Top Russian ecumenical official to meet with Pope

Vatican, Dec. 6, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI will meet on December 7 with the top ecumenical-affairs official of the Russian Orthodox Church, L'Osservatore Romano reports.

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk-- who is in Rome this week for festivities marking the feast of St. Catherine of Alexandria, the patron of Rome's Russian Orthodox Church-- met on December 6 with Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Informed sources said that Cardinal Kasper would convey an invitation for Patriarch Alexei II to attend the next meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, which is scheduled to take place in 2009.

Metropolitan Kirill-- who is regarded as a likely eventual successor to Patriarch Alexei as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church-- has praised Pope Benedict for his commitment to ecumenism. But earlier this week he criticized the Catholic Church for establishing new dioceses in Russia. The Orthodox prelate said that the four Catholic dioceses of Russia, established in 2002, should be downgraded to their previous status as apostolic administrations. Catholic dioceses in Russia are an affront to the Orthodox claim that the country is the "canonical territory" of the Orthodox Church, he said, and "we shall never recognize them." The Vatican does not accept the Russian argument regarding "canonical territory."

In related news, in an interview with the KAI news agency, the general secretary of the Russian Bishops Conference, Father Igor Kowalewski, said the country's Catholic bishops are ready to discuss the Moscow patriarchate's claims to special canonical status in Russia. He said that the recent remarks by Metropolitan Kirill upset many Russian Catholics, and the country's bishops will bring up the subject at a meeting with Orthodox leaders in January.

If R2D2 Were an Orthodox Christian. . .

Thanks to R2D2 Translator I have provided for you some translations of traditional Orthodox Christian greetings into the the blips and beeps of R2D2.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

It's About the Cross

"It's About the Cross" is by the band Go Fish set to images from the Passion, the Jesus Film, the Gospel of John, The Nativity Story, It's a Wonderful Life, The Chronicles of Narnia, and other productions. The thing I like best about this video is that in reminds us that if "Jesus is the Reason for the Season," God's mercy and love in the response to my sin is reason for Jesus.

Anyway, please take 3 minutes and 43 seconds and watch the video.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Looking Inward

Icon of the "UNEXPECTED JOY" (right).

Then He said, "What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and put in his garden; and it grew and became a large tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches. And again He said, "To what shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened."

And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And He said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from,' then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.' But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:18-29).

Jesus' words in the Gospel ought to give us pause: Not everyone who cries out. "Lord, Lord, open for us" will be saved. Jesus goes further and says that some of those who cry out to Him will hear in response "'I do not know you, . . . Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'" These words, it must be emphasized, are not directed at the unbeliever, but to the believer. Jesus is not speaking to Jew or Greek, but to apostles and disciples, that is, to we who are Christians.

St Cyril of Alexandria takes Christ's words at face value. Turning to his congregation the saint says:

Who again are these? Many have believed in Christ and have celebrated the holy festivals in his honor. Frequenting the churches, they also hear the doctrine of the gospel, but they remember absolutely nothing of the truths of Scripture. With difficulty, they bring with them the practice of virtue, while their heart is quite barren on spiritual fruitfulness. These will also weep bitterly and grind their teeth, because the Lord will also deny them (Commentary on Luke, Homily 99).

I try and imagine myself standing on front of a congregation and repeating in my own way Cyril's words. And every time I imagine this, and in fact every time I've preached this, it ends the same way: People are really, really, angry at me.

But these are not my words or St Cyril's for matter. These are the words of Christ directed to those who of us who follow Him. When this teaching is rejected, it is not me, or Cyril, who is rejected, but Christ.

There is something to be said for every once and a while being remind that I am a sinner and, if given the chance, liable to twist the words of the Gospel to my own liking. Presumption is always a temptation. And if Christ's words in the Gospel evoke in me a certain dread and anxiety, well so what?

Granted, too much attention to these words is liable to plunge me into scrupulosity (an "obsessive concern with one's personal sins, including 'sinful; acts or thoughts usually considered minor or trivial . . . . The term is derived from the Latin scrupulus, a sharp stone, implying a stabbing pain on the conscience") or even cause me to despair of my salvation. But to ignore them all together seems to me even unwise since we are all of us at one time or another "hidden enemies" of Christ (to borrow from St Augustine).

It's hard listening to this Gospel and its explication by the Fathers, and not feel anxious for my own salvation. Do I really recognize Christ is the Eucharist? Have I eaten and drank unworthily? Has the character of my life caused me to appeal unjustly to Christ? Thinking about these questions causes me to turn inward and examine myself. Such an inward turn is essential to living a Christian life. Such an turn can serve to remind me that, left to my own devices, I cannot be saved.

At the same time I need to exercise care when I look within.

As I alluded to above, such an inward turn flirts with despair—my own sinfulness might seem to me so large that it blots out the Sun of Righteousness. Or, seeing the enormity of my sin, I might be consumed with a neurotic attempt to do things the "right way." In either case, whether I am afflicted with despair or scrupulosity, I lose the experience of joy that is a hallmark of the Christian life. The real danger of this inward turn is leaving it unbalanced by conversation with my brothers and sisters in Christ. Deprived of their affection and encouragement, my faith will slowly erode. The experience of anxiety and an increasing unhealthy distrust not only of self, but my brothers and sisters in Christ and eventually even God and His mercy is the fruit of this absent faith.

