The Anthropology of Suffering

Suffering Isn't Suffering Unless It Hurts. When I was a student my confessor was a Cistercian monk from Hungary name Fr Chris (I may have mentioned him before). One of the things he would frequently remind me of is that the one thing Christ promises His disciples is that we will suffer in this life. “And,” he would conclude, “suffering isn't suffering if it doesn't hurt.” Father's counsel to me came to mind this morning as I thought about the current controversy taking shape between Metropolitan Jonah and the Orthodox Church in America on one side and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on the other side.

The importance of suffering in the spiritual life is often overlooked. Rather than tell people that suffering is simply part and parcel of our life in Christ we pass over the issue in silence. Sometimes instead of looking squarely at the truth we substitute what some have called moralistic therapeutic deism for a clear discussion and preaching on the anthropological non-negotiable elements of the Christian life: asceticism and a willingness to suffer the first stage of the spiritual, purification, on the road to illumination and eventual union (or theosis to use more traditional Orthodox terminology).

Asceticism and purification are not only necessary to our life in Christ, they necessarily require from the person a willingness to suffer. But this raises two questions: First, what is it that I mean when I say we will suffer? What, in other words, does it mean to suffer in Christ? And second, what does this have to do with the current controversy we see in the Church?

What It Means To Suffer . There are subgroups within the Orthodox Church for whom suffering plays a central role in how they understand the Christian life. For these individuals, the absence of suffering in a person's is suspect—really Christians are in pain. This approach the spiritual life is, in my view, an aberration and reflects a mis-reading of monastic literature.

At its core it confuses suffering with sadism and masochism (and not infrequently there is a sexual component to these groups, but that is for another day). Sadism and masochism emphasizing as they do human pain are, I would argue, pseudo-forms of suffering. When, as often happens even in otherwise healthy persons and communities, they inform especially a our understand of asceticism and the three fold path of the spiritual life, they can lead to any number of aberrations in the spiritual life and the life of the community.

The problem here is this: Unlike suffering, sadism and masochism are psychologically and often behaviorally active. The sadist seeks to inflict pain; the masochist seeks out the infliction of pain on him. In both cases, pain is the object of the ego's desire, a way of maintaining the illusion of one's own power and control in the face of the mystery of being (and Being for that matter). Neither the sadist nor the masochist suffer, neither is passive in the face of the mystery of being (and Being) who bear up under the weight of this mystery, but actors who seek to impose their own ego onto the mystery and shape its expression according to their own desires.

Let me qualify what I said a moment ago about the passivity of suffering. Suffering in the spiritual is passive in the sense that I do not choose suffering, it is not the object of my decision as is, for example, the fact that I am writing this essay. I do not choose suffering, I do not move toward it either physically or psychologically. Suffering chooses me, suffering comes to me.

The passive character of suffering does not preclude activity on my part. While I may not, and indeed cannot, choose suffering, I can exercise my will bear suffering, to not flee from it. Again, suffering is not something I choose but it is something that, when it comes to me, I accept.

I will in my next post look (on Monday, 4/27/09) at what seems to me to be the dominate theme in American Religious Culture, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Thinking About the Church in America

Over the next few days, I want to reflect with you on the current controversy facing the Orthodox Church here in America. The flash point of this has been the very public exchange of views over the last few weeks between Metropolitan JONAH, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and various representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In what follows I argue that these differences point to more fundamentally cultural, pastoral and psychological challenges facing not only Orthodox Christians but American Christianity in general (and insofar as American culture has come to dominate in many parts of the world, this is not simply an American or Christian problem.)

Beginning today, I will offer a serious of reflections that I hope will provide if not solutions, at least a general frame of reference for discussion and debate as well discern together what God would have for His Church here in America. The topics are, in order:

1. The Anthropology of Suffering
2. American Religious Culture
3. The Ascetical Ideal
4. The Psychology Roots of Jurisdictionalism

I will post today a reflection on suffering.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Archbishop Gregory (Afonsky): The Canonical Status of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church

Christ is Risen!

Fr Symeon of St John's Hermitage, has posted an excellent by the late OCA Archbishop of Alaska, Archbishop Gregory (Afonsky), on the canonical status of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church. (You can find the original article here.) Given the growing, and I think inevitable, controversary, that is now brewing in the Orthodox Church here in America, I find the work of Archbishop Gregory timely. It is a bit long for a blog post, but well worth reading.

My emphasis and comments are marked in the text.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The Russian canonical school of the 19th and 20th centuries studied the question of the Patriarch of Constantinople' s canonical status in the Orthodox Church with care and diligence. For the most part books and monographs on the subject were well-disposed, explaining the Patriarch of Constantinople' s exceptionally high position in the Church both during the Byzantine and Turkish periods as a result of particular historical circumstances. During the Byzantine era the Patriarch of Constantinople, as the hierarch of the imperial capital and bishop of New Rome, received not only the primacy of honor but secular privileges of authority as well. During the Turkish period he became the Ethnarch of all the Orthodox subjects in the East, exercising both secular and ecclesiastical authority. However, almost all Russian canonists attributed only the canonical primacy of honor to the Patriarch of Constantinople and in no event any primacy of power over all the Orthodox East.

An attempt by the Russian canonist and historian T. Barsov, to unite the historical and canonical basis in a "symphony" as a justification of the Patriarch of Constantinople' s primacy over all other Eastern patriarchs called forth an opposite reaction from the well-known canonist A. P. Pavlov who, while recognizing the historical reasons for the Patriarch's enhanced status, categorically rejected the idea of his canonical power over the whole Orthodox Church.

Furthermore Pavlov, in analyzing Barsov's assertions that precisely "in the question about the Patriarch of Constantinople the substance of the ecclesiastical structure in the East is resolved, i.e. the gradual expansion of the Patriarch of Constantinople' s prerogatives and his exceptional elevation with respect to other patriarchs, as well as the primacy of his see in the Christian Church of the East, as the oldest representative of the Orthodox Church", calls such an idea as nothing less than a "theory of Eastern Papism." [While often used pejoratively by Orthodox authors, I think that the development of the modern notion of the papacy represents an understandable response of the Roman Church to the increased contact of local churches in the contemporary world. While theologically we ought not to see the Church as one large diocese, experientially it is difficult to avoid doing so. Because of changes especially in techonology, we are ever and ever more aware of what happens in other local churches. Coordination among the churches in I think a more pressing existential and pastoral need. The problem is, I think, that we tend to dogmatize our solutions. This happens in two ways: we assert the primacy of the local church at the expense of the universal church (the Orthodox reponse) OR the primacy of the universal over the local (the Catholic response). Neither response seems to me to be working.]

