople in 2016.” This decision brings to the homestretch a long process of preparation that goes back as far as the 1920s, had an active phase in 1960s and 1970s, and then was rather quiet until very recently.

Historical context

The last Pan-Orthodox council of this scale was convened in Constantinople well over a thousand years ago, in 879-880, when Photius was reinstalled to the Patriarchal throne. That council dealt mostly with the issues of inter-Church relations and had wide representation of the Eastern Christian Churches, with over 380 bishops in attendance. Some Orthodox believe that the IV Council of Constantinople (its other name) was the eighth and last ecumenical council.

After Byzantium lost most of its territories, the councils of the same scale became impossible. Nevertheless, the Eastern Church continued exercising its synodality. Many Eastern bishops and even Patriarchs were unable or did not want to stay with their flocks on the occupied territories. They either preferred,or had no choice but to spend most of their time in safe Constantinople. The old institution of endemousa synod—that is, a gathering of all bishops who, by chance, found themselves in the capital—became a major instrument of the Church’s synodality. Not only the hierarchs under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, but also bishops and even Primates of other Patriarchates, participated in such councils, which managed ecclesial matters related not only to the Church of Constantinople but to the entire Eastern Church.

After the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the Orthodox Churches began discussing the possibility of convening a Pan-Orthodox council. In 1923, the Patriarchate of Constantinople called an inter-Orthodox assembly, which nevertheless did not consider itself a Pan-Orthodox council. There were several attempts to convene such a council in the interwar period, but they were also unsuccessful, mostly because the Russian Church was isolated and suffered from severe persecutions. The Orthodox Churches returned to this idea after World War II, and Vatican II especially inspired the Orthodox to accelerate the process of preparation for the Pan-Orthodox council. Pan-Orthodox consultations were instrumental in the preparation process, taking place at Rhodes in 1961, 1963, 1964, and in Geneva in 1968. These consultations were succeeded by the Pan-Orthodox commission and the Preconciliar consultations, which took place from the 1970s until the new millennium. Finally, the institution of the Synaxis (gathering) of the Primates of the Orthodox Church took the process of preparation for the Pan-Orthodox council to its final stage. The last Synaxis took place in Constantinople in 2008.

Many Primates who participated in the Synaxis were also active participants in the previous preparatory meetings. They clearly want to accomplish this important work, which has been a major focus of their lives, as well as the lives of their teachers and predecessors. If the council does take place, it will summarize the history of the Orthodox Church of the last century and will be the most important event in modern Orthodox history.

Risks, compromises, weaknesses

That the Pan-Orthodox council has been scheduled for 2016 is of great significance. The question remains, however, as to how effective it will be in addressing the issues that really matter for the Orthodox Church. There also remains also a real possibility that the council can and will be postponed. A postponement would take place if the tensions between local Orthodox churches become more intense, or something transpires within inter-Orthodox relations making council impossible. Simply put, the inter-Orthodox peace is still very fragile.

The participants in the Synaxis were obviously aware of these risks. In order to minimise them, they adopted a roadmap towards the council. An inter-Orthodox preparatory committee will be set up, which will work from September of this year to Easter Sunday of 2015 (April 12th). This committee will work on the documents that will be considered at the council, and on the details of its procedures. It will also quickly intervene if difficult issues arise in inter-Orthodox relations during the period before the council.

The Synaxis in Istanbul much time discussing the format of participation of the local Churches in the council. The agreement is that each Church will send 24 bishops plus the Primate of the Church, a number doubled from 12 bishops, plus the Primate, which was agreed in the midway. Because some Orthodox Churches (for instance, Cyprus, Poland, Czech Lands and Slovakia) do not have so many bishops, those Churches can send as many bishops as they have. The initial idea to allow these Churches to “borrow” bishops from other Churches was abandoned. The number of the participating bishops does not necessarily matter, because each Church will have only one vote. Only the autocephalous Churches (whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop) will have right to vote. The autonomous churches (whose highest-ranking bishops are approved by the patriarch of an autocephalous Church) will be able to participate in the council only through their “mother” Churches. Decisions will be taken only if there is a consensus among the voting Churches. Finally, all the sessions will be presided over by the Patriarch of Constantinople—a point listed first among the decisions of the Synaxis regarding the procedures of the council.

These decisions of the Synaxis are the result of compromises achieved through very tense negotiations. The main protagonists of the negotiations were the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow. Other Primates contributed mostly by suggesting solutions that would satisfy the two sides.

