Learning Our Faith From the Greek Fathers of the Church — 20170212

Posted on by

Athanasius the Great

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, says much the same thing as Tertullian about heresy in his critique of his Arian adversaries. “How,” Athanasius asks, “can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that ’in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils’?” It seems that whenever we fail to turn to the fathers for guidance, we fall into error.

This is why, I believe, that the Eastern Church was spared the fractionalization that has transpired in the West. The Eastern Church has tenaciously adhered to the teachings of the fathers and the teachings of the first seven councils.

Heresy, then, is the willful propagation of a position or perspective that runs against the grain of apostolic teaching and tradition. It is typically linked to specific personalities, precisely because at the core of heresy is often an individual’s intention choice to advocate and promote a teaching that the church has not communally received and cannot discover in or reconcile with the teaching of the apostles. Athanasius himself comments that heresy is often marked by the name of its teacher, specifically because it is that teacher’s unique doctrine that sets a group apart from the church at large. Eastern Christians, in particular, on the other hand, are marked by their refusal to link themselves with any other name than that of Christ.

If we look at all the various Christian sects in the West, we see that they all have been linked to particular persons who either rightly or wrongly decided to separate themselves from the Western Church. (One has to truly admit that frequently these separations were due to accesses that were present in the Western Church at the time).

Hopefully I have shown over the weeks that the Eastern Church has worked, throughout her history, to come to the truth through strenuous debate and argument. The end truth has always been achieved by accepting a consensus opinion.

PRE-GREAT FAST — 20170212

Posted on by

I am sure that, on this weekend of the Prodigal Son, many might think that the focus might be on forgiveness. This, however is not the case. These weeks before the Great Fast are meant to remind us of the various dimensions of Metanoia (change of heart and mind). In order to truly embrace Metanoia, we must desire to “return from exile” or, even, “alienation from God.” We must desire to be more closely and intimately joined with God, feeling that this world does not offer us a sufficient understanding of the meaning and purpose of life. Only deeper union with God can truly give us an understanding of the meaning of this earthly existence. This earthly existence must cause within us a deep desire to truly live in God’s Kingdom – a place where love of neighbor abounds. It also reminds us that we must be the ones who desire to live in His Kingdom.

CALLED TO HOLINESS — 20170212

Posted on by

I am sure that my readers, if they have followed this particular article, have come to realize that the “call to holiness” is, in fact, a call for us to realize the potential for which God created us, that is for union with Him and for allowing His Spirit, planted within us, to be the guide of our lives. It is a call to Theosis. This is a very simple concept. The core of the Good News of the Gospel is that we are called to share in the very life of God. Salvation is much more positive than it is negative. It means “actualizing” God’s image in us – helping us to truly become more like Jesus Christ, the human likeness of God. Christ helps us to fulfill our potential, which is to become like God in Christ and to share in His life.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus defines the human being as “an animal in the process of being deified – in Green zoon theoumenon. This is what sets us apart from the rest of creation, that is, our calling to become “partakers of divine nature”, gods by grace, partakers of God’s glory. This is what defines an authentically human life. Created in the image of the Triune God, we find our true selves in the image of the Triune God. Some have rejected this ancient Christian doctrine of theosis as unscriptural and a product of pagan Hellenic influence. Modern research has shown, however, that despite a Hellenic precursor, theosis in the thought and teaching of the Greek Fathers is thoroughly Christian and scripturally highly defensible and sound Christian thought.

Several scholars have written that it is easy to confuse Christian theosis with some of the very pagan notions that preceded it, such as apotheosis, and to therefore dismiss the former because of the undesirable nature of the latter. But the Fathers of the early Church were not so easily confused, probably because they were close to the sources of confusion and were therefore forced to clearly enunciate the differences.