Professor Pavlov bases himself on a strict canonical foundation with respect to Constantinople: "A characteristic mark of canonical legislation which elevated the Bishop of Constantinople to the patriarchate, shows that he is always placed in comparison with the Bishop of Rome, the most senior hierarch in the Christian world, and his see, being that of the empire's new capital, is recognized as the second one after Rome." [I wonder if reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches might not be the practical effect of both communities internal ecclesiological struggles?]

It was only in the beginning of the 20th century that the question of the formal and canonical status of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church became more acute and viable in connection with the new theory of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis of Constantinople who raised the question of the submission of the entire Orthodox diaspora found beyond the borders of the autocephalous churches to the Patriarch of Constantinople, basing this new theory upon the canons of the Universal Church. One of the last Russian canonists, S.V. Troitsky, respectfully but firmly and with the full knowledge of the subject, came out in opposition to this novel theory.

Although Constantinople, in accordance with Emperor Constantine' s designs, was to be a Christian city and the center and foundation of the newly established Christian empire, nonetheless as Professor Bolotov writes: "The Church of Constantinople could not pride itself for being either of an ancient lineage or of an Apostolic foundation." Consequently, writes Bolotov, in purely ecclesiastical terms, Constantinople had no such privileges, as were the rights of other Eastern churches. The preeminence of Constantinople was based solely upon its political status as the new capital of the Roman Empire. According to St. Gregory the Theologian there were few Orthodox in Constantinople in the 4th Century and it was predominantly Arian.

Professor A. V. Kartashev, himself being in the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, characterized the status of New Rome (Constantinople) during its foundation as follows: "It cannot be said that the Orthodox reputation of Constantinople' s hierarchs was so splendid from the time of its appearance in history as the capital, since Eusebius, the leader of the Arians immediately subjected Byzantium, along with the palace, under his influence. Rome and Alexandria struggled for half a century with Constantinople' s Arianism and its emperors. Rome and Alexandria saw themselves as guardians of universal Orthodoxy against the impious thrusts of Constantinople and against its insignificant bishop who was subject to the Metropolitan of Heraclea. It had neither a past nor any achievements before the Church or Orthodoxy. Only annoying pretensions to become some kind of an unwelcome head of the Church and a tool of imperial power. In 381, under the protection of Theodosius the Great, at the Second Ecumenical Council, the reigning city, having not as yet cleansed itself from the stain of Arianism, was proclaimed to be, in the ecclesiastical sense, second in honor after ancient Rome."

It was during the reign of the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great that those sees which were in the major cities of the dioceses received special privileges over other Metropolitans and the hierarchs of those sees were called archbishops, exarchs and finally, patriarchs. The First Ecumenical Council (Canon 6) acknowledged the higher administrative powers of the three main cities of the empire: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, subjecting whole dioceses to the territories. The same Council granted the Bishop of Jerusalem (Aelia), as the cradle of Christianity "the honor which flows from his position while the dignity proper to the Metropolitan of the city is safeguarded. "

It was the Second Ecumenical Council (Canon 3) which equated the Patriarch of Constantinople with Rome and other Apostolic Sees. The literal meaning of that canon granted the prerogative of honor to the Patriarch of Constantinople, putting him in the second place after the Bishop of Rome. The Council granted a special place of honor to the Bishop of New Rome but no power: the Bishop of the new capital continued formally to be subject to the Metropolitan of Heraclea.

Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council reads: "As the bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the New Rome."

We can see in Canon Three of the Second Ecumenical Council only that the Patriarch of
Constantinople, as the bishop of New Rome, must have the prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome. However, this canon says nothing about the supremacy of Rome or Constantinople or about the administrative or judicial rights with respect to those patriarchs.

Nonetheless, the Bishop of Constantinople acted in such a way that the literal interpretation of the canon soon became impossible, since the bishops of the capital began to exert their factual authority far beyond the environs of Constantinople.

According to Pavlov these prerogatives of honor for "both hierarchs (Jerusalem and Constantinople) little by little evolved into the prerogatives of power over ordinary Metropolitans: by way of custom for Jerusalem and by imperial legislation for Constantinople. " Thus the laws of Emperors Honorius and Theodosius granted the bishop of the new capital the rights of final decision with respect to disputes between bishops of neighboring territories --Illyricum, as well as over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Fracia, which was confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (Canons 9 and 17) which granted the right of appeal either to the diocesan exarch or to the bishop of the capital city.

Canon 28 of Chalcedon speaks of the acknowledgment of inequality of honor of two named hierarchs (that of Rome having the first place and Constantinople the second), however, according to Pavlov, it equated them in terms the rights of power, i.e. it granted three dioceses to Constantinople with the right to ordain the metropolitans for those dioceses as well as to consecrate bishops for members of different nationalities (barbarians) of those dioceses. This canon became the cornerstone in the matter of the elevation and prominence of the see of Constantinople.

As the third level in Church, matters of its dioceses including judicial authority (canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon) the Patriarch of Constantinople in principle and according to canons stood on an absolutely the same level with his other brother-patriarchs. However Canons 9 and 17 opened an alternative for the Patriarch of Constantinople, i.e. as a rather far-reaching possibility to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchs as well as an extension of his authority over them.

Thus the Council of Chalcedon established the patriarchs as a third administrative and judicial level within the Church: equal in authority but of different ranks of honor: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Canon 36 of the Council in Trullo ranks the patriarchs in the same sequence with respect to honor but completely equal in power.

The last word in canonical legislation about the place of the Patriarch of Constantinople can be Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879. This council, says Pavlov, expresses the basic canonical principle that the clergy and laity of one Autocephalous Church (Roman or Constantinople) no matter where they live, are the subjects of only the authority of their own Autocephalous Church. It means that one Autocephalous Church cannot interfere in life and authority of another Church in accordance with the 8th canon of the Third Ecumenical Council.

In theory and according to canons, all five patriarchs were recognized as equal in authority among themselves. But this was not so in practice. Already in the 4th century the Bishop of Rome begins to proclaim his pretensions of supreme authority over the whole Church, basing this on the imagined primacy of Apostle Peter over the other Apostles. In his turn, the Bishop of Constantinople, thanks to the political significance of his city, received certain prerogatives over the three Eastern patriarchs. [There is some comfort, I guess, that our problems are old problems!]Because of his close proximity to the seat of imperial power, the Patriarch of Constantinople accrued a position of an intermediary between the emperor and other patriarchs who, upon arrival in Constantinople, could approach the emperor only through the intercession of the capital's patriarch.

As a sign of these prerogatives and in distinction from other patriarchs, the bishop of the new capital already in the beginning of the sixth century, assumed the title of "Ecumenical" to which Pope Gregory the Great objected. In time, after the Muslims captured Jerusalem (637), Antioch (538) and Alexandria (641), the Patriarch of Constantinople remained in fact the sole spiritual head in the Christian East and this to a certain extend equated the "ecumenical" Patriarch with the Pope of Rome. [Again, it seems to me that the East, like the West, elevate what is historically contingent to the dogmatic. For Rome this makes sense because of the idea of the development of dogma. This idea being absent, and indeed rejected, by most Orthodox theologians puts us in a bit of a theological pickle. How are we to make dogmatic sense of changes that arise because of historical contingencies?]