The Patriarch of Moscow initially suggested that all Orthodox bishops should take part in the council. Other Churches did not accept this proposal since it gave the Russian Orthodox Church, with its over 320 bishops, a distinct advantage. Instead, a limited number of bishops from each Church was accepted, which gave the Church of Constantinople with its allies an advantage over the Russian Church. To balance this decision, the Russian Church insisted on the procedure of consensus in taking decisions by the council. (Consensus means a right to veto for each Church and effectively neutralises the numerical majority of the Churches.)

This means that the compromise about the procedures significantly reduces the possibility of the council accepting any decision regarding burning issues. Only the council could have an authority to take such a decision, and yet it has been a priori paralysed in addressing the issues that divide the Orthodox Churches in our days. This is one of the weakest points of the upcoming council.

Pressing, divisive issues

The most divisive issues on the Orthodox agenda relate to the relations between the local Churches. The models of these relations are constantly evolving, reflecting global political frameworks. Understandings of the fellowship of the Orthodox Churches changes constantly, and there is no agreement on it. Some Churches consider this fellowship in terms of an utilitarian cooperation of sovereign entities, which safeguard their territorial integrity and punish any intruder, including another local Church. This philosophy reflects the logic of international law and, particularly, the idea of sovereignty of the national states. Other Churches believe the pan-Orthodox fellowship should be regarded as a confederation (or even a federation) of local Churches, with an effective and not just ritual Primus. The upcoming council could help in moving to an acceptance of a single philosophy of the Orthodox fellowship, although that is unlikely.

Two particular points of this philosophy were chosen decades ago for the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox council: the diptychs (the order) of the Churches, and the procedure of granting autocephaly (which means, literally, “self-headed”). Since it very unlikely the Churches could reach an agreement on both issues they were excluded from the agenda of the council. The issue of granting autocephaly has an immediate implication in Ukraine. The Synaxis dedicated a disappointingly laconic text to the situation in Ukraine:

We fervently pray for peaceful negotiation and prayerful reconciliation in the on-going crisis in Ukraine. We denounce the threats of violent occupation of sacred monasteries and churches, and pray for the return of our brothers presently outside of ecclesiastical communion into the Holy Church.

There is no mention of the bloodshed during the recent protests in Kiev and of the military aggression against Ukraine, where the majority of population is Orthodox. The laconism of the statement apparently reflects the deep tensions over Ukraine; the Primates of the Churches did not want to really touch on the Ukrainian issue, in order to save the council. Any meaningful discussion and message regarding the crisis in Ukraine would have probably destroyed the process of council's preparation.

However, the Synaxis did not completely avoid conflict. The Church of Antioch refused to sign the documents of the Synaxis because of its dispute with the Church of Jerusalem over a community in Qatar. The Patriarch of Antioch, John X, was not present at the Synaxis because of illness. However, he ordered his representatives to avoid signing the decisions of the Synaxis unless the problem of the parish in Qatar was solved. His ultimatum did not work, however, and so the signature of the Church of Antioch is absent.

There is no also a signature of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Russian Church facilitated the recent election of Archbishop Rastislav, the new Primate of that Church. This election is not, however, recognised by the Church of Constantinople and the majority of other Orthodox Churches. Finally, the signature of the Orthodox Church in America is also absent. This Church was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970, but that autocephaly is not recognised by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the majority of other Orthodox Churches.

Implications for Catholic-Orthodox relations

The ecumenical relations of the Orthodox Church are among the most important articles on the agenda of the council. It will probably encourage the Orthodox Churches regarding engagements with other Churches, including the Catholic Church. However, it is unlikely that the council will touch on the issues at the core of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, especially the issue of primacy.

The position of the Orthodox Churches on the issue of primacy of the Bishop of Rome depends entirely on the consensus on primacy within the Orthodox Church. Yet there is no such a consensus on this issue; instead, there are two dominating interpretations. According to one of them, primus inter pares (“the first among equals”) is just an honorary title, a rudiment of the past, which does not imply any real authority of the first Church. Inter pares is accentuated in this interpretation, which was recently expressed in the document adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church.

According to the other perspective, primacy is something real within the Orthodox Church, and it implies real authority and responsibility of the first Church. According to Metropolitan Elpidophoros of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who responded to the document of the Russian Orthodox Church, the first Church, in its primacy, has no equals among the other Churches.