Whatever the risks, however, I need to take that inward turn and examine myself. St Paul tells us as much when he writes: "Whoever eats and drinks unworthily is eating and drinking judgment upon himself" (1 Cor 11.29). "How can the table which is the cause of so many blessings, and is teeming with life," St John Chrysostom asks, "become a cause of judgment?" He answers his own question:

Not from its own nature, says Paul, but because of the attitude of the one who comes to it. For just as the presence of Christ, which conveyed to us those great and unspeakable blessings, condemned those who did not receive them, so also Holy Communion becomes a means of greater punishment to those who partake unworthily. ("Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians," 28.2)

"All those," Augustine says, "who live unjust and irreligious lives . . . even if they are signed with his name and are called Christians" cannot appeal to their participation in the sacraments to excuse or protect them from the consequence of their actions. Indeed, if Augustine is any guide, the sacraments themselves, they very thing we try to use to bind God's will to our own, will stand in judgment against us since by our actions we reveal that we "did not value [them] very highly."

As Cyril merely rephrases Jesus, Augustine is merely rephrasing Paul, who himself has merely rephrased Christ. The one theme that unites all of these is the value they place on human responsibility, on our ability to shape our own lives for good or ill.

Though central, we must bear in mind that our freedom is always secondary. My only real freedom is to respond to God's mercy. If I lose sight of this, then scrupulosity, despair, complacency and unjust and irreligious habits will follow quickly.

So what about the people who cry "Lord, Lord"? I suspect that they imagined themselves as initiators of the relationship with Christ. Or, if not quite that, then certainly as people who added something to Christ and His ministry. But this is simply speculation on my part.

In the final analysis, our great joy, as I said earlier, is not to say "Lord, Lord," (after all the demons can say this) but "Amen" to God.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Orthodox Church May Set Up Alliance with Catholics

Posted on: Monday, November 26, 2007 at OrthodoxEurope.org:

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad: Orthodox Church May Set Up Alliance with Catholics

The Moscow Patriarchate has noticed the intensification of its contacts with the Catholics during Pope Benedict XVI's pontificate and suggested that alliance between the two churches could theoretically be set up in the future.

"After Benedict XVI was elected pope and declared the development of dialogue with the Orthodox Church among the priorities of his pontificate, bilateral relations between our churches have noticeably enlivened," Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, the head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, said in a report he presented at an inter-religious conference in Naples.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches "understand more clearly today than they have ever done before the importance of their joint testimony to the secular world about Christian values, which this world is trying to marginalize," Metropolitan Kirill said.

He noted that the proposal to set up a Catholic-Orthodox alliance produced mixed reaction in the Protestant world. However, he said, this proposal is based on the objective tendency towards deeper cooperation between Catholics and Orthodox and does not presuppose an alliance "against someone." "As regards the so-called alliance, I do not think that we should talk about some inter-Christian organization today, although it would be wrong to absolutely rule out the establishment of such an organization," Metropolitan Kirill said.

Under the word "alliance", he specified, one may understand "the possibility of a more coordinated and structured interaction between the Churches, primarily in their relations with the secular world and non-Christian religions. For a successful dialogue with the others there should be from the very outset a higher level of agreement among Churches and Christian communities than the one that exists today in the framework of the ecumenical dialogue." For example, according to Metropolitan Kirill, it is unlikely that the full-scale dialogue between Christians and Muslims which is so necessary today will be successful "while deep contradictions remain among Christians in the sphere of anthropology and ethics."

The doors of such an alliance between the Orthodox and Catholic believers "cannot be categorically closed to our Protestant brothers," Metropolitan Kirill said.

A New Site

An interesting new site out there: Early Church Texts. The site is well organized and is a growing collection of links to early Church texts both in the original languages and English translation. Well worth the look.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

hat tip: Mike Aquilina of The Way of the Fathers.

Orthodox Patriarch Accepts Papal Primacy?

While I need to find the rest of the story, or better the complete interview, the following report from Catholic World News is certainly interesting.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory





29-November-2007 -- Catholic World News Brief

Rome, Nov. 28, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has said that he is prepared to recognize the primacy of the Pope--although he does not accept the Catholic position on the implications of that primacy.

In an interview with a Bulgarian television network, the Orthodox leader-- who is himself recognized as the "first among equals" in the Orthodox world-- indicated his support for a statement released by the joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission at an October meeting in Ravenna, Italy. That statement had recalled that during the first Christian millennium, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the foremost of the patriarchs.

Patriarch Bartholomew went on to say, however, that he does not believe the primacy enjoyed by the Pope in the early centuries of Christianity included authority over other patriarchs. The primacy of Rome, he explained, involved precedence of honor rather than disciplinary status over the world's bishops.

The Occult and Demonic

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it (Jn 8:44).

At their request, I am speaking this evening (29 November 2007) at St John the Baptist Orthodox Church (OCA) parish here in the Youngstown area. My topic, again by request, is the occult and the demonic. I would hardy call myself expert or even knowledgeable about such matters. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone is, because, given their nature, I don't think anyone can be. After almost seven years in northern California, I am certainly acquainted with the topic however.

Some 75% of the adults in the part of California where we lived and served have no religious affiliation at all. While Roman Catholics are the largest single religious group, the vast majority of the population that identified themselves as Christians are Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, or some form of contemporary Evangelical Christianity. What unites all of these groups is an absolute absence of any commitment to even a vaguely recognizable adherence to the historical Christian understanding of baptism. In many cases, especially in the Jehovah Witness and Evangelical Christian communities, there is an explicit rejection of the sacramental character of baptism.

