Reflections on the Scripture Readings for this Weekend — 20161016

Posted on by

orthodxsundayAs we conclude this 22nd week after Pentecost, we are called to remember the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council – the Council that put an end to Iconoclasm (i.e., the smashing of icons). It was the second Council of Nicaea and the seventh and last Council that is recognized by the entire Christian Church. This Council has taken to itself the symbol of perfection and completion represented by the number seven in Holy Scripture. It closed the era of the great dogmatic disputes, enabling the Church to describe, in definitions that exclude all ambiguity, the bounds of the one true faith. From that time every heresy that has appeared can be related to one or other of the errors that the Church, assembled in universal Councils, has anathematized from the first until the seventh Ecumenical Council. In reality, the Christian Church has failed since that time to ever again to hold a true Ecumenical Council.

Our Gospel for this commemoration is appropriately taken from Luke’s account of the Parable of the Sower and our Epistle from Paul’s letter to the Galatians wherein he writes: “May I never boast of anything but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ! Through it, the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.”

When you think of the parable we hear, it becomes obvious that we must always be on guard for what is spread in the name of Jesus Christ. We know this to be true, if any person, professing to be Christian, suggests that we should judge others and condemn others, they are spreading an untruth. Jesus clearly tells us that to be His follower we must make every attempt to unconditionally love others and to not judge them. I find that in our modern society, many spread a Gospel message which does not match the message that Jesus and His followers taught.

We know that the one way that we can use to make sure that we are truly believing in the message of Jesus is to think, like Paul, that we must only boast in the ‘cross’ of Christ. The cross is the ultimate symbol of complete and total love for others! As Jesus died on the cross, He forgave those who arranged for His death, He expressed love for those who unjustly accused Him, and He truly didn’t judge any who hated Him.

Learning Our Faith From the Greek Fathers of the Church — 20161016

Posted on by
St. Cyril of Alexandria

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Hopefully, my readers will begin to see how all of the various topics that I cover in the Eastern Herald begin to merge into a fuller understanding of God’s actions with humankind. In the last issue of this article, I began to present the Eastern Church’s doctrine of salvation through deification. Indeed it presents an entirely different approach than that presented by Western Christianity. This is not to suggest that one approach is right and the other wrong but to suggest that various approaches are necessary if we are ever to come closer to what God intended when He became incarnate as a human.

I shared Cyril’s vision of salvation. He said: “The Son of God suffered in the flesh.” This implies that, far from being a metaphysical “merger,” salvation was and is a tragedy of love, including the assumption of the cross by God himself. But, at the same time, it is clear that Golgotha is not simply the price, which by itself repays an offended divine justice, but only the ultimate point of God’s identification with fallen humanity, which is followed by the resurrection and is a part of the entire economy or plan of salvation. Thus the Byzantine Synodikon – a solemn annual doctrinal proclamation – affirms (in connection with the same twelfth century Christological debates) that Christ “reconciled us to Himself by means of the whole mystery of the economy, and by Himself and in Himself, reconciled us also to His God and Father and, of course, to the most holy and life-giving Spirit.” Christ’s sacrifice – and the redemption brought by Him – is truly unique because it is not an isolated action but the culminating point of an ’economy’ that includes the Old Testament preparation, the incarnation, the death, the resurrection and presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.”

Although offered freely to all, the new lift brought into the world by the New Adam must be freely received through personal conversion and appropriated through personal ascetical effort. The insistence upon this personal dimension of the Christian experience, which is general in Eastern monastic literature, has provoked accusation of “Pelagianism” or “semi– Pelagianism” on the part of representatives of Western spirituality, dominated by the Augustinian doctrine of grace.

Salvation is all about working with God’s grace to become more like Jesus.

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the New Testament — 20161016

Posted on by

Holy-NapkinIn the last issue I introduced the Eastern Church’s idea of Theoria with regard to the Bible. Thus it is obvious that the interpretation of the Scriptures according to Theoria mandates not only a recognition of the Bible’s inspiration, but that we too, as students of the Bible, be enlightened by the same Spirit. Before Pentecost, even the Disciples were often confused as to the exact meaning of many of Christ’s words. Truly, how can one ever discern the spiritual meaning of the Scriptures without the Spirit’s inspiration? Today we too will become confused if we try to interpret the Scriptures in disregard of the Spirit’s ministry.