The Patriarch of Constantinople retained his position of primacy among the Eastern patriarchs which came about as the result of New Rome's political significance. This was done with the help of the "Household Synod" (synodos endimus) which assumed all the authority of the previous Ecumenical councils. This synod, under the chairmanship of the Patriarch, consisted of bishops and metropolitans who happened to be at the capital in connection with matters of their own churches, and such hierarchs would not infrequently remain there for a number of years enabling the Patriarch to assemble a synod at any time with a sufficient number of bishops.

Thus, according to Ostroumov, Constantinople becomes the central point of Church life in the East and the Patriarch of the capital, with his "Household Synod", acquires a governing position in Church matters and exerts strong influence upon the other patriarchs and thus becoming the de facto highest level of appeal with respect to them.

During the time of Patriarch Photius an attempt was made to elevate the Patriarch of Constantinople over all the other patriarchs by way of secular legislation by means of an epanagoge of Emperor Basil of Macedon. In this document the Patriarch of Constantinople is distinguished from other Eastern patriarchs in that he is recognized as the first among them with the right to resolve any disputes in the other patriarchates. However these epanagoges in
general, remained only on paper and did not acquire the force of law.

Nonetheless attempts were made to justify and affirm canonically the prominent status which the Patriarch of Constantinople occupied in fact thanks to the advantageous, for him, historical circumstances. Thus the position of primacy among other patriarchates, not excluding the Roman bishop, was based on the theory of New Rome or "the scepter's transfer" but the privilege of his authority was extrapolated from a novel interpretation of Canons 9, 17 and 28 of Chalcedon. All this, when combined with the epanagoge, resulted in the creation of the theory of Eastern Papism. [Polemics aside, it seems to me that the modern notion of the papacy is an understandable development not unknown in the East, albeit applied not to Rome but Constantiople. If the Orthodox Church is to continue to reject the contemporary understanding of papal authority it seems to me we must make better sense of our historical practice that tends it a like direction. We are in as much need of resolving the question of the Universal Church as Rome is of resolving the question of the local Church. How doe these relate in a way that does not subsume the local into the Universal or marginalize the Universal in favor of the local?]

On the basis of canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council the Byzantine canonists created a precise theory of the transfer of all the highest rights from the Roman bishop to Constantinople and the preposition "after" (meta) in the canon was interpreted in the chronological sense, i.e. the Bishop of Constantinople doesn't occupy the second rank after Rome but the first rank, only that he received it later in time.

As a result, by combining the theory of "the scepter's transfer" and its primacy in the East, it appeared that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the legitimate and sole bearer of all the privileges and the primacy of the Roman pope and could thus receive appeals not only against the Eastern patriarchs but against the Roman pope himself. Thus, writes Ostroumov, thanks to the perverse interpretation of the canons of Chalcedon and the linkage with the theory of "the scepter's transfer" the idea of the "pope in the East" or "the theory of Eastern Papism" was born. [Wait for it...]

The theory of the "Byzantine pope" however, stood in opposition to the theory of the "five senses". According to this theory as proposed by Peter of Antioch, "There are five patriarchs established in the world by Divine grace: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Just as in the human body, governed by one head, five senses are active, so it is in the Church, the Body of Christ, governed by one Head, Christ Himself, five Patriarchs are established to govern various nations."

It is interesting to note that in this comparison of the patriarchs with human senses, there is already a concept that all patriarchs are equal in authority and are not subordinate one to another but together are subjected to the one Head of the Church - Christ, thus they are completely equal in authority among themselves. According to the canonist Balsamon, "...thus the first Patriarch is not above the second, nor the second over the third: but as five senses are part of the one head and are not divided, so are the heads of the Universal Church have equal honor in all cases".

However, with the falling away of Rome from the Universal Church, the primacy of honor went over to the Patriarch of Constantinople, thus the theory of the five senses, excluding the theory of Eastern Papism, does not exclude the fact that the primacy of honor belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople in relation to the other patriarchs and that he holds the authority of chairmanship but not in the sense of the Roman monarchical authority but simply in the sense of the Savior's Evangelical teaching: he who wishes to be first, will be the servant of all.

The Patriarch of Constantinople retained his high status as Bishop of the capital even after the fall of Byzantium and the occupation of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. Mehmet II, Byzantium's conqueror, recognized the then Patriarch Gennadios as head of all the Christian subjects in the Turkish Empire.

Later, the patriarchs, during the Turkish yoke, not only preserved their authority within the Church but in the Berat of the Turkish sultans, as ethnarchs received secular authority over all Orthodox including the other Eastern patriarchs. Inasmuch as the dividing lines between Church and secular competence were not firm in Byzantium and were nearly nonexistent in the Turkish monarchy, this expansion of the Patriarch of Constantinople' s authority was reflected in purely ecclesiastical mutual relationships in all of the Orthodox East.

Prof. Troitsky summarizes the historical reasons which served to elevate the Patriarch of Constantinople over the other Eastern patriarchs:

1. The elevation of Constantinople as the capital of the Byzantine Empire.
2. The action of the Byzantine emperors, granting the Patriarch of Constantinople administrative and judicial rights within the whole empire.
3. The presence of the "Household Synod" in Constantinople in which other patriarchs also participated and whose decisions were implemented by imperial authority.

The action of the Turkish sultan, making the Patriarch of Constantinople "millet-bashi" not only as the spiritual but the secular head of all the Orthodox subjects not excluding the other Eastern patriarchs as well.

The Patriarch of Constantinople' s title as "Ecumenical", which evolved by way of custom, but which of itself does not grant the Patriarch of Constantinople any kind of jurisdiction beyond the borders of his patriarchate, but merely a temporary expansion of that patriarchate in the epoch of the extension of the Byzantine Empire.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Church of Constantinople once again made an attempt to resurrect the idea of its authority over the whole Orthodox world, developing this trend on the basis of a newly conceived theory about the mandatory and exclusive subordination of the whole of Orthodox diaspora throughout the world to the Church of Constantinople.

In 1922 Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis of Constantinople (1871-1935) raised the question of the subordination of the whole of the diaspora in Europe and America to his authority. This included the subordination of the Russian Eparchy in America. He opened a new eparchy in Europe. There began an intrusion into the ecclesiastical matters of the Orthodox churches in Poland, Estonia, Finland and others.

Prof. Troitsky writes that according to this theory, the jurisdiction of all autocephalous churches ends at the borders of the States in which the given Church is located. Only the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the supposed basis of Canons 9, 17 and 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, can extend his jurisdiction over the whole diaspora, i.e. over the Orthodox eparchies and parishes scattered throughout the world but which are outside the State borders of autocephalous Churches. Thus this theory deprived the remaining Churches of the rights and responsibilities for missionary endeavors given to them by the Lord Himself.