What this meant for me is that, for the first time in my life, I lived where almost no one I met was baptized. Quite literally, I served as a priest surrounded by a truly, pagan (and not simply, non-Christian) culture more widespread and deeply rooted than many other places in the world. In addition to the almost absolute absence of baptized Christians, many, many people engaged in some form of occult activity.

I met Wiccans, self-professed vampires, and practitioners of the art of black magic. All of this was highly sexualized and often associated with drug and alcohol abuse. Very quickly I began to think of middle aged New Agers as quaint. Or at least they seemed so in comparison to many of those often (but not always) adolescents and young adults who came through the door of my church. Sadly, a significant number of those involved in the occult also professed to be Christians. Usually (though again not always) these people were in a charismatic or Pentecostal congregation. Sadder still in more than one or two cases, the person was an Orthodox Christian.

What I found most distressing though were not those who dabbled in the occult. Yes, certainly such activity is spiritually, psychologically, and spiritually dangerous. Typically an interest in the occult reflects more immaturity then it does a serious commitment. No, what I found frightening was the number of people whose interest in the occult led them deeper and deeper into demonic activity.

For most of us our view of the demonic is informed more by Hollywood and the popular media rather than the Scriptures, the witness of the Church or any firsthand experience. Looking back on my childhood and early teen years, I would certainly have to include myself in the former category. I grew up not only on the classic horror movies of the 30's and 40's, but also the schlock, and shock horror of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Like many, I read horror novels (especially Stephen King) and comics, played with Ouija boards and read my daily horoscope in the newspaper. Thank God, by the time I got to college, I put all that behind me. Or so I thought.

When I moved to Shasta County I discovered all this again. This time though the occult was not frivolous entertainment, the chosen life commitment of men and women I met on a daily basis.

Jesus calls Satan the father of lies. When our Savior says this He isn't simply saying that the devil says untrue things. Demonic lies are often mostly true. This is where they get their power to deceive. St Augustine says that evil is the absence of a good which should be present. Evil is also the presence of a good which should be absent. While not absolute, human beings tend toward the former, the demonic toward the latter. Satan brings disorder with him—the word diabolic (from Greek, "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein "to throw") carries within itself the connotation of division, disorder, chaos. It is the opposition of symbolic, (from syn- "together" + stem of ballein "to throw") or that which throws together, or brings about a union (since they unite us to Christ, the sacraments are "symbols" in the etymological sense of the word).

The devil's lies are twisted. If he can through his lies he causes us to doubt or reject what we know to be good, and true, and beautiful, and just. The temptations of the devil, and I saw this again and again in California, is not so much that the devil tells us things which are untrue. It is rather more the case that he tells us the truth, untruly. Origen's words about the devil are applicable to the whole of the demonic realm: "And the reason why truth is not in him is that he has been deceived and accepts lies, and he has himself been deceived by himself." This is why, Origen concludes, the devil "is considered to be worse than the rest of these who are deceived, since they are deceived by him, but he creates his own deception himself."

St Augustine reminds us that Christ does not say "'The devil was naturally a stranger to the truth' but that 'The devil did not remain in the truth.'" The devil falls because "he refused to submit to his Creator and proudly exulted as if in a private lordship of his own. In this way he was deceived and deceiving." To encounter the demonic is to encounter a twisted fabric of truth offered in the service of falsehoods; freedom in the service of slavery; life, happiness, faith, hope and love in the service of death, sorrow, doubt, despair and hatred. The devil is a unity that service chaos.

The Apostle Paul reminds us that "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12). St Jerome tells us in his commentary on Ephesians that

Satan has cleverly transformed himself into an angel of light. He is striving to persuade us to regard him as a messenger of goodness. This is how he throws his full weight into the struggle. He employs deceptive signs and lying omens. He sets before us every possible ruse of evil. Then, when he has so ensnared us that we trust him, he says to us, 'Thus says the Lord.' This is not flesh and blood deceiving us. It is not a typical human temptation. It is the work of principalities and powers, the rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness.

There are two responses to this that we should avoid.

First, we might want to response with anxiety, or fear, or even terror and panic. While understandable, these are simply distractions. St Teresa of Ávila, the great reformer of monastic life in the West, says that we ought not to fear the devil because he is a poor and pitiful creature who does not even know how to love. Again, as Origen points out, the devil and the whole of the demonic order have first and foremost deceived themselves. There is no need for anxiety; much less is there any reason for fear, or terror, or panic.

The one thing I learned in my ministry with those who opened themselves to the occult and the demonic is that this whole darker realm is powerless against Christ and those who are in Christ. The demons, St Anthony the Great teaches, have only that power over us that God grants them. Any power they have beyond tempting us, they have because we have given it to them. Nothing the demons would tempt us with is true or will come true. If God gave them leave to do more than tempt us, then—greedy beings that they are—they would do that and leave behind in scorn even the possibility of doing us the lesser harm.

Second, and this for many years was my shortcoming more than the first, we ought not to dismiss St Paul's observation that we fight against evil spiritual beings. We ought not to doubt that there is evil. But this evil is not in the world, it comes from outside the world. Everything good in our life comes to us by God's grace, that is from outside of us. In a similar fashion everything wicked and evil comes from outside of us, that is, from the devil. In neither case are we without freedom or responsibility. Rather, in both cases we are called to exercise our true freedom and responsibility. Our freedom is the freedom to respond—to say "Amen!" or "No!" since in the face of divine grace and demonic temptations, both words are possibilities for us.

Curiously the more I realize that sin is first and foremost the human ratification of demonic deceptions, the easier it is for me to be both compassionate with others in their weakness, but also firmer in my unwillingness to collude with their sin.

Who among us has not been deceived? If even the devil has been deceived by the devil, who among us can truthfully say that he or she is free from deception? We must understand that we have all been deceived, and, in our own way, been the deceivers of self and others. This must be grasped if we are to have any compassion for each. At the same time we need to grasp our own sinfulness so that we do not, by our very compassion for one another, ratify and collude with evil. To paraphrase St John Chrysostom's words about the priest, more of us have fallen from compassion then lust.

Understanding and compassion are not meant to rob human beings of our freedom and responsibility—after all we are not simply victims, but also all of us victimizers. A true compassion and understanding will always see human freedom and responsibility within a wider context. Too often, and in an ironic imitation of the devil, we imagine that we human beings have "a private lordship," that somehow our rule of ourselves is absolute. It isn't. To quote Bob Dylan,

You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

"The battle is not against flesh and blood or ordinary temptations," St Jerome observes. "The scene is the war of flesh against spirit. We are being incited to become entrapped in the works of the flesh." And what are these works?

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).

Compare the works of the flesh to the works of those who say "Amen!" to Christ: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law" (vv. 22-23).

In the end, the only real temptation I've ever encountered in my experiences with those who associate with the occult and the demonic is to forsake the "fruit of the Spirit." Lose that, and you cannot stand against the powers of darkness. As St Augustine says, "These spiritual fruits reign in one in whom sins does not reign. These good things reign if they are so delightful that they themselves uphold the mind in its trails from falling into consent to sin. For whatever gives us delight, this we necessarily perform."

The whole of the Church's sacramental and ascetical life has as a primary goal the fostering in us a delight in virtue and in the fruit of the Spirit—and in the face of this delight the occult and the demonic are revealed as they truly are, impotent.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

My Superpower

Your Superpower Should Be Manipulating Electricity

You're highly reactive, energetic, and super charged. If the occasion calls for it, you can go from 0 to 60 in a split second. But you don't harness your energy unless you truly need to. And because of this, people are often surprised by what you are capable of. Why you would be a good superhero: You have the stamina to fight enemies for days Your biggest problem as a superhero: As with your normal life, people would continue to underestimate you

What Should Your Superpower Be?

A Man of Sorrows

In a comment on a recent post that examined the relationship between the life of the Church and the American character, Magdalena (a regular commentator on this blog) asks:

What interpersonal and social skills do you feel a priest should be required to master?

As I thought about the question, I looked to my own experience and to the fathers of the Church.

In a sermon on Matthew's Gospel, St John Chrysostom says that:

The person characterized by humility, gentleness, mercy and righteousness does not build a fence around good deeds. Rather, that one ensures that these good fountains overflow for the benefit of others. One who is pure of heart and a peacemaker, even when persecuted for the sake of the truth, orders his way of life for the common good.

Of all the things I think a priest needs, the ability to keep his attention focused on "the common good" of the community he serves is most important.

Contrary to what we often assume (and how some priests behave) the priest does not serve the common good because he has some privileged knowledge about God's will for the community. This is far from the case in fact.

Often the priest has less knowledge about what is going on in the parish then anyone. As a priest, I have come to know some communities and some parishioners very well. I have to admit that there are other communities and parishioners, I hardly knew at all. Sometimes this reflected indifference on either my part or theirs, but more often it simply reflected the inherent limitations of being human.

So if the priest doesn't "know better" or "know more" about what God wants from the parish, how does he serve the common good? What I've learned as priest is that I serve the common good first and foremost by my willingness to abide with people when they suffer. Let me explain.

Someone once asking me: "What do you like best about being a priest?"

I answered hearing confessions, sick calls and funerals. This surprised the person and they asked why I thought these were the best part of the priesthood. I told the person that everyone gets to go to weddings and baptisms, but the priest is the only one who is invited into those moments when a person stands vulnerable and ashamed before God. At that moment the priest is called to be a witness to God's mercy, love and forgiveness. It is nprecisely those moments in our life when we feel most estranged from God that the priest realizes most fully his office. As a result it is only through his willingness to abide with others in their suffering that the priest can hope to serve the common good of the parish.

Thinking about this I am reminded of the words of the prophet Isaiah. He says about the Messiah:

He is despised and rejected by men,/A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief./And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;/He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.//Surely He has borne our griefs/ And carried our sorrows;/Yet we esteemed Him stricken,/Smitten by God, and afflicted.//But He was wounded for our transgressions,/He was bruised for our iniquities;/ The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,/ And by His stripes we are healed.//All we like sheep have gone astray;/ We have turned, every one, to his own way;/ And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.//He was oppressed and He was afflicted,/Yet He opened not His mouth;/ He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,/ And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,/ So He opened not His mouth (53.3-7).

Taking Isaiah at his word, and Christ as our model, the priest is despised, rejected, stricken, smitten, afflicted, wounded, bruised, chastised, oppressed, slaughtered, and silent. In a phrase, the priest is a man of sorrows.

This understanding is different than the image often presented to young men considering the priesthood. The vision of the priesthood is often glorious and noble, but just as often divorced from the witness of the Suffering Servant so beloved by Isaiah.

And Isaiah offers us a view of the priesthood than that which is typically expected by the parish and the bishop. Not unreasonably, we want priest to be well-educated, knowledgeable men who can preach, teach, and counsel.

While these are important, they aer all at the primary task of the priest: To bear with people in their suffering. The priest is a man of sorrows because he is called by Christ to suffer alongside people and bear witness to the mercy, love and forgiveness of God. And this he does especially in those moments when people are most in need of God and least likely to reach out to Him.

And this witness is always personal, it always points to human weakness and suffering. Suffering especially has a way of binding us together and it will bind the priest and the person together. Ideally this bond is a shared (if imperfect) openness to God's grace. If it isn't then, then human weakness and suffering come to dominate every thought, gesture, word and meeting. In the latter case, the priest soon discovers that even those who bear the Name of Christ will turn away from, and even turn against, him. And so, in his willingness to bear loneliness and even isolation and exile in the midst of the community, the priest is again a man of sorrows.

Again, because the witness is always personal, the priest's witness to the redeeming presence of God requires from him a willingness not to ignore, minimize or exploit the weakness of others. From my own experience I have discovered that this requires not only that I root out sin from my life (a never ending task to be sure), but that I also root out the myriad socially sanctioned lapses that allow me to overlook, and at time even exploit, other people.

The priest is called to suffer for his people, by suffering with his people. This suffering doesn't mean that the priest allows himself to be beat up—this serve no good purpose for the parishioner and only drains the priest of the strength he needs to care for others. The real suffering of the priest, the one "skill" he needs I think above all, is the ability to stand with people, often silently, and remind them that their suffering, their failure, and even their sinfulness, does not exhaust the meaning of their life.

And more importantly, he must bear witness to the great, redemptive truth that human physical and moral weakness does not negate the mercy, love and forgiveness of God.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

10,000 Hits!

Hurray! and Glory to God For All Things!

This site broke 10,000 hits today!

If it weren't the Christmas Fast, I'd say ice cream for everyone!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Because It Is Always Good To Laugh: Two Cats Talking

With a hat tip to Clement Ferguson!

First, watch the video:



Then watch the translation here: Cat Talking, Translation.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Our 'Post-ecclesiological' Age

At the web site of the Exarchate of Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe (Ecumenical Patriarchate), there is a very interesting article "Our 'Post-ecclesiological' Age" by Archimandrite Grigorios (Papathomas). Archimandrite Grigorios is Professor of Canon Law and Dean of the St Sergius Theological Institute in Paris. According to the summary provided on the web site, Papathomas "argues that we live in a post-ecclesiological age due to our loss of sense of the local church belonging in a particular place. He also analyses the ways in which overlapping 'co-territorial' Churches define themselves by use of particular rites (Catholic), by confession (Protestant), or, in the case of the Orthodox, by ethnic origin." The article is on the longish side (22 pages) but well worth the effort to read. To give you a sense of his argument, let me offer you his conclusion. He writes that

In our multicultural societies today cultural demands are more comprehensible than the feeble ontological answers provided by the Churches. The Churches will have to choose whether to preserve the Pauline ecclesiology of the New Testament that guided them for fifteen centuries, or to give in to the confessional, ritualist, cultural or nationalist demands of this post-ecclesiological age. These demands have unquestionably determined the established ecclesiology of this present age – and by the look of things - of the future as well. In the latter case, the Church of Christ will be the fifth wheel of the wagon, tragically trailing behind the worldly progress of the nations rather than leading them along the path to the eschaton already traced out by the Resurrection (Rev 22:20). The fault will lie with the Churches themselves.

I would encourage you to download and read the entire article. One of the great challenges facing the Orthodox Church, especially in the United States and Western Europe, is the multiplication of ethnic jurisdictions.

Papathomas's analysis is spot I think. The reality we face is that Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians have all embraced a radically unbiblical ecclesiology. Fr Grigorios's theme is also addressed in a less historical, more systematic fashion by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) in his work Being as Communion, and earlier (from a more liturgical viewpoint) throughout the work of the late Fr Alexander Schmemann. All three argue that the Church of Jesus Christ is always the Church of a particular place and that the celebration of the Eucharist—whatever the liturgical rite used—is a gathering of the Body in that locale.

The historical, canonical, liturgical and dogmatic implications of this view of ecclesiology are beyond me I'm afraid. My own interests are more pastoral and applicative. As we discuss in these pages the life of the parish in the tradition of the Orthodox Church, I cannot help wondering: How well do we express even the "limited" fullness of even those who are gathered for a parochial celebration of the Eucharist? Do we make room for the diverse gifts, spiritual as well as cultural, that are present in a given parish?

Often it seems to me, we try to limit the gifts to those that fit our preconception of the parish. Usually this means keeping the parish's Greek, or Russian, or Serbian flavor. But, and just as often, it can mean keeping the American flavor by excluding, or at least limiting, all things Greek, or Russian, or Serbian. My concern here is not ethnic or linguistic per se. Rather I offer these examples because they highlight what I would call (for lack of a better term) a pastoral myopia. We can see what is close to us, what we recognize essential like "us." But what is different, what requires from me that I stretch myself that I transcend my own understanding of the Church—that I can't see so well.

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus talks about the word of God being scattered like seed. Different areas bring different harvests—but the seed that fell "good ground and yielded a crop that sprang up, increased and produced: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred" (Mark 4.8). In His explanation of the parable Jesus tells us explicitly that the seed "sown on good ground, [represent] those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred" (v. 20).

When we exclude the spiritual or culture gifts of others, we not only dishonor them, we rebel against Christ and condemn ourselves since it is Christ Who gave those gifts through the Holy Spirit. One of the first steps I think to bring our ecclesiological practice in line with the biblical witness and the canonical tradition is learning, on the parish level, to make room for each other and the different gifts we bring. This means more than simply passive acceptance or non-interference; there are no roommates in the House of God. We need to actively seek out and cultivate our personal gifts and the gifts given to the other members of our parish. And given that multicultural reality of modern society is increasingly fragmented, this means finding a way in our parishes to be together from our different cultural backgrounds without falling not tribalism or covert hostility is a necessary part of our evangelistic mission.

As always, your questions, thoughts and comments are not only welcome, but actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Which Father Am I?

You’re Origen! Check out Origen, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom for more information on Origen. http://tinyurl.com/2nkwwo You do nothing by half-measures. If you’re going to read the Bible, you want to read it in the original languages. If you’re going to teach, you’re going to reach as many souls as possible, through a proliferation of lectures and books. If you’re a guy and you’re going to fight for purity … well, you’d better hide the kitchen shears. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

House Keeping

After trying various ways of tracking comments, I have settled (I think) on HaloScan. This will allow me not only to track but (when needed) ban spammers. Your earlier comments are all still on my blog, but it will be sometime before I can import them. I do have them all in my gmail account should you have a burning desire to see what you wrote.

Also, please notice that on the right hand side underneath site hits, you will see a column that shows the recent comments. Hopefully this will encourage more lively discussions among us.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Metropolitan John (Zizoulas) On Primacy

In light of our conversation on the Orthodox understanding of primacy and the Ravenna statement of Catholic/Orthodox relations, I thought this interview with His Eminence Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) might be of interest. The interview appeared in the September 2005 edition of 30Days, an Roman Catholic news magazine.

In the interview His Eminence does a good job of laying out the history and rational for the various Orthodox responses to the question of primacy in the Church.

To read the interview please click here: "Where the Eucharist Is, There is the Catholic Church."

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

clipped from www.30giorni.it Where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church Catholics must take seriously the notion of the full Catholicity of the local Church promoted by Vatican Council II, and must apply it to their ecclesiology». Ioannis Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamum, takes stock of the debate between Catholics and Orthodox regarding the primacy. by Gianni Valente Above, Benedict XVI with Ioannis Zizioulas, head of the delegation of the Ecumenic Patriarchate of Constantinople, come to Rome on the feastday of Saints Peter and Paul, 29 June 2005; down, Bartholomew I in prayer before the Confession of Saint Peter in the Vatican Grottos, 29 June 2004

Some More Thoughts on Ravenna

I wrote this in response to a question emailed me regarding the recent Catholic/Orthodox Joint International Theological Committees statement on ecclesiology. I offer this for your consideration and, as always, I welcome your comments. The complete text of the Ravenna statement can be found on my blog: http://palamas.blogspot.com/search?q=ravenna.

In Christ,

+FrG

Reading through the Ravenna statement on ecclesiology, I find it to be well balanced and consistent with an Orthodox understanding of the Church. Rightly understood, and the document addresses this, there is not a single primacy in the Church, but rather primacies. Moving from the "bottom up," each primacy becomes part of a synod with its own primate, who in terms is in another, more expansive synod with its own primate, etc. Moving from the "top down," these different levels of primacy nest in each other—each primate having a responsibility to care for the primacy of those in the "lower" level.

For example, in our own spiritual lives, we have primacy—we are autonomous (we are NOT isolated from one another; autonomy does not negate our mutual dependence on one another). Self-rule for persons and Churches is what makes it possible our free participate in every larger community: the family, the parish, the diocese, the universal Church. On each level, there is a primacy, the family, the husband; the parish, the pastor; the diocese, the bishop; the national church, the patriarch. In the Ravenna document, the Bishop of Rome (assuming reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) is primate within the synod of the Pentarchy (the Five Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandra and Jerusalem).

Moving from the more universal to the more particular, each primate is called upon to both lead and protect those among whom he is first: the person for his or her own spiritual life, the husband/father for his wife and children, the priest for his parishioners, the bishop for his diocese, the patriarch to his synod of bishops, the Pope of Rome (again, assuming reconciliation) for the Patriarchal Synod.

What makes this particular document interesting is (1) this is the first time the Orthodox have been willing to discuss the question of papal primacy AND (2) this is the first time the Roman Catholic Church has been willing to discuss the question of papal primacy within an explicitly synodal structure.

How seriously ought we to take all of this? It really depends on what we mean by "serious."

Certainly there is much more to be discussed between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches so the Orthodox ought not to receive Holy Communion from Roman Catholic priests, nor should Catholics approach the Holy Chalice in Orthodox parishes. Everybody ought to go to his or her own Church this weekend please!

But, Ravenna does represent a significant convergence of East and West that, if God so wills, can bear the short-term fruit of better understanding of Catholics and Orthodox.

As I have said in other venues, before the Great Schism can be healed we—Orthodox Christians and Catholics—must desire reconciliation. For that desire to be born in our hearts we need at least some mutual understanding or sympathy for each other's ecclesiology. On that score, I think, the Ravenna document represents a significant advance in Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical relations.

And as for the future, well that belongs to God and He will bring about the end of the Schism in His time and according to His good plans and purposes.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The American Character and the Life of the Church

We have been thinking together here on these pages about the parochial ministry of the Orthodox Church in the United States. In the December 2007 issue of First Things, I came upon the following observation (and caution) in an article written by the historian Mark Noll. In "America's Two Foundings," (subscription required) he writes:

the strength of religion in American history has been its voluntary organization, religious organizations would be well advised to guard carefully their voluntary character while they carry out their religious and social missions. With the prospect of ­government assistance to faith-based organizations in view, churches and other religious bodies would be wise to adopt the advice of A.B. Simpson, which he offered to his Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination when it faced the question of speaking in tongues. Simpson's advice was to "seek not, forbid not." The strength of America's voluntary religious heritage is not imperiled by a small measure of government funding, but it will be imperiled if religious groups insist on that funding and come to rely on that funding for their existence. Religion in America flourished when it was most acutely aware of corruption from state entanglement; it has always exerted its most beneficial public effects in the shape of the NGO.

While many Orthodox theologians, notable the late Fr Alexander Schmemann, have criticized the volunteeristic character of Christianity in America, such complaints, in my own opinion, miss the mark almost entirely. Let me explain.

I would concede that there is a great danger in assuming that we choose the Gospel in much the same way we choose to purchase this automobile rather than that one. The Gospel is not simply one consumer product among many—but is in fact the way of salvation and a participation in the divine life. So with Schmemann I would say, no, we do not (strictly speaking) choose the Gospel anymore than we choose Christ. Rather, Christ chooses us, He chooses me, even as He calls me to commit myself to the Gospel, to take up my cross and to follow Him.

What Noll is concerned with in the passage cited above, is with religious institutions (and not simply Christian churches) surrendering their independence to federal and states governments through an institutional alliance between church and state. The best way for churches, as he says, to exert "beneficial public effects" is to remain free from "state entanglements." It is in this second sense that, at its very best, American Christianity is described as volunteeristic. In the American experiment, religious commitment is free from civil compulsion.

The hallmarks of American Christianity—and I think of an American approach to all things religious and spiritual—emerged in the first half of the 19^th century. Noll writes (with my emphasis):

The American religion that flourished so luxuriantly in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century was republican: It had internalized the fear of unchecked authority and the commitment to private virtue that drove the ideology of the first political founding. But it was also Christian republican: The virtue that the United States' energetic itinerants promoted was not classical manliness but humility in Christ. The religion that came to prevail was more antiformal than formal. It did not trust in ascribed authority or inherited bureaucracies but rather in achieved authority and ad hoc networking. It was populist or democratic, championing the ability of any white man to assume leadership in any religious assembly. And it was biblicist, speaking of the Scriptures as a supreme authority that trumped or even revoked all other religious authorities.

While some aspects are now suspect (specifically the "championing of any white man to assume leadership in any religious assembly") in the main the events that unfolded the first half of the 19^th century have come "to shape all of American society by the standards of evangelical religion. Most remarkably, evangelicals even conquered the South, where an honor-driven culture of manly self-assertion had presented a far less propitious field for labor than regions to the North where the Puritan leaven survived."

Looking at Noll's analysis, and reflecting as well on my own experiences as a Roman Catholic, I find his words most instructive for me now as an Orthodox priest. If an Evangelical mindset could conquer the "honor-drive culture of manly self-assertion" of the American South of the late 18^th and early 19^th century, is it reasonable to assume that it will not make inroads into the contemporary Church? Indeed, hasn't Orthodoxy here in American, as with the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, already taken on many of the qualities that Noll's associates with Evangelicalism?

Voluntarism was a mind-set keyed to innovative leadership, proactive public advocacy, and entrepreneurial goal setting. Voluntarism also became an extraordinarily influential practice that began with church organization and then mushroomed to inspire local and national mobilization on behalf of myriad social and political causes. Voluntarism also became a foundation for the strength, and weakness, of American society as a whole. Local civilization would be built as local groups and individuals enlisted to address local needs. Not government, not an inherited church, not the dictates of big business, but enterprising connections—forged voluntarily—built American civilization in the decades before the Civil War.

Reading Noll's I can't help but think—as more than one Orthodox seminarian has mentioned to me—while the Orthodox Church has maintained a connection with an incredibly rich past we are rather consistently failing in our ability to connect that past with our present situation. Ours is a sublime theology entrusted all too often to ministers who social and interpersonal skills fall far short of the poetry of faith. This dissonance between content and character is pastorally fatal in an American context.

American culture is marked by a real humility. Granted sometimes this humility takes on an unhealthy form (for example, a moral or theological relativism/indifference, superficiality, an uncritical egalitarianism, or an anti-intellectualism), but in the main American culture from the 19^th century on has been marked by a combination of moral idealism and practical and personal philanthropy (think for example of the Peace Corps or VISTA). Many Orthodox, and including those who joined the Church as adults, simply misunderstand the anti-authoritarianism, the antiformalism, and populism of American culture. These "-ism's," are not inherently ideological. Rather they are in the service of American idealism and practical philanthropy.

For better and worse, American culture is concerned with the contribution that I can make personally. Are my hands dirty and calloused through service to my neighbor?

This "commitment to private virtue," is not (necessarily anyway) a radical individualism. It is rather grounded in the anthropological conviction that any society, secular or religious, is composed of persons. Thinking about this for a moment, I realize how could it be otherwise? Whatever its immediate founding principles, aren't all human society, more or less, a reflection of the Divine Society of the Holy Trinity?