God’s Word is not bound by ink or held captive by bookbinding. His Word existed before the invention of books and would continue to exist even if e3very Bible were destroyed. God’s Word is the “Living Voice” which those who have united themselves to Christ can bear witness to as being of God. Thus, God’s Word is understood in relationship, not in reading. The early Church was in deep communion with God’s Word not because they had a Bible, but because they had a New Covenant relationship with the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

The Truth of God’s Word has been revealed not only to God’s people but in God’s people. This gives the members of the Church alone the ability to understand the Scripture as Scripture. This divinely orchestrated marriage of Spirit and humanity makes the Bible truly sufficient in the Church. Unlike the heretics, the Church’s members recognize its true message, for the “anointing of truth” which rests upon them lets them know the teaching. The Bible is their book and they are of the “like Spirit” with it. Their Christian life and experience, which includes the experiences of their brethren before them, attests to the Bible’s true teaching.

Without question, the Scriptures are an invaluable and essential expression of Divine Tradition. But when they are set apart from the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the Church, they are no longer “a sure foundation.” Outside the Church, the Bible’s stabilizing legs are cut off by contradictory interpretations of “individuals”. Our call to understand the Scriptures in concert with the Church prevents such an abuse. But this attentiveness to the Church is not an exhortation to sleepily submit to an ecclesiastical court. It is a call to take responsibility: to evaluate the reasons behind our present beliefs instead of accepting them without question. Hopefully this has brought some light to you on inspiration!

CALLED TO HOLINESS — 20161016

Posted on by

I have been suggesting in this article that the call to holiness is a call to enter into a genuine relationship with God which can only be facilitated by the establishment of genuine relationships with other human beings. If we are unable to have genuine relationships with others, we cannot possibly expect to have a genuine relationship with God. The truth in this assertion is proven by the fact that if I don’t have the skills to form true and genuine human relationships, then the relationship I think I have with God only amounts to a figment of my imagination. Why? Because I don’t have the skills to have a true and genuine relationship with anyone else.

The marvel of Jesus’ creation of the greatest commandment is that He says quite clearly that the love of God, neighbor and self are intimately intertwined. We truly can’t have one without the others.

So one of our first steps in trying to build a relationship with God is to learn how to have a real relationship with others. I’ve presented some ideas about the skills that are needed to have a relationship with others.

However, another first step, it must be said, is to develop a true and honest love for yourself. Now many may say that this is silly since most people love themselves. I can honestly say, after many years working with people, that I find that few people truly love themselves. While they may be self-centered and egotistic, that is not true love of self. True love of self requires that we are honest with ourselves about who we are. To truly love yourself you must be willing to embrace not only your strengths but also your weaknesses and develop an ability to not personalize things that happen to you. To truly love yourself you must be willing to take personal responsibility for your feelings and behaviors and not attempt to bolster your self-worth by judging others or making the excuse that others make you feel the way that you do. We all are responsible for our own feelings and behaviors.

Understanding Our Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church — 20161016

Posted on by

hagiasophialastIn the last issue of this article I began to present the Cyrillian Group of the major feasts of our Church. It was amid the activities in the Church in the late fourth century that the liturgical feasts were developed as an expression and reinforcement of the true faith as expressed by Cyril of Jerusalem.

Cyril became bishop of Jerusalem between 349 and 351 and may have been active in the church there as early as 330. The Church of Jerusalem had been relatively unimportant for some time previous to this, but after Constantine’s mother, Helena, visited the Holy Land and rediscovered the Holy Sepulchre in 326, Jerusalem’s situation began to improve. With its increasing importance came an increasing tension between Jerusalem and the metropolitan see of Caesarea. The Arian position of the Metropolitan Acacius of Caesarea and the anti-Arian stance of Cyril’s predecessor Maximus did much to heighten this tension. Upon Maximus’ death in 349, Acacius deposed Maximus’ chosen successor and put Cyril in the see. Though Cyril renounced as invalid the ordination he had received from Maximus, it soon became clear that he intended to continue his predecessor’s rather independent policy. Because of this policy he was deposed and apparently replaced by Arians on three different occasions. Cyril’s theology was on the margins of the True Faith, but his disagreement with the Nicene party was more semantic than doctrinal. In 381, by the time of the Council of Constantinople was called, the Arians had pushed Cyril into the True Faith camp where he became an outspoken leader in the struggle against Arianism.

The reasons behind Cyril’s liturgical innovations have not been explained beyond brief references to Jerusalem’s unique topographical possibilities as the site where many of the events celebrated by the feasts originally took place. According to Dix, Cyril’s innovations were due to “purely local circumstances and opportunities.” He feels that it is out of the question that Cyril saw beyond the needs of his won community when he devised his liturgical program. Such an argument of “local pride” does little to explain the origins of the Cyrillian Feasts, and it does nothing to explain why these feasts were adopted so uniformly throughout the East during one clearly defined historical period. Dix reveals his ahistorical approach when he states that although Cyril first made his innovations in the 350s and 360s, they were not universally accepted until the end of the 80s and 90s.