The Russian canonist, S. Troitsky protested in print against these pretensions of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and in defense of freedom of the autocephalous Churches and the attempts to "interject a smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ".

However, the Orthodox Church in North America (now the Orthodox Church in America) in 7/22 May 1922, was the first of all the Churches to reject Patriarch Meletios' demands for submission.

The Council of Bishops, having heard the Order of the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios of 1 March 1922 about his jurisdiction over all the existing Orthodox Churches in Europe and America excluding the autocephalous ones, and that this Order extends to the Russian Eparchy in North America, RESOLVED:

Inasmuch as the Russian Eparchy in North America remains a part of her initiator, the Russian Orthodox Church, to affirm: "that the Russian Orthodox Eparchy in North America remains an organic part of the Autocephalous Church of Russia, and thus the Order of the Ecumenical Patriarch does not apply to our Eparchy".

Soon however, the Russian Orthodox Church itself almost became a victim of meddling by the Patriarchs of Constantinople in its internal life. At that time, i.e. in the twenties of our century, when the Russian Orthodox Church found itself subject to cruel persecution by atheistic State authorities, Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople, deviating from the majority of the world's Church leaders, did not support the imprisoned Patriarch Tikhon and expressed support for the bolshevik-inspired Renovationist schism.

His successor Patriarch Gregorios VII, through his Moscow representative Archimandrite Basil (Dimopoulo), expressed his desire that Patriarch Tikhon divest himself of the government of the Church and that the Patriarchate in the Russian Church be abolished.

In his response of 6 June 1924 Patriarch Tikhon wrote to Patriarch Gregorios of
Constantinople:

"In no small measure we were shocked and surprised that the Head of the Church of
Constantinople, without any prior consultation with us, the legitimate representative and Head of the Russian Orthodox Church, would interfere in the internal life and affairs of the Autocephalous Russian Church. The Holy Councils recognized the primacy of honor alone as the prerogative of the Patriarch of Constantinople and did not, nor do not recognize any primacy of authority."[So the problems in America are not the first instance of interference by the EP into the affairs of another local Church. I say interference because the EP was not invited in nor was there a clear canonical issue that would legimate his action.]

In connection with the novel theory of Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) about the subordination of the Orthodox diaspora, not only that of the Greeks but all the Orthodox wherever they may be, there is presently a question about the correct interpretation of Canons 9 and 28 of Chalcedon. This is not only of academic and scholarly interest but it has a practical significance "inasmuch as the erroneous interpretation of these canons leads to the erroneous understanding of the structure of the Orthodox Church and it can lead to a disruption of the canonical mutual relationships between the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches."

As proof that the Patriarch of Constantinople never had nor does have authority over the whole diaspora on the basis of Canons, Professor S. Troitsky brings out interpretations and commentaries on Canons 9 and 28 of Chalcedon as found in the Pedalion (the Greek Rudder), the official compilation of canons, and he arrives at the following conclusions:

1. The Patriarch of Constantinople does not have judicial authority outside the borders of his patriarchate in the territories of other Orthodox Churches. (Interpretation of Canon 9 of Chalcedon)
2. The administrative jurisdiction of that Patriarch never extended over the wholeOrthodox diaspora, but only on the diaspora of a few adjourning barbarianterritories. (Interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon)

Furthermore, Troitsky points out, not a single canon speaks about the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Such canons do not exist since the Bishop of Rome is considered to be the first. Furthermore "the foundation of the high rank of the Patriarch of Constantinople must be found in the concurrence of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches which are guided by the teaching of the primacy of the Church's Founder, Jesus Christ, and that the Churches see no need to change the old order until such time as it is demanded for the benefit of the whole Church."

Finally, according to Troitsky, the right of the Bishop of Constantinople to the title "Ecumenical" and "of Constantinople" rests upon the same general consent of the Autocephalous Churches since today no basis for such titles can be found in the Canons.

How new Churches were established in non-Christian or barbarian lands is explained by Bishop Ioan of Smolensk in his commentary on Canon Two of the Second Ecumenical Council: "Pastors of the ancient Churches were active in the establishment of Churches among pagan people, which sent them preachers, ordained presbyters and bishops for them and undertook the responsibility for their administration. In general, whichever Church baptized the indigent people, at first the hierarchy and the form of administration was received from that Church. The newly-established Churches could not all of a sudden receive the ability for self-administration . But with the passage of time, they became independent."

From this, Professor Troitsky concludes:

All the Orthodox Churches have the same right and responsibility to send their bishops and clergy for missionary work everywhere outside the boundaries of other Autocephalous Churches. It can be said that this is not only the responsibility of the Church but it is Divine law, since the source of this is the commandment of the Founder of the Universal Church, Christ given to the founders of local Churches, the Apostles: "Go teach all nations" (Mt 28:19), and to impede that right of whatever Church means to forbid the successors of the Apostles to continue their work "by the shielding of secular arrogance under the guise of Church activity."

In disputes arising from the jurisdiction of two or more Churches, existing on the same territory of the diaspora, the decisive principle must not be the significance or seniority of one or another Church in relation to others but simply the right of long-standing.

In 1996, in connection with the intrusion of the Patriarch of Constantinople upon the immemorial territory of the Moscow Patriarchate in Estonia, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church considered it their duty to remind Constantinople that "Each Local Orthodox Church is self-administering and does not depend upon the Patriarch of Constantinople in matters of jurisdiction", and that:

We would not have recalled all these sad events of the past and about the activities of the Patriarchate of Constantinople if similar acts had not been done at the present time. It is to our profound regret that the events taking place around the Orthodox Church in Estonia demonstrate that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has not learned the lessons of its tragic past and continues to exploit the opportunities for the expansion of its influence upon the canonical territories of other Churches, bringing about painful shocks to Church unity. (Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1 March 1996)

Today when throughout the world the separation of Church and State is a given fact, the only thing remaining for the Church are her Canons. Troitsky says:

In a normal situation of any Autocephalous Church, i.e. with the preservation of its Orthodox dogmatical teaching and canonical structure, the Canons do not allow interference on the part of any other Church in her administration, including the Church of Constantinople and specifically the Canons do not foresee any appeals in connection with administrative and judicial matters of its [the local Church's] supreme authorities.

The interference of one Church in the life of another can take place at the request of the supreme authority of the latter Autocephalous Church as well as in case of need when one of the Autocephalous Churches deviates from Orthodox dogmatical teaching, or it does not have a sufficient number of bishops for its canonical independence.

The late Professor Protopresbyter John Meyendorff makes the following suggestion on how to view the future canonical status of the Patriarch of Constantinople:

The Orthodox Church, without a doubt, is in need of a world center for unity but not for authority over Churches. We will hope that the coming Orthodox "Great Council" will find boldness and the ability - with the help of the Holy Spirit - to move away from the long-obsolete system which was worked out in the Byzantine Empire and which still nominally determines the organization of world Orthodoxy. It must move in the direction of a realistic and permanent path assuring that of which the Church is in need: freedom, oneness and love.