The two interpretations of primacy seem to be irreconcilable. And it is very unlikely that the Pan-Orthodox council can accept a single Orthodox interpretation of Primacy. Without this, however, it will be difficult to proceed in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

In conclusion, it seems that the current leaders of the Orthodox Churches are resolved to be etched in history as the fathers of a council, which in the Orthodox world will be regarded on the same scale with the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, (although, in the Orthodox tradition, only the following council can accept such a council as ecumenical). In contrast to the first ecumenical councils, however, this one will not touch on many of the dividing issues, which have been excluded from its agenda. This fact demonstrates the fragility of inter-Orthodox unity and cooperation. God performs miracles, however, and there is always a chance that the council will exceed its tentative agenda, and thus provide a more firm and viable framework of cooperation between the Churches.


Fr. Cyril Hovorun is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), and currently a researcher at Yale University. From 2007 to 2009 he was Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and initiated the first attempts at dialogue with the non-recognized Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. He has participated in official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, and is also a member of the St Irenaeus group, which constitutes an unofficial dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic theologians. From 2009 to 2012, he was the first deputy chairman of the Educational Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church. He is the author of Will, Action, and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century (Brill, 2008).



photo-14241625 IN
Why the Great Synod of Orthodoxy is necessary today – 1
9 December 2015

by Professor Emeritos Georgius Martzellos
g martzellos
G Martzellos
The address of the professor emeritus of the Theology Faculty, which was given at the conference organized by the Monastery of Vatopaidi, in collaboration with the Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies and the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, (3-5 December, 2015) on the subject ‘Towards the Holy and Great Synod’.

Introduction

As is well known, at the fifth Meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches to be held since 1992, this one under the chairmanship of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, from 6 to 9 March, 2014, in the church of Saint George in Fanari, Constantinople, a decision was taken that is of momentous importance for the whole of Orthodoxy. It was decided to put flesh and bones onto the vision, which had been gestating for many years, of the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, at Pentecost 2016, unless unforeseen circumstances prevent this. The suggestion was made that, provided permission is granted by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, this should take place in the old Cathedral Church of Saint Irene, where the 2nd Ecumenical Synod took place in 381.

The momentous significance of this Synod for the whole of Orthodoxy is obvious. For the first time in more than a thousand years, representatives of all local Orthodox Churches would gather to discuss and take common decisions on the most important issues which have been facing the Orthodox flock, and, indeed, the whole of humankind, for decades now, because of the unprecedented and pressing challenges we are confronted by in the rapidly changing modern world. From this point of view, the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod is vital, if Orthodoxy is to respond to the challenges of the times, by providing a powerful testimony to its theanthropic presence a modern world which is floundering spiritually, morally and socially.

The Holy and Great Synod facing the challenges and problems of the modern world
The challenges and problems which the Orthodox Church is being called upon urgently to face through the Holy and Great Synod by providing a dynamic testimony to its presence in the modern world were described very clearly and eloquently by the Ecumenical Patriarch, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, in his opening address at the Meeting of Primates of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches. In the first place, as the Ecumenical Patriarch noted, the violence which is often perpetrated in the name of religion is a threat to all Christians, without exception, but for the Orthodox in particular, since they are experiencing personal persecution, destruction and desecration of their holy churches, as well as kidnappings and murders of clergy and monastics, even hierarchs of the Church. In the face of this threat to the Orthodox Churches as we know them, we are called, he noted, ‘to raise our voices in protest, not as individual persons or Churches, but as the single Orthodox Church, united throughout the world’[i].

Apart from this, there is also the enormous danger to the Orthodox Church, and other Churches, too, of course, posed by the rapid secularization of Christian societies. As we all know, the Church in secularized Christian societies has increasingly been forced into the margins of public life, unfortunately, and the fundamental spiritual and moral principles of the Gospel are gradually being sidelined from people’s lives. The Orthodox Church, therefore has a duty, responding in accordance with its own nature and mission, to promote these Gospel values to the modern world with a single voice, irrespective of whether they conflict with important interests or prevailing notions.