………. To be continued ……….

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of Our Faith — 20161016

Posted on by

image379I ended this article in the last issue of the Eastern Herald, by sharing John Damascene’s definition of the two terms which have repeatedly showed up in this article, namely ousia and hypostasis. Hopefully my readers are beginning to have some sense of the meaning of these words. I will repeat what John said: ousia is a thing that exists by itself, and which has need of nothing else for its consistency. Again, ousia is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another. It is thus that which is not for another, that which does not have its existence in another, that which has no need of another for its consistency.

But is in itself and in which the accident has its existence. The term hypostasis has two meanings. Sometimes it means simply existence. For this definition it follows that ousia and hypostasis are the same thing. Hence certain of the holy fathers have said: natures or hypostases. Sometimes it denotes that which exists by itself and in its own consistency; from which meaning it comes that it denotes the individual, differing numerically from every other. The two terms would thus appear to be more or less synonymous; ousia meaning an individual substance, while being capable at the same time of denoting the essence common to many individuals; hypostasis, on the other hand, meaning existence in general, but capable also of application to individual substances. According to the testimony of Theodoret of Cyrus: ‘for profane wisdom there is no difference between ousia and hypostasis. For ousia means that which is, and hypostasis that which subsists. But according to the teaching of the fathers, there is between ousia and hypostasis the same difference as between common and particular. The genius of the Fathers made use of the two synonyms to distinguish in God that which is common – ousia, substance or essence – from that which is particular – hypostasis or person.

I suspect that by now many of my readers might be thoroughly confused. The Fathers had to maintain that the True God had one common substance between the three Persons and that the Three Persons were uniquely separate and distinct. Thus they used words that could be applied to offer this distinction but, at the same time, since they were synonyms, always expressed the fact that Three Persons were only ONE GOD. It is a mystery but a wonderful mystery which our Holy Fathers found a way to express in profound terms.

Acquiring the Mind of Christ — 20161016

Posted on by

christ_iconIn the last issue, I introduced, in contrast to the Eastern Church’s understanding of salvation, that of St. Augustine. He presents his notion of grace which is not embraced by the Eastern Church. For Augustine, it seems that many may never participate in God’s deifying energies, and therefore man and God remain forever external to each other. Ultimately, this leads to salvation not defined by communion with God, but rather primarily a moral and legal relationship.

I realize that many want to believe that there is really only one truth and, when I present a different approach – an approach that I believe the Eastern Church embraces – they may become confused. They when I add that I am not saying that one way is right and the other wrong, they become doubly confused. The fact of the matter we can never know the whole truth and, therefore, there are many ways that lead us to union with God. I believe that at least for me, the Eastern approach makes much more sense.

In contrast, the Eastern Church’s view of justification is being empowered by grace to live according to God’s will. By living according to God’s will, we effect our sanctification, thereby participating in God’s life. By being united with the One Who overcomes death, we overcome sin anhd death, participating in His victory, making it our own. In the Eastern Church’s perspective, Anselm’s understanding of God’s wrath and punishment are non-existent.

Our Eastern Church teaches that Christ, by His very Incarnation, takes away the sin of the world. St. Gregory the Theologian says the passage “the word was made flesh” is:

… equivalent to that in which it is said that “He was made sin or a curse for us”; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these – how could he be? But because by taking them upon him he took away our sins and bore our iniquities.

The beginning of the Eastern Church’s view of the Atonement is the Incarnation. The middle of this process is the Cross, through which Christ, as St. Basil the Great explains, “gave Himself as a ransom to death, in which we were held captive, sold under sin, [and] descending through the Cross into hell – that He might fill all things with Himself – he loosed the pangs of death.”

(More to come)

The Spirituality of the Christian East — 20161016

Posted on by

st_john_of_theladderThe 26th Step on John’s Ladder is Discernment. It involves several different stages, the first one being SELF-KNOWLEDGE. To “knows thyself” is the first level of discernment. When we begin spiritual life, enthusiasm must be tempered with humility and knowledge or we will try to go too far too fast. At the same time, we must not allow our own weakness and reluctance to change our ways to dictate our spiritual life and thus cause us to remain content with our failure to reach the Christian ideal, confusing “difficult” with “impossible.” We are only called to do what we can, but many people interpret that as doing what we want or what makes us comfortable. To live the gospel is not easy, but neither is it impossible. The commandments to love your enemy, to forsake all for the gospel, to endure affliction and turn the other cheek are not for the select few, but for every one of us. No one should plead inability to do what is asked of us in the gospels, since there are souls who have accomplished far more than the gospels demand of us.