 

 

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of Our Faith — 20170212

Posted on by

The attribution of the title of Theotokos was the only doctrinal decision taken by the church concerning Mary. However, the New Testament (NT), particularly Luke, had already proclaimed her eminent position in the economy of salvation (“henceforth all generation will call me blessed “ Luke 1:48), and, since Irenaeus and Justin, the theologians had discerned her role as the New Eve. Indeed, as Eve in paradise had, together with Adam, freely accepted the offer of the serpent, so Mary freely accepted the archangel’s announcement, making possible a new “recapitulation” of humanity in the New Adam, Christ.

Preachers, poets, artists and hymnographers, using not only direct theological language but also biblical symbols and analogies, glorified her as “the earth unsown,” the “burning bush”, a “bridge leading to heaven, “the ladder which Jacob saw” and many other words and phrases. Innumerable churches were dedicated to her and icons of her became the most prominent part of popular piety, especially in the East.

The very emotionalism and exuberance of Marian piety were undoubtedly expressing a spiritual discovery of the human side of the incarnation mystery. The role of that simple woman, who conceived in her womb the new life (her virginity was a sign of this “newness”), was a reminder of the humanity of Jesus himself, and it gave in a new form the message that free fellowship and communion with God were the true expressions of authentic human nature. One of the biblical analogies of this fellowship – that of the family – was fulfilled in the particular role of Mary, as the mother not only of Christ but of all the members of his Body, the Church.

It is important to note, however, that the piety and theology of the early church never tended to separate the veneration of Mary from its Christological context. There was no doctrinal definition of her position except that of her divine motherhood. Her exaltation, after Ephesus, did not mean that he belonging to spiritually undeveloped humanity was forgotten. Well known passages by John Chrysostom, by far the most popular and authoritative father of the Greek Church, continued to be read and copied. Chrysostom frankly recognized Mary’s human failing and imperfections. She was seen, within the mystery of salvation, as the representative of humanity’s need of salvation.

Understanding Our Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church — 20170212

Posted on by

I have been considering the history of the major feasts of our Church and the factors that have caused them to be established. In more recent weeks I have been sharing information about the Marian feasts of our Church.

The Feast of the Annunciation. Which celebrates the announcement that Mary was to become the Mother of Christ, is the next to be considered. Unfortunately the feast’s origin is completely obscure, but we do know that it had become widespread by the seventh century. As this was only a short time after Emperor Maurice’s decree concerning the Dormition, the rationale for adopting the Annunciation was very much the same. In 612 the Nestorian Church of Persia formally rejected the term Theotokos. The military situation had intensified by this time as well. The schism between Monophysitism and the True Faith, weakened the Empire in its struggle with Persia and therefore prompted a concerted government attempt to reconcile the Monophysites. The time was ripe for the institution of this feast, which, according to John of Damascus in his work The Orthodox Faith, marks the reception of the Divine Word. As an Orthodox feast, then, the Annunciation celebrates the actual moment of Mary’s becoming the Theotokos.

And yet Dix, one of the prominent authors who has written about the establishment of our feasts, would have us believe that the Annunciation is really a feast of Christ. While this may be the case in purely theological terms, history suggests that the feast had a different meaning for the people of the time. Among its oldest names are sanctae Virginis festum and festivitas gloriosae Matris. These would suggest that the contemporary mind focused on the Virgin’s role in this feast, rather than on Christ’s. Indeed, since the fifth century the Virgin loomed ever larger in popular Monophysite devotion, to the point of almost rivaling Christ Himself.

There seems to have been a calculated escalation from the ambiguous Presentation to the theologically less important but wholly Marian Dormition to the Annunciation which glorifies Mary’s all important role in the history of mankind’s salvation. To what extend these feasts also dealt with secondary theological issues is not important here. What is important is that the Marian Feasts, like those dealing directly with the nature of Christ, did not arise from popular devotion but were devised in opposition to heterodox doctrine which threatened to divide the Empire. They are the logical successors to the earlier feasts.