Archbishop Gregory Afonsky
(Translated by Alvian N. Smirensky)

METROPOLIS OF SAN FRANCISCO: Letter from Metropolitan Gerasimos

Christ is Risen!

Evidently Metropolitan JONAH's apology on Great and Holy Friday was insufficient for some in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory




April 22, 2009
+Bright Wednesday

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you,
and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for my sake.
Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward
in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
(Matthew 5:11-12)

Dearly Beloved in the Lord,

Christos Anesti!

The Church of Constantinople, tracing her apostolic roots back to St. Andrew the First Called of the Apostles, continues to preserve the integrity and sanctity of our Christian Orthodox Church. The apostolicity of the Throne of Constantinople is further acknowledged by the historical fact that the Apostle and Evangelist John preached in Asia Minor.

For over 2000 years, faithful Orthodox Christians have kept the Church in Constantinople alive. This is especially true of the last 556 years, since the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. Each day the faithful of the Ecumenical Throne, both clergy and laity, live their lives witnessing to our precious Faith in a Muslim world. Their world is one of sacrifice and persecution that comes from outside the Church.

Recently, we have been saddened by a homily given by Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America (formerly known as the Russian Metropolia). In his speech, Metropolitan Jonah attacks the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, in reality, all the ancient Patriarchates, calling them “Old World.” The Metropolitan ignores the canonical and ecclesiological understanding of that which is recognized in the diptychs of all canonical Orthodox Churches, namely, that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the first to be commemorated. Whether Metropolitan Jonah realized it or not, his words were an attack on the apostolic succession, which is derived through the ancient Patriarchates.

The 28^th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which convened in Chalcedon, not only affirmed, but completed that which had been understood by the Second Ecumenical Council, namely, that the Ecumenical Throne was granted “equal privileges as those of the Church of Rome.” To this day, for example, only the Ecumenical Patriarchate possesses the ecclesiastical authority to act judicially in the appeal process regarding clergy outside its jurisdiction (Canons 9 and 17).

Moreover, the spiritual authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch is not “papal” in its expression, spiritually or administratively. To say so is an argument without understanding of Christian Orthodox ecclesiology. One must remember that the Ecumenical Throne has jurisdiction over the Church in many countries throughout the world. Along with the land of modern-day Turkey, the Patriarch of Constantinople oversees the work of the Holy Gospel in Northern Greece, Mt. Athos, the Islands of the Dodecanese, Crete, Australia, Great Britain, Western Europe, Southeast Asia, Albania, Carpatho-Russia, and the Western Hemisphere (especially among the Greek Orthodox and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches). There may be contention from other jurisdictions challenging the responsibilities of the Ecumenical Throne—although these responsibilities are supported in Canon Law—but it supports the same pretext of the Turkish government.

Metropolitan Jonah, despite a weak attempt to reinterpret his statements, has shown us that the Ecumenical Patriarchate must now concern itself not only with attacks by those outside the Church, but also from within the Church, as well. It seems that the Metropolitan has ignored the fact that today’s world is moving towards globalization in every aspect of life, as evident in our ability to communicate with one another instantly.

I appeal to Metropolitan Jonah to reconsider his position, especially during this holy season, as we celebrate the Lord’s Resurrection, and come forth with a sincere apology to our Mother Church of Constantinople.

I beseech all God-loving Orthodox Christians to realize that we are all the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This unity is expressed by the truth that we all partake of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. As a Eucharistic community, we offer the prayer of the Holy Anaphora during the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, “…unite us all to one another who become partakers of the one Bread and the Cup in the communion of the one Holy Spirit. Grant that none of us may partake of the holy Body and Blood of your Christ to judgment or condemnation, but that we may find mercy and grace with all the saints, who through the ages have pleased You: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, teachers, and every righteous spirit made perfect in faith.”

With Love in the Risen Lord,

+Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco

Christ is Risen! Let Your Joy Be Contagious!

Christ is Risen!

A musical surprise in the central station in Antwerp reminds me that joy is contagious. May the joy of the Resurrection be with you.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory




h/t: Brian Hollar of Thinking on the Margin.

Metropolitan Jonah issues statement on recent sermon

SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] -- On Great, Holy and Good Friday, April 17, 2009, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, issued the following statement in response to recent commentary on his April 5, 2009 sermon, delivered at Saint Seraphim Cathedral, Dallas, TX.

“I greet you in a spirit of repentance and forgiveness as we celebrate the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Certain comments that were made in the course of my sermon have provoked a reaction from my Orthodox brothers that I did not intend or foresee.  I regret making those comments.  In particular, I realize that some characterizations regarding the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarchate of Constantinople were insensitive. As the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, I am motivated only by the desire to underscore our fervent hope that future discussion about the so-called Orthodox Diaspora will include the Orthodox Church in America and other Orthodox jurisdictions in North America.  It is also my purpose to affirm our Church in the face of those who would question our presence as a local Orthodox Church in North America.

“It is now clear that I made statements that were uncharitable.   I do apologize to His All-Holiness as well as to others who were offended.  I also hope that through personal contact and acquaintance we might be able to overcome any misunderstandings that might arise or have clouded the relationship between our Churches in the past. My hope is that we might cooperate in an attitude of mutual support in our common mission, to spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.  In the spirit of this Great and Holy Friday, I sincerely pray that as we contemplate Our Lord, Who ascended the Cross to “bring all men to Himself,” we will see in His patience and long-suffering the way to continue our work together for the witness and mission of Orthodoxy in the world and for Orthodox unity in North America.”

The Hinge Question

When the glorious disciples were enlightened at the washing of the feet, then Judas the ungodly was stricken and darkened with the love of money; and to lawless judges he delivered you, the just judge. O lover of money, look upon him who for its sake hanged himself; flee from the insatiable soul, which dared such things against the Teacher. O you who are good to all, Lord, glory to you.

(Troparion for Great & Holy Thursday)

As I was listening to the hymns at matins for Great & Holy Thursday, I began to realize that I had my life exactly backwards. I do not serve others because I love them, I love them because I serve them It is service that leads to love, and for that matter to all manner of good and virutous things in my life. Our service is what make us holy and the less we serve, the more narrow our circle of those who we actively care for, the more constricted our hearts will be.

This was all made more concrete for me when I read Gary A. Anderson's article “Faith and Finance” in the current (May 2009) issue of First Things (which is not yet online for those who subscribe). Anderson, a professor of Old Testament at the University of Notre Dame, draws a linguistic parallel between “ faith and finance.” “It is,” he argues, “no accident that the word creditor in English comes from the Latin credere , 'to believe.' . . . A set of deep theological ideas lies behind this tight semantic joining of the disposition of trust and the act of issuing loans.” (p. 29) Indeed, as he fleshes out in the rest of his article, the disposition of trust—faith—is at the heart of the financial system and it is because of the absence of trust—faith—that in the system (and I think more pointedly, those who manage the system in our name as stewards of our shared wealth).