Unfortunately, God’s commandments are not always easy to keep due to our own weaknesses and these weaknesses can encourage some to dismiss them as truly unrealistic and idealistic. Too many people think of God’s commands as negative burdens instead of positive opportunities.

While some Christians like to take various passages of Scripture literally and use them to judge others, the Jesus Way of Living directly negates this approach. What the Scriptures call us to do is to “attempt” to live the way that Jesus lived, clearly understanding that we will probably never be able to match His accomplishments in a perfect manner. What is important, however, is our intentions. Do we really want to grow in our likeness of Jesus? Do we see His way of living as a way that will bring us into deeper and truer communion with our God?

Reflections on the Scripture Readings for this Weekend — 20161009

Posted on by

PentecostAs we end this 21st week after Pentecost, the readings that are assigned to help us think about how to live this present life are taken from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and Luke’s Gospel. The Gospel story is that story which we hear at each and every funeral as the coffin is taken from the church.

Paul makes these two very poignant statements in his letter to the Galatians:

…knowing that a man is not justified by legal observance but by faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in him in order to be justified by faith in Christ, not by observance of the law….

Paul further writes to the Galatians:

I have been crucified with Christ, and the life I live now is not my own; Christ is living in me. I still live my human life, but it is a life of faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

What truly profound statements! They should cause us to stop and reflect and ask ourselves if we can say the very same words.

The Gospel story reminds us that when we are sad, when we feel overwhelmed by life and when we don’t know what to do, Christ and His message can, if we open our hearts and minds, fill the void within us and help us to see the goodness of life. Christ’s words to the woman in the Gospel story are so very powerful, “Don’t cry”.

Christ’s message helps us to see that life is “good” and although at times challenging, it is wonderful because it provides us with a multitude of opportunities to grow in our ability to hope and trust in God.

While it is true that certain challenges in life can be very difficult – the loss of a child can be devastating for parents – it is never true that these challenges are meant to be punishing or harmful. While it is true that certain challenges require all of the strength and courage that we may possess, it is also true that life never presents challenges that are too much for us to handle. As God told Paul, My grace is always sufficient for you to deal with the challenges of life.

If we are overwhelmed by the challenges of life, the problem is our lack of TRUST in God – our lack of understanding that life’s challenges are given to us in order that we might grow in our love and trust of God.

What message did you receive from these readings?

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of Our Faith — 20161009

Posted on by

image379As I have suggested in this article, the Church only came to a true and real understanding of God through great struggle and debate. Revelation sets an abyss between the truth which it declares and the truths which can be discovered by philosophical speculation. If human thought guided by the instinct for truth – which is faith, though confused and uncertain – could, apart from Christianity, grope its way towards certain notions which approximated to the Trinity, the mystery of God-in-Trinity remained inscrutable to it. A ‘change of spirit’ was needed. The mystery of the Trinity only becomes accessible to that ignorance which rises above all that can be contained within the concepts of the philosophers. It required the superhuman efforts of an Athanasius of Alexandria, of a Basil, of a Gregory Nazianzen and of many others, to purify the concepts of Hellenistic thought, to break down the watertight bulkheads by the introduction of a Christian apophaticism (i.e., the knowledge of God obtaining only through negation, that is expressing what God is not). This approach transformed rational speculation into a contemplation of the mystery of the Trinity. It was a question of finding a distinction of terms which should express the unity of, and the differentiation within, the Godhead, without giving the pre-eminence either to the one or to the other; that thought might not fall into the error of a Sabellian Unitarianism or a pagan tritheism. The Fathers of the fourth century – that is the Trinitarian century par excellence – availed themselves by preference of the terms ousia and hypostasis (terms which my readers should now be well acquainted) to lead the intellect towards the mystery of the Trinity.

St. John Damascene gives the following definition of the conceptual value of the two terms in one of his writings, stating: ‘ousia is a thing that exists by itself, and which has need of nothing else for its consistency. Again, ousia is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another’.

So in essence the Fathers redefined Greek philosophical terms, using them to express theological ideas. Ousia became substance or essence and hypostasis became person. Thus God, as defined by the Church is of one substance or essence that is expressed in Three Persons. Of course this is a mystery and, although we have the language to express this mystery, it still remains a mystery beyond our comprehension.