Acquiring the Mind of Christ — 20170212

Posted on by

While the Eastern Church sees Christ as the One Who gave His life as a ransom for many, it sees it in a different way that the Western Church. St. Athanasius the Great states that Christ is the ransom that was paid to death. Taking Hosea 13:14 into consideration, Athanasius states that “the ransom was offered to death on behalf of all so that by it He once more opened the way to the heavens.” In stark contrast, the Anselmian doctrine asserts that the debt was paid to God the Father to satisfy His infinite wrath, a byproduct of offense to His justice and honor. This doctrine of Atonement also states that sin is an affront to the Divinity, for which mere man cannot make reparation; it regards sin as a transgression in the legal sense rather than the Eastern perspective of an illness of the heart and will. In this light, Anselm’s assumption is that a “divine honor” has been wounded and is in need of “satisfaction.” This necessitates a legal transaction by which Christ pays the Father with His own blood the debt incurred by man’s sin. The Resurrection of Christ does not occupy a central place in man’s redemption.

If God then is infinitely offended by our sin and is therefore in need of some infinite “satisfaction,” many can rightly (unfortunately) begin to equate this God with a sadistic image of a father compelled by honor to inflict punishment. Thus God is made subject to justice. By subjecting God to this law of necessity and ascribing to Him human characteristics such as vengeance and anger, we make it appear that it is God who is in need of healing, and not man. [Is man so powerful that he can, in any way, so grievously offend an infinite God that that God demands some sort of satisfaction? This approach seems to have been heavily influenced by the kings of the Western world in olden days.

However, God never changes, for it is not God that is at enmity with man; but man who is at enmity with God. The foundation of a proper understanding of salvation is that God does not change: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Thus the Eastern approach seeks to heal man, and not God, recognizing sin as a refusal of the Love of God, the entrance of death, and, of course, the deconstruction of the soul.

It is important that we reflect upon how we truly understand the actions of Jesus, our Savior.

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the New Testament — 20170212

Posted on by

In the last issue of this article I began sharing thoughts about the Gospel of Mark. I shared that it was written in Greek and raised the question why it was written in that language.

The most probably reason is that from the time that Alexander of Greece conquered the Mesopotamian world, three centuries before the time of Jesus, Greek was the language of educated people. In fact, in the time of Alexander, the Jews translated their Bible into Greek. They called it the Septuagint (meaning seventy) because they developed a legend that seventy scribes had been asked to do the translation in isolated cells and all came up with identical words, thus proving the inspiration of God. Educated Jews knew the Bible in Greek as well as in Hebrew and Aramaic. There is good evidence that when the evangelists quote or refer to the Jewish bible, they are following the Septuagint.

Mark’s Gospel is not written in fluent Greek, however. Indeed, it contains numerous “Semitisms,” that is, phrases that are awkward in Greek but would read well if translated into Hebrew or Aramaic. The overall impression it leaves, therefore, is that of an author who thought in one language and was trying to write in another. In addition, Mark’s Gospel is the only one that uses Aramaic phrases at key moments of the narrative: Talitha koum, meaning “Little girl, rise up!” (Mark 5:41); Ephphatha, meaning “Be released” or “be opened (Mark 7:34) ; Abba, meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36); and Eloi, Eloi, meaning “My God, my God” (Mark 15:34)

The date of Mark’s Gospel is also a matter of speculation. Most, although not all, scholars believe that Mark’s was the earliest of the Gospels, written around 70 CE and followed in the eighties by Matthew and Luke, and in the nineties by John.

The year 70 was very significant for all Jews, including the Jewish followers of Jesus, because it was the year that the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. The destruction was the traumatic end to the four-year revolt of the Jews against Rome. The Temple had been destroyed once before by Babylon, six centuries earlier, and the effect had been devastating. The Roman destruction was also a watershed in Jewish history.

After that destruction the Temple was never rebuilt. The leaders of the revolt (Zealots), along with the temple leaders (priests and Sadducees), disappeared or scattered.

Reflections on the Scripture Readings for this Weekend — 20170205

Posted on by

On this second weekend of the five weekends of preparation for the Great Fast, our readings are taken from the second letter of Paul to Timothy and Luke’s Gospel. In Paul’s second letter he urges Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus, to protect the community from the inevitable impact of false teaching, without fear of the personal attacks which may result. He recommends that Timothy rely on the power of the Scriptures and on the positive proposal of doctrine without being trouble by those who do not accept him. It must be remembered that the Scriptures that Paul refers to are those which are now a part of the Old Testament, the stories and teachings of Jesus that oral tradition maintained, and the things that Paul taught him.