Where his article takes an interesting turrn, and this brings us back to Matins of Great & Holy Thursday, is the translation of “righteousness” ( tsedaqah ) in the Septuagint as almsgiving . “If the Greek translation is correct, it would appear that forgiveness is not completely an action of done by God alone but requires some sort of human participation.” For this reason, he concludes, to “be redeemed form one's sins requires the good work of showing mercy to the poor.” (p. 29)

Please, if you can, do read the whole of Anderson's argument. But for now, it seems to me that the services for Holy Thursday represents something of a crescendo in the service of this week. Or maybe it might be more accurate to refer to Holy Thursday as the liturgical “ hinge” of Holy Week. Having first been challenged to lay aside my own ego (Holy Monday) and remain open to the human face of divine love (Holy Tuesday), I then am shown, in graphic terms, between the life I am called to live and the life I actually live (Holy Wednesday).

And the life that has been described for me liturgically on Holy Thursday at Matins I discover, at the Vesperal Liturgy of St Basil on Thursday morning, is nothing more or less than the life of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Somewhere along the line, if I am to grow in Christ (to say nothing of inherit the Kingdom of Heaven), I need not simply to repent or not simply commit myself to struggle against my sin. I must also cultivate the life of virtue at the center of which is both a life of prayer (both personal and liturgical) and service of my neighbor in his or her poverty.

The form that service takes is as broad and diverse as human neediness itself. What matters is not the form of my service relative to yours (and vice versa), but the fact of service. It is also important that my service is merely some form of “do goodism” to satisfy my own ego and win the praise of others. My service must embody (and bring about) a real purification of my egoism and entrenched self-centeredness. Service in the sense I'm using it here is not social work (though social work can, and for many is, certainly a form of true Christian service), but the ascetical reformation and graced transformation of my life.

And again, all of this is rooted in Christ and my willingness to conform my life to His. While in the early stages of my spiritual life my imitation of Christ might be somewhat forced, or even unintentional, I must grow to more and more pattern my life on Christ's. This will necessarily require that, as with Christ, I suffer for the sins of the world; suffering in my life reflects both my own sin and the sin of my neighbor. This suffering can, however, be purifying and life-giving if I allow it to be so.

I thought about this during the Reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels at Matins Thursday evening. The service itself is long (over 2 ½ hours in my parish and this after an early morning Liturgy, a full work day for my parishioners and several hours of hearing confession for me) as we hear every word from the Gospel about the death of Jesus on the Cross. (For those interested, here are the readings in order: John
 13:31-18:1
;
 John
 18:1-29
;
 Matthew
 26:57-75
;
 John 
18:28–19:16
;
 Matthew
 27:3-32
;
 Mark
15:16-32
;
 Matthew
 27:33-54
;
 Luke
 23:32-49
;
 John
19:19-37
;
 Mark
15:43-47
;
 John
 19:38-42
;
 Matthew
 27: 62-66
.)

Of all the readings, it is the last one from St Matthew that stands out for me every year:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise.' Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead.' So the last deception will be worse than the first." Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how." So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard. ( Mt 27: 62-66
)

I can refuse purification, I can refuse to serve. Why do I do this? Because I do not want my plans and projects undone by God.

In my desire to retain control of my own life I can find no end of collaborators both “in the world” and even, I am sad to say, “in the Church.” But as the events of the next few days will make clear, and as Pilate himself even alludes to, no matter how much help I get, I simply cannot secure my life against the grace of God. God's love will come to me. I may refuse that love certainly, but I cannot prevent God from loving me, from working to save me.

And so Holy Thursday comes to the stark ending of the Gospel passage above. Do I wish to secure my life against divine grace or will I move forward to the Resurrection? On this question, I think, hinges not only the services of Great and Holy Thursday but each human life.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Response of the Archons of the Ecumenical Patiarchate in American to Metropolitan JONAH

Archon News

Statement of the Order of Saint Andrew, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in America

New York, NY
4/15/2009

The Order of Saint Andrew, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, laymen who are deeply devoted to the Great Church of Christ and dedicated to the protection, defense and the mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, take this occasion to raise serious concerns and questions over the recent public remarks made by the Primate of the OCA during a Pan-Orthodox Vespers (April 5th) in Dallas, Texas. We do so sorrowfully, not only because the Church is now in the midst of Holy Week, but because the reason for our doing results from language that is unworthy of any ecclesiastical setting. Nevertheless, to be an Archon is to have a special concern and interest to protect and promote the Ecumenical Patriarchate, its mission, and the person of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Therefore, we can not and must not refrain from speaking the truth in love, even though the moment is not the best.

For those who have seen the video that has been widely circulated on the Internet, or have read the transcript that is still on an OCA website, it is immediately apparent that inappropriate language, to say the least, is used against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Consider this phrase:

There's one solution that's being proposed in which we all submit to Constantinople. We all submit to a foreign patriarchate where all decisions will be made there. Where we will have no say in the decisions that are made, we will have no say in our own destiny and we surrender the freedom that we have embraced as American Orthodox Christians to a patriarch that is still under Islamic domination.

Who has proposed any kind of subjugation to Constantinople? No one! The fact is that all of the Autocephalous Primates agreed in Constantinople on October 12, 2008 that there should be a swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements, such as in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, with a view to overcoming every possible influence that is foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology (Article 13, ii). This statement was signed by all the recognized Autocephalous Primates or their Official Representatives. Metropolitan Jonah's statements demonstrate not only a lack of knowledge and of discretion; they demonstrate something which is plainly foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.

To maintain that we, Americans, cannot ... be controlled by people who have never heard a word of English much less would allow a word of English to be spoken in the liturgy. We can't allow our church to be controlled by people who have no appreciation of our culture and have to bow to the Turkish Islamic authorities, is an erroneous, irresponsible statement in any public setting, much less a liturgical service. The fact is that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew speaks six languages, and had a wonderful conversation with the President of the United States in English two days after this inflammatory remark! Furthermore, when the Heads of the Autocephalous Churches celebrated the Holy Liturgy together last October 12th in the Patriarchal Cathedral of St. George, there was an abundance of tongues used, recalling the Day of Pentecost.

Finally, we, Archons of the Great Church of Christ, must register our concern and pain over the general tone of the Metropolitan's remarks as insulting. When a statement is made, speaking personally about the Ecumenical Patriarch: if we wanted the Pope we'd be under the real one, it is not possible for the Order of Archons to be silent. This kind of disrespect is beneath any Christian. And we must also ask how a phrase like, Communists who now call themselves Democrats, does not cast aspersions on the very Nation whose martyred Church, the Patriarchate of Moscow, created the OCA in the first place?