That American evangelical society stresses private virtue does not mean that it is necessarily opposed to the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If anything it is precisely this radical rejection of "ascribed authority" and "inherited bureaucracies" in American culture that challenges the Church to recapture for herself the primacy of virtue in the life of the Church. At their best, American Evangelical sensibilities, the personal and cultural commitment to humility, volunteerism, idealism and commitment to practical philanthropy, will buy those in positions of leadership (and again, secular or religious, Christian or non-Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical) a certain deference. But as recent history demonstrates, and again secular and religious, there are limits.

If leaders prove themselves hostile, or even indifferent, to virtues of American Evangelical character, they will simply forfeit all credibility with an American audience. And again, precisely because American culture is practical, words alone are not enough.

Indeed, words alone are suspect.

An enduring concern for the practical and the virtue of prudence in the American character is an echo of the second chapter of the Epistle James. After discussing the necessity of personal virtue, and above all showing no partiality toward the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and the weak (how very American!), the Apostle comes right to the point:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (vv. 14-26).

Reflecting as we have been on the life of the parish in the Orthodox Church, it seems to me we would do well to embrace—as a culture protoevangelium—the best of the American character. And not only that; just as the early Church's willingness to embraced and then transfigured of Greek thought, allowed her to find new ways of proclaiming the Gospel that is "ever ancient, ever new," might not American culture likewise provide us with new evangelical and pastoral opportunities?

Are we willing, as St Augustine was in his own way and in his time, to find that God is here, in America, waiting for us to discover Him and respond to His call to repent of our sins? I'll leave you with that thought and Augustine's own words from The Confessions:

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would have not been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

“What’s Wrong With Us?”

Just a reminder (and a bit of shameless self-promotion) I will be speaking tomorrow evening (13 November) at the Youngstown-Warren chapter of the Society of St John Chrysostom. The title of my presentation is "What's Wrong With Us? Thoughts on Why East/West Christian Relationships are Difficult." The meeting, which is free and open to the public, starts at 7pm and is being hosted by St Mary Byzantine Catholic Church, 7782 Glenwood Ave, Boardman, OH.

For more information about either the meeting or the Society of St John Chrysostom, please call 330.755.5635.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

 

 

SOCIETY OF SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN CHAPTER

 

PRESENTS

 

"WHAT'S WRONG WITH US? THOUGHTS ON WHY EAST/WEST CHRISTIAN RELATIONSHIPS ARE DIFFICULT"

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007, 7 P.M.

 

ST. MARY BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

7782 GLENWOOD AVENUE

BOARDMAN, OHIO

 

SPEAKER: FATHER GREGORY JENSEN,

ORTHODOX PRIEST AND PSYCHOLOGIST

 

FREE AND PUBLIC WELCOME

 

THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM IS AN ECUMENICAL ORGANIZATION OF CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX CLERGY AND LAITY, WORKING TO MAKE KNOWN THE HISTORY, WORSHIP, SPIRITUALITY, DISCIPLINE AND THEOLOGY OF EASTERN CHRISTENDOM, AND FOR THE FULLNESS OF UNITY DESIRED BY JESUS CHRIST.

 

(FOR INFORMATION CALL: 330-755-5635)

Pondering God's Mercy

The following is an excerpt from the sermon preached today at Holy Incarnation Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church. Using the propers for Gregorian Use parishes in the Western Rite Vicariate, the sermon is based on the Gospel reading for the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost.

Hat tip to Fr John Fenton at Conversi ad Dominum.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The book of Job invites us to ponder this age-old question: Why do bad things happen to good people? Yet as we enter into the conversation with Job, as we listen to the deliberations between righteous Job and his unrighteous friends, as we hear our own voices in Job's searching and also in the searing arguments of his so-called friends, we might begin to understand that the real question is not why bad things happen to good people, but rather why the Lord gives good to anyone. For when the words of Job are ended, when he is exhausted and is out of words, when the Lord finally gets his say, then we hear the rat-a-tat-tat of rhetorical questions—questions all designed to ask one thing: Why am I, the Lord and Maker of all things, why am I good? And merciful? And kind?

Job has no answer. And neither do we. But notice the question. It is not the self-centered question we ask: the question about why God lets us or makes us suffer; or why the all-knowing God doesn't stop the suffering. That is the lesser question because it begins with us, and it is the product of our pride. With it, we presume to question God. And by questioning God we implicitly blame Him. And by questioning God, we go nowhere.

But the question God asks; the question that spring not from us but from Him—this question does not lead us nowhere, but leads us to consider all that we have and all that we are. God's question—Why am I merciful?—that question leads us not to wallow in our misery, but to reflect upon the Lord, and the manifold ways in which He deigns to have mercy, and—most importantly—why He has mercy at all. For with the patriarch Jacob we must say, "I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies, and of thy truth which thou hast showed to thy servant." (Gen 32.10) And yet, even as we repeat these words, even as we hear ourselves say, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof,"—with those words we must admit that the Lord inexplicably has mercy on us; that He graciously gives us what we do not deserve; that He kindly overlooks our sins and does not deal with us as we deal with each other; and that He not only has mercy, but even also is mercy.

And then, with the patriarch Job, we have nothing left to say except: I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes; for I know that You can do every thing, and that no thought can be withheld from You. And with St. Paul, we can only acclaim the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God.

As we acclaim the Lord's wisdom; as we proclaim that all wisdom is from the Lord God (Sir 1.1); as we confess that the Lord's foolishness exceeds our wisest wisdom—then, perhaps, we will begin to understand the point Our Lord is making in today's parable.