In this letter Paul exhorts Timothy to adhere to what he has been taught from his infancy. His teachers have been principally his mother, grandmother and Paul. Jewish parents were obliged to see that their children were instructed in the Law as soon as they reached the age of five. It is a moot point question to what extent this statement can be applied to any writings of the New Testament as it is not certain if any were written at the time Paul wrote this letter. There were many oral stories, however, that the Christian communities held as sacred.

The parable of the Publican and Pharisee is the last of Luke’s own parables. Although it prominently displays Luke’s doctrinal emphasis (universal salvation, failure of the Law alone to sanctify, divine mercy) it reveals many idioms of Semitic Palestine. The Pharisees believed they were completely “just” before the Law and therefore had such confidence in themselves. They felt that their interpretation of the Law and their behaviors according to the Law, were the true and only way to practice Judaism. Among the various Jewish sects, they felt that they were right and everyone else was wrong (one of the ways of thinking that seems frequently to happen among religions groups).

So, it is critical that we not fall into the same trap as the Pharisees did but, rather only attempt in our own lives to live in accord with the teachings we have received from Jesus Christ. This may mean, however, that we have to evaluate what we learned as children and grow in our knowledge of our faith. Our faith must be intelligent and reasonable.
Think about this!

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of Our Faith — 20170205

Posted on by

The fullness of humanity in Christ is also further defined in the theological synthesis of Maximus the Confessor and his doctrine of the “two wills”. It was affirmed during the period of iconoclasm when it was maintained the Christ could be depicted because He was truly a human.

In 431 the Council of Ephesus, which marked the first and decisive victory of Cyrillian Christology over Nestorianism, expressed itself in a single doctrinal decision: the Mother of Jesus is to be properly designated in the prayers of the Church, in preaching and in theological dissertations as “Bearer of God” (Theotokos), or “Mother Of God” (meter theou). The decision was concerned with Christology: it affirmed the personal identity of Christ as the preexisting and eternal son of God assuming human nature (not simply a single human individual). Since a mother is necessarily the mother of somebody (not of just a ”nature”) and since this “somebody” in Christ was God, her proper identity was indeed “Mother of God.” (All should be aware that many Christians who are not of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches do not accept her as the “Mother of God”). I am sure that my readers can see the profound logic that informed the thinking of the fathers of the Council of Ephesus.

It was inevitable that the Christological decision of Ephesus would also add a decisive new emphasis to Christian spirituality: a renewed veneration of Mary – the woman through whom the incarnation occurred; the one human person who, by free concurrence with the greatest act of God’s love, made the union of divinity and humanity possible.

It should be pointed out that WE DO NOT WORSHIP Mary. The Church “venerates” her and has devotion to her but we reserve adoration to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit. We worship only the Holy Trinity.

The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian devotions such as Moleben, show her honor for her role in the incarnation of our God in the Person of Jesus, the Christ. Catholic and Orthodox Christians often get accused of worshipping Mary, making her equal to God. This is not true. We hold her in the highest esteem and see her as a model of a person who freely did the will of God. Truly a person we should attempt to imitate.

PRE-GREAT FAST — 20170205

Posted on by

This is the second week of the five weeks that come before the Great Fast. Each week shares another real aspect of Metanoia. This week the aspect that is highlighted through the parable is HUMILITY.

Humility is a quality by which a person, considering his own defects, has a lowly opinion of himself and willingly submits himself to God and to others for God’s sake. While this is not the best definition, humility also involves having a realistic opinion of oneself – trying to see oneself as God sees you. This means that we don’t deny our talents or deficits. It also means that we do not attempt to aggrandize ourselves by lessening the abilities of others. It means acknowledging the abilities of others without any reference to ourselves. It means not needing to be the center of all conversations. It means thinking of others first.