As we are in the midst of Holy Days, when we all apply ourselves more vigorously to prayer and fasting, as we strive to follow Christ on His Way to the Cross and His Glorious Resurrection, we hope that Metropolitan Jonah will publicly retract his ill-considered remarks. While we rejoice that all things are forgiven in the Resurrection, as Orthodox Christians and as Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, we will continue to be vigilant and express our grave concerns whenever such injustices as these are committed. May God grant to us all the strength and will to work for peaceable, reasonable relationships within His Holy Church, so that the Message of the Holy Gospel may shine forth.

Archons Website

The Harlot and the Disciple

When the sinful woman offered myrrh, then the disciple made an agreement with the lawless. The one rejoiced as she emptied out something of great price, while the other hurried to sell the One beyond price. She acknowledged the Master; he was parted from the Master. She was set free while Judas became the slave of the foe. Dreadful is sloth! Great is repentance! Grant it to me, Saviour, who suffered for us, and save us.

(Hymn at Lauds for Holy Wednesday)

At Bridegroom Matins for Great and Holy Wednesday we read from the Gospel of St John ( 12:17-50 ) while the hymnography for the service is drawn from the Gospel according to St Matthew ( 26). Far from being opposed to each other these two passages compliment each other with the hymnography for the canon serving as an illustration of the general theme of the Gospel reading: that in imitation of Christ, I must loose my life in order to save it. Or, as we read in John:

He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor. (12.25-26)

For its part, the hymnography contrasts the actions of the unnamed harlot who anoints Jesus' feet with myrrh with the disciple Judas who will soon betray Him. While the content of the hymns is of the utmost seriousness, there is nevertheless a certain playfulness in them as they compare and contrast the two disciples of Christ.

The theme we have been following through the Matins services is also one that compares and contrasts two different ways of relating to Christ: planning or openness. While planning cannot be dismissed outright or minimized, it is after all an important part of our stewardship of the gifts God has given us, there is always a temptation to plan in a manner that makes our planning, and their successful accomplishment, the goal of not only our material and professional lives, but also of our spiritual life.

My planning, therefore, needs to be balanced (and often restrained) by an eager openness on my part to the will of God for my life. As we saw on Great and Holy Tuesday, to be human is to be open to love.

This openness, as the contrast between the harlot and Judas illustrates, is often hidden from not only outside observers but also even from me. Imagining myself in the position of the harlot, I can't help but think that she was as surprised by her behavior toward Jesus as anyone else. How often had she in the past anointed and cared for men with immoral intent? Now, however, there is nothing unchaste in her actions. I would even go so far as to suggest that even given her wrong intention, her past life as a prostitute was something of a preparation for the Gospel. Granted it was in many ways a perverted preparation, but however skewed her intent, no matter how false her actions, how often she was coerced by circumstances or the lust of men to attentive to the desires of others, in Christ this past is transformed into the gentle attentiveness that we see in her relationship with Christ.

None of this is to suggest prostitution as a way of life. It is rather only to illustrate that in Christ even the harshest of our experience can be transformed and transfigured and become by God's grace life giving for us and for the world.

Compare the transfigured harlot to the fallen Judas.

If her life embodies the eager, if often hidden, openness to love that we should all cultivate, Judas embodies a life that reduces human life, and especially the spiritual life, to a matter of planning and its attendant calculations. Until the moment of the harlot's encounter with Jesus, Judas was simply a disciple. As with the other disciples, he no doubt struggled with His Master's teachings and actions. If Philip and Andrew are any indication, even at the end of His ministry, the disciples didn't seem to understand that discipleship, following Jesus, requires a life of real sacrifice.

No, up until Jesus' encounter with the harlot, Judas seems to worse than any of the disciples. Like the others, Judas simply doesn't understand what it means to follow Jesus.

And then there is the whore.

Trying to place myself in his position, I think it was at this moment that Judas parts “from the Master” and becomes “ the slave of the foe,” as we sing in one of the hymns of the day. When love is made manifest, not only the human face of God's love for us, but also our love for God, Judas the disciple becomes Judas the betrayer. Why? What is it in this encounter that is so unbearable for Judas that he rushes out to betray his friend?

When I reduce my own life to a plan and my encounters with God and neighbor to a series of calculations (even if my calculations are “Christian”), I do so because I have closed my heart to divine grace. Instead of an openness to God and His love for my neighbor, for me and for all creation, my life comes to orbit around my own ego and the ever shifting pattern of my own desires. When this happens anything that does not ratify my ego, does not satisfy my desires at that moment, becomes necessarily a foe to be defeated.

As with Judas, we come to this moment slowly; incrementally my heart becomes evermore closed to grace until finally I turn from God in one finally act of rebellion.

But this is not the whole story. As with the harlot, we also come slowly to the moment of our definitive encounter with Jesus. Again, incrementally, the human heart can become evermore open to grace until finally the person turns definitively to God in an act of abandonment.

My preparation for these two acts is simultaneous. Day by day, moment by moment, my heart is both closing and opening to love. The difference between a heart which is open and one which is closed is not so much in the preparation but in the consequences. The closed heart is static, stagnant, like death and Hell themselves; the open heart is a dynamic, beating heart that grows and expands like life and Heaven themselves.

Given the strongly monastic character of all of the Orthodox liturgical tradition, and especially the services of Great and Holy Week, it is noteworthy that the worship of the Church place before us as an exemplars of the decisions we each face a harlot and a disciple. It is the harlot whose heart is pure and who embodies best what we all hope for our own life in Christ; it is Judas, the apostle and disciple, the intimate friend of Jesus, whose heart is unchaste and who illustrates the consequences of rejecting Christ. There is more than a little irony that it she who I imagine myself to be least like is closest to Christ, while he who seemed to have for three years the relationship with Christ I want is the one who will betray him.

Kalo Pascha.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The Woe of the Scribes and the Pharisees

This should have gone out last night, but I was too tired to finish it up before services. My apologizes.

Behold, the Bridegroom comes in the middle of the night, and blessed is that servant whom he finds watching; but unworthy is the one whom he finds slothful. Take care then, my soul, not to be overcome with sleep, lest you be given up to death, and be shut out of the kingdom; but rouse yourself and cry: Holy, holy, holy are you, O God; through the prayers of the Foreunner, have mercy on us.

(Troparion, Bridegroom Matins For Great & Holy Tuesday)

The Gospel ( Mt 22:15-23:39) assigned for Matins records some very harsh language and sharp comments from Jesus. Seven times our Lord says to the Jewish authorities: “W oe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” And after each utterance, our Lord summarizes their hypocrisy:

• You shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (v. 13)
• You devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. (v. 14)
• You travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as as much a son of hell as yourselves.
• You pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. (v. 23)
• You cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. (v. 25)
• You are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. (v. 27)2

And finally, in His last call to repentance Christ summarizes their offense:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (vv. 29-36)

I said last night that these first service of Great and Holy Week radically relativize my own propensity to plan, to imagine that my life is subject in an absolute sense to my own will and desires.