Although, as the Ecumenical Patriarch has stressed, the Orthodox Church is characterized also by its attachment to the tradition of the past, this does not mean that it is fossilized and indifferent to the various challenges of history which are particularly acute in our own day. One such challenge arises from the rapid development of technology and the globalization based on this. Despite the beneficial effects as regards the dissemination of knowledge and information, technology constitutes a serious danger because it is a channel for the transfer and imposition of foreign cultural models which threaten to alter the cultural identity of individual peoples. This is another challenge which the Church has to meet. Beyond this threat from technology and linked to it, is the rapid evolution of biotechnology, which involves the emergence of serious bioethical problems related to the technologies of assisted reproduction, transplants of tissues and organs, euthanasia, genetically modified foods and so on, towards which the Church is duty bound to take a responsible stance. Moreover, if we add to all this the daily destruction of our natural environment through our greed and high-maintenance lifestyle (despite warnings from the ‘great and the good’ of this earth), then the conservation and protection of God’s ‘very good’ creation is a prime duty of the Church. In fact, given its rich liturgical and ascetic tradition, Orthodoxy is the sole responsible agent, which can contribute to the combatting of this crucial problem in ways not available to other Churches and Confessions[ii]. In any case, this is why the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as we all know, was, in 1989, the first in the whole of Christendom to promote and highlight the importance of this crucial issue, through a series of significant initiatives, such as the establishment of the beginning of the Indiction (1 September) as the day for the protection of the natural environment, with the late hymnographer Yerasimos from the Small Skete of Saint Ann, being commissioned to produce a service which is sung on that day. Besides this, a whole host of international ecological conferences have been organized, with speakers of world-wide repute. This means that Orthodoxy can and should play a leading role in the conservation of the natural environment.

But apart from the problems outlined above, the Orthodox Church also has a duty to deal sympathetically with the problems arising from the economic crisis and social injustice which, in our own times appear to be a scourge even in the most highly-developed economies. Alas, these problems are not merely economic and social; they are psychological and profoundly existential, because they touch upon the dignity and self-respect of people who have become victims of the global economic establishment. As the Ecumenical Patriarch again notes: ‘Our Most Holy Church must listen with attention and sympathy to the problems inflicted on people by the economic structure of the modern world. We are all witnesses of the negative effects on the dignity and survival of the human person from the economic crises which are crushing people in many regions of the world, even in countries supposedly economically ‘developed’. Youth unemployment, an increase in the number of the impoverished, uncertainty about tomorrow- all of these demonstrate that humanity today is a long way from implementing the principles of the Gospel. And we ourselves are not without responsibility since our pastoral care has often been exhausted by concentration on the ‘spiritual’ and we have forgotten that people also need nourishment and the barest material means in order to live decently, as persons who are images of God’[iii]. For these reasons, the Orthodox Church, faithful to the principles of the Gospels and without giving the impression that it is indifferent to spiritual matters, has a duty to proclaim its interest in the eradication of social injustice and the ascendancy of social justice throughout the world. Moreover, this interest on its part is not foreign to its nature and its spiritual mission in the world, because, in essence, it is a spiritual matter. As Berdyaev so aptly pointed out, giving the Orthodox dimension to the interest in finding solutions to economic and social problems: ‘Concern over the life of one’s neighbor, even in material and bodily terms, has something spiritual about it Worry about how to guarantee my bread is a material problem. But worry about other people’s bread is a spiritual problem’[iv]. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that this position is stressed almost word for word in the Resolution of the Fifth Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Meeting (Chambésy-Geneva, 10-17 October, 2015), which refers to the mission of the Orthodox Church in the modern world[v].


[i] See  www.amen.gr/article17136#sthash.Rmz056Eq.dpuf.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] See Το πεπρωμένο του ανθρώπου στο σύγχρονο κόσμο, transl. Eft. Yioultsi, pubd. by P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki, 1980, p. 13. See also St. Ch. Tsombanidis, Εκκλησιολογία και Παγκοσμιοποίηση. Οι Εκκλησίες στην οικουμενική πορεία για μια εναλλακτική παγκοσμιοποίηση στην υπηρεσία των ανθρώπων και της γης, pubd. by P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 2008, p. 96. Θεσσαλονίκη 2008, σ. 96.

[v] See chap. ‘Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Modern World. Contribution of the Orthodox Church to the Establishment of Peace, Justice, Freedom, Brotherhood and Love among Nations and Elimination of Racial and Other Forms of Discrimination 6, § 5: ‘if concern over our nourishment is a material issue, concern for the nourishment of others is spiritual. (Jas.2, 14-18).

SAINT MATTHEW'S PASSION by METROPOLITAN HILARION ALFEYEV





OPENING OF THE HOLY DOOR AT BELMONT ABBEY, HEREFORD.


Displaying DSC00044.JPG
Displaying DSC00044.JPG

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