Instead of planning, the service of these first few days call me to be vigilant. A central theme of Bridegrooms Maitns is watchful preparedness.

But are preparations are not like that of an adolescent who decides never to decide. Yes, we are to remain open and expectant, but our ready is like of a soldier who, having prepared for war, find himself waiting out the last moments before the battle begins.

And what is it that we wait for? We wait for the revelation of Divine Love.

It is here that the scribes and Pharisees have failed. Though they scrupulously kept the Law, their very fidelity blinded them to the revelation of God's love. What they did not see, maybe even what they could not see, is that when God's love comes to us it comes with a human face. This is why when Jesus is challenged by the lawyer to name to greatest commandment of the Law He offers a two-fold answer:

But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (vv. 34-40)

Looking back at the woe of the scribes and the Pharisees, their sorrow is that their love of God made them indifferent to the love of neighbor and insensitive to their neighbor's poverty and need. The woe of the scribes and the Phraisees is this: The love of God killed in them compassion for their neighbor!

In this the scribes and the Phraisees are mirror image of many of us today. If once the love of God obscured the love of neighbor, today it is rather the other way around. Compassion for my neighbor in his or her weakness has now come to trump our love and fidelity to God. For the scribes and the Phraisees their love of what was greatest became to excuse to disregard what was smaller, but closer; for us today, we love what is small and close but we often neglect what is greatest.

In either case though, our severing of the “two commandments” on which “hang all the Law and the Prophets,” inevitably leads to violence and even bloodshed. Again, why? Because love comes to us with a human face.

The human face of love is, I think, one of the most extraordinary elements of the Gospel. It is not simply that God loves me, it is not simply that God comes to me as a human being, it is also that He comes to me in you. Love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion for my neighbor in his weakness and need, all of these are essential to the Gospel.

And it is because of these, that I will at times find myself having to be—like Jesus—harsh. But my harsh words or actions are not, or at least should not, born from a desire for power and control. Rather, and again mindful that the model here is Christ, my harsh words reflect my willingness (and again, like the soldier) to place myself between the innocent and those who would victimize or exploit them.

Much is sometime made of the fact that God offers us mercy and not justice. This is true as far as it goes, but only if we understand carefully what we mean by “justice.” It is certainly true that I often appeal to justice to hid my desire for revenge or to rationalize my hatred or desire for power and control. Justice in this sense has nothing to do with the Gospel much less with God.

But there is another understanding of justice. We can think of justice in this second, more radically sense, as consonance, harmony or (if you prefer) synergy , that profound working together of the Divine and human wills that the Apostle Paul alludes to when he calls us “co-workers” with Christ (see, Phil 2.25). The woe of the scribes and the Pharisees is the fruit of a lack of justice in this second sense.

And so, to yesterday's counsel to eschatological preparedness, we should add I think this: A willingness to work for justice in human affairs. Not justice as vengeance or control, but of synergy , of a cooperative working together of the whole Church not only with Her Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, but all the members with Him and each other and indeed all people of good will.

Kalo Pascha!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Behold the Bridegroom

Behold, the Bridegroom comes in the middle of the night, and blessed is that servant whom he finds watching; but unworthy is the one whom he finds slothful. Take care then, my soul, not to be overcome with sleep, lest you be given up to death, and be shut out of the kingdom; but rouse yourself and cry: Holy, holy, holy are you, O God; through the protection of Bodiless Powers, have mercy on us.

( Troparion for Bridegroom Matins)

This evening in many Orthodox parishes, we will gather to begin our liturgical celebration of Great and Holy Week. Having left Great and Holy Lent behind with our celebration of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, we now fix our gaze more intensely on the Resurrection of Christ (Pascha or Easter).

We begin our journey—o f if you prefer, continue our journey—to Pascha by recalling not historical events (though we do that aplenty this week) but rather giving voice to our hope for the future. For all that we refer this week to the events in the last week of Christ's life before His crucifixion, our point of reference is eschatological and not strictly speaking historical. Or to put it another way, the Church only looks back to the past in order to look look forward to a future that is wholly outside of our own control.

My daily life, my everyday attitude, is often filled plans. Just this morning after Liturgy, for example, I sat with the parish council and made plans for the near future. Planning is certainly not wrong—and more often than not it is essential.\

But there is something undeniably seductive about planning. You see my plans our mine. Whether I am planning a desirable future toward which I race or a future I dread and would flee from if I could, in both cases my plans can become for me an idol of my own making. G. K. Chesterton's observation about the relationship of truth and fiction are applicable to the relationship between the future and my plans for the future. “Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction,” Chesterton writes in his work Heretics , “for we have made fiction to suit ourselves.”

Likewise my plans. Whether comforting of frightening, my plans for the future always seem somehow my attractive, more reasonable, and much less frightening than the future since—unlike the future—my plans are made to suit my own views of how the future ought to be. There is something inescapably narcissistic about planning.

Not, I want to emphasize, that we shouldn't plan. We should plan; planning is an essential part of our stewardship of God's many blessings to us. But it is easy to confuse my plans for the future with the gift of the future itself. It is easy to confuse my desire for the coming years, next week or tomorrow, with the future itself as it comes to me from the hand of an All-Loving God.

And so for sound theological and anthropological reasons, we begin Holy Week by recalling that we do not such much move toward the future as it is that the future comes to us, to me. And when the future comes, it comes as a judgment.

The judgment of the future is not a narrowing of human life as if somehow God were some kind of Victorian moralist. No the future that comes toward me is God Himself, His Glory revealed; the judgment which is to come is His love for me, for my neighbor and the whole creation made manifest. I am judged by love revealed in all its fullness and it is in this Divine Light the narrowness, the self-satisfaction of my own heart, will be revealed.

Every year during Holy Week and Pascha I am challenged less by fasting and the many (and longer!) services and more by the smallness of my love when compared to not only to Christ's infinite love but also the finite, but still overwhelming, love for Christ in the hearts of those whose confessions I will hear.

Is it any wonder, as the troparion for the day suggest, that when faced with this challenge I am tempted simply to sleep? To lay down the burden of joy and instead allow myself the illusory luxury that the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas calls the “natural atheism” of the soul that seeks to consume creation rather than be responsible for neighbor in his poverty and need?

And so, this year again like last year, I being Holy Week by being reminded that the future belongs to God. My plans and projects have their place—they are even after a fashion necessary—but they are not ultimate. As necessary as my plans might be, what is more necessary is that I remain ready and open to the grace that rushes toward me through the Cross and the Tomb from the Kingdom of God.

Kalo Pascha.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory