The following picture were take from Fr.Kyrollos Facebook page.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Love: Living Liturgy; Living Theology
The patriarch who became the monk to us all. He truly was a father to all of us and he holds a special place in my heart! Pope Cyril the 6th was not a man of high education (high school education) but he brought the Coptic Church into the modern world. He paved the road for Patriarch Shenouda III. The love he had for his children always greeting every single individual to the point where he would faint and they would have to help him. His strengthen to the church was truly perfected in his weakness! A man of deep prayer and he was famously remembered for praying a liturgy every morning before he began his day and continued this tradition when he was ordained to the bishopric of Alexandria. The more he prayed the more he struggled as he is so often quoted as saying "I prayed for a pure heart, it took me a long time and a hard struggle to discover that prayer itself is the only road to a pure heart." He was truly the father to all of us. He had a special gift that many never understood or could comprehend because out of his humility he would leave many confused with there encounter with him. So many stories are left for us however I can't do any justice to them. Lastly, he was an individual who truly never lived for the "I" and the "ME" but rather lived for Him whom he saw in all of us. His liturgy was not finished by the morning time but rather he constantly lived out his liturgy to all of us. Even though he was not educated he lived out his theology and his remembered for being a father to our two great modern theologians (Patriarch Shenouda and Father Matthew the Poor). There is a lot we can learn from him. The one small aspect I would take from his life is how he prayed. He never used words and its been documented that every liturgy he prayed he prayed with tears. Living in the body of Christ is a struggle but out of this struggled he never once lived for himself but was truly the Christ image in the world. The following are a few pictures of Pope Cyril (Kirolos) the 6th:
The following picture were take from Fr.Kyrollos Facebook page.
The following picture were take from Fr.Kyrollos Facebook page.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Unity- Fr. Thomas Hopko
A devastating aspect of the modern and post-modern world is the tendency to separate and isolate, to disintegrate and fracture. The spiritual and material are divided from each other, as are the metaphysical and existential, and the theoretical and practical. Faith and knowledge are opposed. Theology and piety are divorced. Freedom is put in opposition to authority as the individual person-or parish, province, tribe, or region-is place against, rather than within, the larger community of family, church, society, nation, and world. Prophet is opposed to priest, charismatic to institutional, individual to corporate, private to public. An essential task of Orthodox theological education is to expose this literally "diabolical" approach to reality, and to teach and demonstrate in action the proper relationship between unity and diversity in all areas of human life and activity. Orthodox theological schools and institutions, like the Church itself, must find the royal way of maintaining its essential unity with the diversity that true accord requires for its actualization in life.
Unity and diversity in a theological school that is truly Orthodox will exist between the academic and the pastoral dimensions of the educational program and process. It will exist between scholarly work and practical application, and between the educational process as a whole and the work of the separate pedagogical disciplines: Scripture, liturgy, history, patristics, dogmatics, language, and the various courses of pastoral theology and practice. It will ensure the freedom for objective scholarship in proper relationship to the Church's received tradition, which is guided and guarded by the Church's episcopal authority in communion with the faithful believers. And it will also hold together the diverse elements essential to a full and complete program of Orthodox theological education: academic study, liturgical worship, spiritual formation, practical field experience, and community life and service.
Fr. Thomas Hopko, Speaking the Truth in Love, PG.33-34
Unity and diversity in a theological school that is truly Orthodox will exist between the academic and the pastoral dimensions of the educational program and process. It will exist between scholarly work and practical application, and between the educational process as a whole and the work of the separate pedagogical disciplines: Scripture, liturgy, history, patristics, dogmatics, language, and the various courses of pastoral theology and practice. It will ensure the freedom for objective scholarship in proper relationship to the Church's received tradition, which is guided and guarded by the Church's episcopal authority in communion with the faithful believers. And it will also hold together the diverse elements essential to a full and complete program of Orthodox theological education: academic study, liturgical worship, spiritual formation, practical field experience, and community life and service.
Fr. Thomas Hopko, Speaking the Truth in Love, PG.33-34
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy: Vestments of the Priest
Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. A close friend of mine was talking with me the other day and told me those words and it reminds me constantly how cliche this might sound but thinking about it on a deeper level proves to be true. I was reading on Bishop's Youssef's website a segment in his sevant's prep course on the vestments of a priest and what I read really stood out for me because it should how Orthodox is Orthodoxy. Now that can apply to all aspects of the faith and dogmas and beliefs etc. However this stood out to me because my ignorant mind is used to thinking that Russian and Greek priests are vested very differently than priests from the Coptic or Syrian churches. However this is not the case. To illustrate what I mean I will borrow the material from Bishop's Youssef website to show how both priests from the Coptic and the Russian and Greek traditions are vested the same way in the liturgy:
The tunic (Tonia in arabic): represents the purity of the servant and should be worn by all ranks deacons, priests and bishops.
The Stole (badrashil in arabic): a red and white ribbon that go around the shoulder of the deacon and should be worn according to the rank of the deacon. A deacon and proto-deacon usually wear it around the left shoulder while the sub-deacon crosses himself in a form of a belt.
The presbyterial stole (sadra in arabic): this is reserved for the priest and is taken from the OT reference to the stole Aaron used to wear.
The cuffs: These are the two pieces of cloth that covers from the wrist to the elbow of the priest. According to the tradition held within the church the cuffs used to be two handkerchiefs that the bishop and priest brought to wipe the tears during the service.
The girdle (al mintawa in arabic): It is a belt that goes around the priest waist. This is taken from the reference in the book of Revelation 1.13. It reminds the priest to be always rady for the work and labor in the vineyard of Christ.
The Taylassan (priest only): It is a head cover...and its the same covering like the twenty four elders who had their crowns while they stood before God...it reminds the priest with the honor and glory of his divine service.
The crown (bishop only): It is similar to the priest Taylassan being reserved only for the bishop.
The Cope (bornos in arabic) (for the priest and bishop): It is a rounded sleeveless loose robe. It represents of the priesthood especially that the robe was also used by the kings and prophets through out Scripture.
The ballin (in arabic): It means what is won on the shoulder. It resembles the stole of the deacon but it is a bit wider. It starts from the head and goes all the way down to under the girdle. It reminds the bishop for the readiness for the vocation and being surrounded by the righteousness of God.
The shield (bishop only): It is a diagonal shaped garment that is attached t the balling near the leg. It represents the duty of the bishop as the guard for the flock of Christ. Refer to Ps 45.13.
(This was taken from Bishop Youssef Servants prep PDF entitled "Church Architecture and Priests vestments" pages 10 and 11).
The traditions and the beauty of the vestments of the clergy is mind blowing. I was never made aware of the vestments of Coptic clergy before I read this document. This showed many different things however, I will focus on a few points. Like my friend echoed before Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy! The beauty of the church in what is given to us is beautiful because it has been preserved for us. The preparation of the priest should make us all realize and respect the church for not only how it is today but how it's been preserved to us from generation to generation. Priests vestments is not a modern invention. This is how they used to be vested from the very beginning. This is important to maintain the tradition of the fathers to our modern time. The more we begin to forget the more the church is filled with things pertaining to this society and in filling the church with societal things the beauty and the depth of the church begins to be lost. The art of preparation for liturgy begins to be less important.Things such as "I will go to church late or right before the gospel because as long as I hear the word of God everything else is not important". This is incorrect...we are not the "religion of the book". We are the faith that is consistently being lived out. Liturgy and preparation extends to outside the church. The way we prepare for school work etc is all tided in to preparation of liturgy. If the liturgy and church has ceased to be the most beautiful aspect of our life then we are walking among the dead. Out of this lack of preparation we get things like rushed liturgies and we reduce the liturgy to a few words the priests says and then spend half an hour giving a homily that is not relevant to the gospel reading of the day. The beauty of the liturgy is found in being embodied in the community of believers in the body of Christ. Beauty is not only found in the homily of the priest but rather in the journey we all take to be the body of Christ. This culminates in our partaking of the Eucharist! Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy!
(Tasoni another word for Matushka) Frederica Mathewes-Green said:
"...beauty partakes of mystery, what beauty represents is something that can't be put into words, we sense it with our whole being though it's not something we can define. And that is true of our worship as well as we approach God, there is something that is so beyond our words, our ability to verbalize, that it requires the mystery of beauty around it in order to enable us to come into it at all".
Matushka (Russian word which means Tasoni in the Coptic rite) speaks sound words here. Liturgy and its beauty is part of a greater mystery. If something is so beautiful sometimes words cant describe it and this is what is meant by our worship and faith. Words cant describe it. We come to experience Christ through this great mystery that we call faith. It cannot be vocalized but rather lived out. How can beauty be lived out?
Beauty should then translate into love. Love is the goal. Beauty is a delightful and effective way to escort us toward that goal. There is a reason why in our orthodox worship that deacons or priests are so frequently saying let us attend; pay attention. There is a danger that if we make our worship and prayer into something that is magical, that if we go through and say all the right words, something magical happens, rather than participating within their whole hearts. This is very dangerous to our worship. Rather we should become one with our prayers and worship through the readiness and preparation of our minds and soul. This goes for the priest and explains why his vestments are important for the service. The unity and beliefs of the Church is what unites the believers within the community of the body of Christ. A dear friend posted on his blog about prayer which I will provide the link to at the end of this entry.
To conclude, the unity of the church does not and should not be based on politics of this world but rather come together in love which is combined with the one faith, one belief, one baptism and one resurrection. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy! The vestment of the priests illustrate how the traditions have been preserved by all Orthodox Churches. The following are pictures of a Coptic priest and a Byzantine priest vested for service. The beauty of Orthodoxy:
A priest from the Russian rite being vested
A priest from the Russian rite fully vested
A priest from the Coptic rite fully vested
The following is the link to the blog post discussing the concept of prayer:
http://returnorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-talk.html
The tunic (Tonia in arabic): represents the purity of the servant and should be worn by all ranks deacons, priests and bishops.
The Stole (badrashil in arabic): a red and white ribbon that go around the shoulder of the deacon and should be worn according to the rank of the deacon. A deacon and proto-deacon usually wear it around the left shoulder while the sub-deacon crosses himself in a form of a belt.
The presbyterial stole (sadra in arabic): this is reserved for the priest and is taken from the OT reference to the stole Aaron used to wear.
The cuffs: These are the two pieces of cloth that covers from the wrist to the elbow of the priest. According to the tradition held within the church the cuffs used to be two handkerchiefs that the bishop and priest brought to wipe the tears during the service.
The girdle (al mintawa in arabic): It is a belt that goes around the priest waist. This is taken from the reference in the book of Revelation 1.13. It reminds the priest to be always rady for the work and labor in the vineyard of Christ.
The Taylassan (priest only): It is a head cover...and its the same covering like the twenty four elders who had their crowns while they stood before God...it reminds the priest with the honor and glory of his divine service.
The crown (bishop only): It is similar to the priest Taylassan being reserved only for the bishop.
The Cope (bornos in arabic) (for the priest and bishop): It is a rounded sleeveless loose robe. It represents of the priesthood especially that the robe was also used by the kings and prophets through out Scripture.
The ballin (in arabic): It means what is won on the shoulder. It resembles the stole of the deacon but it is a bit wider. It starts from the head and goes all the way down to under the girdle. It reminds the bishop for the readiness for the vocation and being surrounded by the righteousness of God.
The shield (bishop only): It is a diagonal shaped garment that is attached t the balling near the leg. It represents the duty of the bishop as the guard for the flock of Christ. Refer to Ps 45.13.
(This was taken from Bishop Youssef Servants prep PDF entitled "Church Architecture and Priests vestments" pages 10 and 11).
The traditions and the beauty of the vestments of the clergy is mind blowing. I was never made aware of the vestments of Coptic clergy before I read this document. This showed many different things however, I will focus on a few points. Like my friend echoed before Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy! The beauty of the church in what is given to us is beautiful because it has been preserved for us. The preparation of the priest should make us all realize and respect the church for not only how it is today but how it's been preserved to us from generation to generation. Priests vestments is not a modern invention. This is how they used to be vested from the very beginning. This is important to maintain the tradition of the fathers to our modern time. The more we begin to forget the more the church is filled with things pertaining to this society and in filling the church with societal things the beauty and the depth of the church begins to be lost. The art of preparation for liturgy begins to be less important.Things such as "I will go to church late or right before the gospel because as long as I hear the word of God everything else is not important". This is incorrect...we are not the "religion of the book". We are the faith that is consistently being lived out. Liturgy and preparation extends to outside the church. The way we prepare for school work etc is all tided in to preparation of liturgy. If the liturgy and church has ceased to be the most beautiful aspect of our life then we are walking among the dead. Out of this lack of preparation we get things like rushed liturgies and we reduce the liturgy to a few words the priests says and then spend half an hour giving a homily that is not relevant to the gospel reading of the day. The beauty of the liturgy is found in being embodied in the community of believers in the body of Christ. Beauty is not only found in the homily of the priest but rather in the journey we all take to be the body of Christ. This culminates in our partaking of the Eucharist! Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy!
(Tasoni another word for Matushka) Frederica Mathewes-Green said:
"...beauty partakes of mystery, what beauty represents is something that can't be put into words, we sense it with our whole being though it's not something we can define. And that is true of our worship as well as we approach God, there is something that is so beyond our words, our ability to verbalize, that it requires the mystery of beauty around it in order to enable us to come into it at all".
Matushka (Russian word which means Tasoni in the Coptic rite) speaks sound words here. Liturgy and its beauty is part of a greater mystery. If something is so beautiful sometimes words cant describe it and this is what is meant by our worship and faith. Words cant describe it. We come to experience Christ through this great mystery that we call faith. It cannot be vocalized but rather lived out. How can beauty be lived out?
Beauty should then translate into love. Love is the goal. Beauty is a delightful and effective way to escort us toward that goal. There is a reason why in our orthodox worship that deacons or priests are so frequently saying let us attend; pay attention. There is a danger that if we make our worship and prayer into something that is magical, that if we go through and say all the right words, something magical happens, rather than participating within their whole hearts. This is very dangerous to our worship. Rather we should become one with our prayers and worship through the readiness and preparation of our minds and soul. This goes for the priest and explains why his vestments are important for the service. The unity and beliefs of the Church is what unites the believers within the community of the body of Christ. A dear friend posted on his blog about prayer which I will provide the link to at the end of this entry.
To conclude, the unity of the church does not and should not be based on politics of this world but rather come together in love which is combined with the one faith, one belief, one baptism and one resurrection. Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy! The vestment of the priests illustrate how the traditions have been preserved by all Orthodox Churches. The following are pictures of a Coptic priest and a Byzantine priest vested for service. The beauty of Orthodoxy:
The following is the link to the blog post discussing the concept of prayer:
http://returnorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-talk.html
Friday, November 30, 2012
Hell: Eternal Damnation or Universalism
A few weeks ago I watched a documentary entitled "Hellbound". Before anything I would recommend everyone to watch it. It is an interesting documentary that looks at the concept of Hell in western culture today. Very fascinating and interesting perspectives were raised throughout the documentary. Now I do not want to ruin the documentary by talking about so if you want more information you can contact me however, the following blog entry will discuss the concept of hell and if hell does exist how can a loving God surely send his own creation to hell. Before anything I would like to clarify that in the Orthodox church there is no set doctrine or dogmas on hell!
Hell has had and still plays a major impact within the church. Many church fathers have written on the concept of hell and and many wide views exist today in our modern times about hell. Before we do get into the concepts of hell I will first mention a few points; the wrong way hell is quoted by many people today. First of hell is not the place you go to if you do not go to church one Sunday out of the entire year. Going to church or living out your theology and love with others should not be based on fear. If you truly are embodied in the body of Christ then the concept of fear should not be present within you. Unfortunately today many people would use hell as a scare tactic to make individuals come to church or to partake in different church service. However the question must be asked how can one truly love and live within the church if it based on fear? Christianity as a whole (referring to all types) then becomes just a "set of activities" that one does so that he or she can "check of his list" knowing what he did wont get him to go to hell but will think he or she is saved. This is the unfortunate part of society today. We think we get something done and we are in the clear. However, this is not the case. This explains why many people stop going to church. Church for them has ceased to be the most beautiful thing because church has turned into a set of activities. If church then, by that definition, a set of activities, many will say I can do many better activities at the luxury of my own home. Instead of going to liturgy I can watch it at home and check of my list of attending liturgy many would think. However, by trying to fill your heart and soul with things of this world that will return to the dust it will always leave us searching for the depth that is only found within the church. Hell should not be preached out of fear. If we truly represent the one body of Christ and are living out our liturgy and being Christ in the world then fear and hell should never cross our minds. If we recognize Christ in all of humanity then Christ will accept us because we do not live for the "I" and "Me" but we live in Him and for Him.
Having touched on that there are a few more points that one should contemplate some more and that is the theories around hell. I will speak of two approaches and realize that I am not doing any justice to these topics as I am only touching the surface with my weak writing. The first concept is the idea that the majority of Christians would fall under and that is there is a heaven and a hell. You live a good life you go to heaven and you live a bad life you go to hell and burn for eternity. The other side to that coin is the concept of universalism. Essentially that concept is summed up as the salvation of all humanity.
Live good you go to heaven and live bad you will go to hell. Christians have struggled a whole lot trying to explain how can a loving God send people who never knew him to hell. To this concept I would say that God as we understand Him out of our weakness is a merciful and loving God. This concept cannot be held in our minds because we simply do not know if people go to hell or not. Now I am not saying people such as Hitler and Stalin, two individuals society labels as being horrific people who did much bad than good, are not in hell. My point being is that if God is love and he truly loves his creation that we cannot say God sends you to hell. If hell is understood as a separation from God then we can translate that as being when one dies that will be "there hell" because they are being separated from the things they most love and lived for. Money, possessions, cars, clothes, shoes etc. if this is what the individual loves then death will truly be painful and this will lead into "hell" for that individual because they are being separated from the things they love most. However, if one rids the mind and soul of worldly possessions and truly lives in the body of Christ seeing Christ in all of humanity then when that person dies it wont be a painful death but rather it will become life. That is when that person will say "into thy hands do I commend thy spirit".
St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote before his death to the community in Rome: "I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ".
Ignatius did not see his death as being death but rather life in Christ. To be made a perfect human in life Ignatius understood this as being made pure and holy in the body of Christ. Did Ignatius every think for one minute he was going to hell? He had short comings just like any human out of there has weakness but is there mention of hell? The idea of humanity then is the path that leads to the body of Christ. Christ is our example because Christ shows us what it is to be God in the way he dies as a human being. We sing that Christ trampled death by death. The one thing that we as humans are weak and vulnerable but Christ has bestowed life to us through death. Life then becomes the opposite of what we know and this explains many things the church does today. We enter the church through death to receive life (baptism). This then would lead into the next point; universalism.
Universalism in a nut shell speaks of the salvation of all humanity. Now before I get into this I would like to say that both these concepts of universalism and heaven and hell are not DOCTRINE or DOGMA! There are no canons that ascribe to the existence of hell and there is no writing preaching about people being in hell either. So if society has pushed on us these concepts of hell why not talk from the other side? Heaven!
Many people have preached about universalism. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa are two fathers who are labeled with this concept. Now the one thing we must understand about universalism that one can agree with it and another person might not and that is fine because its an opinion. Universalism says that no matter what kind of life one will chose to live out at the end we will all be molded in the hands of Christ becoming clay and being molded in the image of Christ. Universalism is not an easy concept to comprehend and like I said before I am only touching the surface. Now universalism is not living "the good life" (whatever definition one gives it) and thinks they will be saved. Actually this type of life goes back to death being painful because you will be separated from what you truly love. Universalism is accepting and seeing that we all fall short and in doing that we must be broken down and build back up in the image and likeness of God. This is personified when Paul the Apostle says my strengthen is manifested in weakness. Once we start seeing things "backwards" is when we start living in the one body of Christ. We are not given life and then we grow old entering death but rather we are given over to death and we enter into life. We are made new in Christ and this goes back to what Ignatius was saying before "...so that I might become the pure bread of Christ". Life and being the perfect human being is realized through the person of Christ.
By touching on these two points I hope that this shed some light to some misconceptions that are being preached on hell. Hell should not be based on fear for one going to church and being active in service! The most important concept is live which is brought to fruition in the one body of Christ. Living out ones liturgy in the world does not then rest in the "I" and the "ME" but in Christ. Seeing humanity in the light of Christ will reveal to us that Christ is all and in all and in doing so we will commit our lives to the love of Christ and not the fear of hell.
Hell has had and still plays a major impact within the church. Many church fathers have written on the concept of hell and and many wide views exist today in our modern times about hell. Before we do get into the concepts of hell I will first mention a few points; the wrong way hell is quoted by many people today. First of hell is not the place you go to if you do not go to church one Sunday out of the entire year. Going to church or living out your theology and love with others should not be based on fear. If you truly are embodied in the body of Christ then the concept of fear should not be present within you. Unfortunately today many people would use hell as a scare tactic to make individuals come to church or to partake in different church service. However the question must be asked how can one truly love and live within the church if it based on fear? Christianity as a whole (referring to all types) then becomes just a "set of activities" that one does so that he or she can "check of his list" knowing what he did wont get him to go to hell but will think he or she is saved. This is the unfortunate part of society today. We think we get something done and we are in the clear. However, this is not the case. This explains why many people stop going to church. Church for them has ceased to be the most beautiful thing because church has turned into a set of activities. If church then, by that definition, a set of activities, many will say I can do many better activities at the luxury of my own home. Instead of going to liturgy I can watch it at home and check of my list of attending liturgy many would think. However, by trying to fill your heart and soul with things of this world that will return to the dust it will always leave us searching for the depth that is only found within the church. Hell should not be preached out of fear. If we truly represent the one body of Christ and are living out our liturgy and being Christ in the world then fear and hell should never cross our minds. If we recognize Christ in all of humanity then Christ will accept us because we do not live for the "I" and "Me" but we live in Him and for Him.
Having touched on that there are a few more points that one should contemplate some more and that is the theories around hell. I will speak of two approaches and realize that I am not doing any justice to these topics as I am only touching the surface with my weak writing. The first concept is the idea that the majority of Christians would fall under and that is there is a heaven and a hell. You live a good life you go to heaven and you live a bad life you go to hell and burn for eternity. The other side to that coin is the concept of universalism. Essentially that concept is summed up as the salvation of all humanity.
Live good you go to heaven and live bad you will go to hell. Christians have struggled a whole lot trying to explain how can a loving God send people who never knew him to hell. To this concept I would say that God as we understand Him out of our weakness is a merciful and loving God. This concept cannot be held in our minds because we simply do not know if people go to hell or not. Now I am not saying people such as Hitler and Stalin, two individuals society labels as being horrific people who did much bad than good, are not in hell. My point being is that if God is love and he truly loves his creation that we cannot say God sends you to hell. If hell is understood as a separation from God then we can translate that as being when one dies that will be "there hell" because they are being separated from the things they most love and lived for. Money, possessions, cars, clothes, shoes etc. if this is what the individual loves then death will truly be painful and this will lead into "hell" for that individual because they are being separated from the things they love most. However, if one rids the mind and soul of worldly possessions and truly lives in the body of Christ seeing Christ in all of humanity then when that person dies it wont be a painful death but rather it will become life. That is when that person will say "into thy hands do I commend thy spirit".
St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote before his death to the community in Rome: "I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ".
Ignatius did not see his death as being death but rather life in Christ. To be made a perfect human in life Ignatius understood this as being made pure and holy in the body of Christ. Did Ignatius every think for one minute he was going to hell? He had short comings just like any human out of there has weakness but is there mention of hell? The idea of humanity then is the path that leads to the body of Christ. Christ is our example because Christ shows us what it is to be God in the way he dies as a human being. We sing that Christ trampled death by death. The one thing that we as humans are weak and vulnerable but Christ has bestowed life to us through death. Life then becomes the opposite of what we know and this explains many things the church does today. We enter the church through death to receive life (baptism). This then would lead into the next point; universalism.
Universalism in a nut shell speaks of the salvation of all humanity. Now before I get into this I would like to say that both these concepts of universalism and heaven and hell are not DOCTRINE or DOGMA! There are no canons that ascribe to the existence of hell and there is no writing preaching about people being in hell either. So if society has pushed on us these concepts of hell why not talk from the other side? Heaven!
Many people have preached about universalism. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa are two fathers who are labeled with this concept. Now the one thing we must understand about universalism that one can agree with it and another person might not and that is fine because its an opinion. Universalism says that no matter what kind of life one will chose to live out at the end we will all be molded in the hands of Christ becoming clay and being molded in the image of Christ. Universalism is not an easy concept to comprehend and like I said before I am only touching the surface. Now universalism is not living "the good life" (whatever definition one gives it) and thinks they will be saved. Actually this type of life goes back to death being painful because you will be separated from what you truly love. Universalism is accepting and seeing that we all fall short and in doing that we must be broken down and build back up in the image and likeness of God. This is personified when Paul the Apostle says my strengthen is manifested in weakness. Once we start seeing things "backwards" is when we start living in the one body of Christ. We are not given life and then we grow old entering death but rather we are given over to death and we enter into life. We are made new in Christ and this goes back to what Ignatius was saying before "...so that I might become the pure bread of Christ". Life and being the perfect human being is realized through the person of Christ.
By touching on these two points I hope that this shed some light to some misconceptions that are being preached on hell. Hell should not be based on fear for one going to church and being active in service! The most important concept is live which is brought to fruition in the one body of Christ. Living out ones liturgy in the world does not then rest in the "I" and the "ME" but in Christ. Seeing humanity in the light of Christ will reveal to us that Christ is all and in all and in doing so we will commit our lives to the love of Christ and not the fear of hell.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Becoming Human: Life in Death
Patristic teaching is summed up as "Christ shows us what it is to be god in the way he dies as a human being". Orthodoxy has always been about how to get there and not how it is set out to be. Orthodoxy is based on a vision that is set out based on one perspective however, people distort this message by making everything black and white, right and wrong, good and bad and this is not what Orthodoxy is. As we stated before the fathers' teachings can all be summed up in one saying that Christ shows us what it is to be god in the way he dies as a human being. The Christ I am talking about is the crucified and risen Lord proclaimed by the apostles and by Scriptures (cf. Luke 24). Not the Christ spoken of by Bart Ehrman. He shows us what it is to be god, which cannot be otherwise, in the way he dies as a human being. Chalcedon reaffirmed this when he included that Christ came forth out of two natures into one nature. Not only a divine nature but also a human nature!
The truth about Christ is not then to be understood on the historical level which is not to say that gospels are not true; it is not a matter of history but it means that the criteria of truth is measured in Him as the way to see truth in history. In measuring history through Christ we are not to be denying the negative which is "history". This can be the same when we reflect on our past. Our past is changed with our current encounter with Christ. It's my way working to Christ and to that truth. What we are interested in is the truth of Christ. In doing so a distinction must be made between History and Theology. We always want to reduce theology to history. This should never be the case. The discourse (study) of theology is not subject to the discourse of history. It's not denying history but truth is not found in history. These two concepts cannot be mingled because out of it contradictions can be brought forth. When you mix theology and history silly questions begin to be asked for example when did Christ die (6th or 9th hour?) And how many times did the cock crow? This is why it should point you to the fact this is theology and not history. When we mix theology and history we will be asked questions that can never be answered. "But I am going to concern myself with trying to establish which one happened or why because you cannot historicize history to theology because it will never work out" and this not theology because what you are doing now is using bias to make theology work. Scripture is understood as a theological reflection and if it is understood as a theological reflection then everything within Scripture is in a sense the perfect word of God.
The truth of Christ:
The truth that Christ is not a matter of history because then you subject Him and His truth to history which is not correct to do because if you do so then Christ fails to be the promised Messiah. Christ is much more than that and He can now change history if He so chose to. This all goes back to our encounter with and how He changes us. He is then the definition; the content; the starting point. His revelation in this world is a transformation of this world into Himself. Theology is then a very different discourse. An analogy to demonstrate this would be between an icon and photograph. An icon is not a photograph; the saints look at the painter representing the person of Christ so then the saint does not become the focus on the Icon rather the Icon is transformed into a window into heaven to reflect on the person of Christ. This is what distinguishes between an Icon and a photograph. Another analogy is how we understand scripture. Scripture has always been understood as a theological reflection of the community. This explains why Christ "died at different times in the passion narrative or why the cock crew one or three times etc". It's because the gospels representing Scripture is a theological reflection on the person of Christ and not a history book. The sad part is that we have forgotten this discourse and think we are doing theology by asking such questions but we are really doing bad history and in doing so this can shake the personal belief of any individual study scripture either in a secular institution or seminary for that matter.
Canon and hypothesis are related. The articulation of the hypothesis is that canon. What is important is that these two points are not separable from scripture. It is like the arrangement of the tiles of the mosaic. When you read it correctly it depicts Christ. It not a a separate body of doctrine. It is a symphony that is in constant harmony of the coming of the Lord through the law of Scripture. Paul speaks like this in the New Testament when reading his letters. The Logos is a Eucharistic Logos (cf. 1 Cor 10 and 11). The Eucharist is the canon and everything else is a canon. We have this tradition being given to us from the very beginning. In the context of meeting the coming Lord it's always been available to us (cf. Luke 24). The handing down is tradition and this is where it comes out from the last part in chapter 24 of the gospel of Luke; the breaking of bread and opening of scripture. However, understanding Christ in our modern times is not suitable in our study of modern theology. We must understand that Tradition and Scripture are not separable at all. They both come from the same tradition. Tradition is the handing down of that which is taught. This is made relevant in the liturgical life of the church; the breaking of bread and opening of scripture.
The key to all of this is what happens at the beginning point is decisive to what happens next. Those early centuries are foundational to helping us understand what we are doing. This does not mean we accept everything everyone says. It's paradigmatic but not definitive when looking back at the fathers. This is why the era of the fathers never ends but then becomes a living tradition. The fathers are still alive to the present day. The same hypothesis stays the same which is centred on Christ. The discussion turns in upon itself and it forgets what it is talking about and that is the unfortunate part. It would be easy to say that they are infants compared to us (the fathers). In that case the way we interpret gospel is based on our modern approach. The question that we must ask before doing any of that is what is your starting point? Whatever our starting point is shapes our reading. The New Testament only came together and exists as a book within a certain context. The most important question for our age then becomes what is theology? The starting point is vital because we must dive in with a clear mind however, if we first as a question then look at Scripture all will do is just look for the answers to that question and never focusing on "what is Scripture", however if you do what the fathers did and is that go into Scripture then you will see the revealed person of Christ. This explains why all the church fathers up to the 4th century (except for Origen) were converts to Christianity. Christ was revealed to them through the opening of Scripture and breaking of bread.
Christ died a violent death. In light of that at His conquering death by death is how we encounter Christ. Now we can say Adam sinned and death came into the world. Christ came into the world and righteousness came into the world. The encounter of Christ who conquered death showed that death can be conquered. Death is the last enemy. We do not know sin until we encounter Christ. In order to know the problem we have to look at the solution (the cross). You do not start with sin to know Christ but rather we should have an open mind set by first thinking about the solution. If this is how we ought to think about it then having a problem and coming to Christ is not a good thing because we will come out more messed up because we have a perspective (bias) trying to know and encounter Christ. It's when we encounter Christ that we know we are sinful and by doing this we look at the solution and not the problem and by looking at the solution we will see the problem. It's the light that makes you see the darkness and realize it. Darkness does not know it is dark until the light shines. It is not until Paul encounters Christ till he proclaims the sin. That is why when you look at the solution you will understand the problem. Instead of thinking you know your problem, the encounter with Christ redefines what the problem is and not what you think it is. And this is how I know myself as a forgiven sinner. We are then redeemed recreated and any other word you want to use to express this. The church fathers never wrote about "salvation history". The term is a 17th century invention. If the cross is the starting point then we must start with the cross and not Genesis. Salvation has then come through the cross!
Having established the order we are in light of that we can also see that the problem has become the solution. How does Christ conquer death? By his death! It is by death, baptism, taking up the cross etc that we enter into life. Too often people say "Christ has conquered death we are set free as if we are not going to die". Christ has not let the bondage of the fear of death out of us. We were held down by it but by His conquering of death we can see death even more and becomes part of the solution.
We then must ask was the fall inevitable? You put yourself in a situation to ask should have it happened? Well what we do know is that Christ conquered death by death and we can say sin came into the world by Adam; the enemy of death is removed from us and He has turned it inside out by becoming the means of life. We have then to die in order to live! You can unpack that much more fully like Adam had the breath of life which would die eventually; Christ brought the spirit which is life eternal. All things are encompassed by Christ action. It is not a question about if death had to happen or not. We all have been dying. Christ showed us that we are dying because we are not living his law in light of Christ. The selfless sacrificial life is not how we have been living. We have been living for ourselves. We have been taught all our lives that we have life in ourselves. What do we do with that? We secure it develop it etc. Christ says you are a fool. If you think you can preserve it you will lose it but if you lay it down you will gain it. This life then cannot go through death because we have gone through death! The fact of our mortality is a means to enter His life because He showed us what it means to be god. This plays out from the whole of creation. Adam is the type of one to come meaning the one to come must have lived before Him and Adam must model Him but the problem is that Christ was not shown or revealed. The life of God is not known and it it is not known then the human race lived for itself! We come into this world very egocentric. We do not start living for others but we come into the world asking to be freed. We have to learn to live for others. We better learn this because we are going to "die" either way.
God reduces everything to nothing in order to build it back up and this is a major theme in Scripture. Death and baptism play on this theme and death and Eucharist plays on this theme of death. If Christ is the Eucharist then when we die when we are partaking of the Eucharist by choosing this death. Creation happens at the end not the beginning. Creation happens when we chose death not life. Creation is death in Christ. To be a creature of God you must be the will of God. This is looking at the solution first before looking at the problem. This is coming to Christ with the solution who then reveals the problem. The potter makes the pot and he makes it as he wants it and not what the pot wants. We are not yet creatures of God if we do not carry God's will. This will happens when we break down to clay and He will fashion us. He has to break it down in order to bring it up; the same theme echoed in Scriptures. Origen is then not wrong when he says Christ is a being because he is referring to this whole process of the breaking down and brings it back up as the means of salvation. Christ then had to become human (breaking down) in order to save (to come back up). When you get into the 4th century, you get the reality of begotten etc. If we are not creatures then we are creatures in process. We are being formed but we are not yet perfected. Christ was the perfect being.
To conclude we have focused on the question of death. This all goes back to the point Christ shows us what it is to be god in the way he dies as human being. If that is the case we are in a difficult position because people today do not see death. Yes we know people die but "we do not see death". The biggest change in the whole history of human race that's changed in the past 50 years has to do with the concept of death. A common feature was back not too long ago you would have had a sibling dying at child birth or even before they reached the age of adulthood. You would have had their bodies in your house for a few days at least. Society was a part of death but death was seen as a good thing because death was not understood as something bad. However, when someone dies today the medical services have to come in as soon as possible to take the body away. People today do not see death. People today do not have funerals but a party to celebrate the life of the individual. If Christ shows us how to die as a human being and if we do not see death we do not see the face of God and if we do not see the face of God then we will never understand the point which was echoed by scriptures and by the fathers; "Christ shows us what it is to be god in the way he dies as a human being". And this would explain why during the climax of the liturgical year we sing the hymn of the resurrection..."Christ is risen from the death trampling down death by death and upon those in the tomb bestowing eternal life".
This following talking given by Fr. John Behr relates to what was written in this blog entry. I recommend everyone to watch it completely but the part that speaks about this blog entry starts at the 47 minute mark of the video and goes for about 10 minutes. Enjoy.
The truth about Christ is not then to be understood on the historical level which is not to say that gospels are not true; it is not a matter of history but it means that the criteria of truth is measured in Him as the way to see truth in history. In measuring history through Christ we are not to be denying the negative which is "history". This can be the same when we reflect on our past. Our past is changed with our current encounter with Christ. It's my way working to Christ and to that truth. What we are interested in is the truth of Christ. In doing so a distinction must be made between History and Theology. We always want to reduce theology to history. This should never be the case. The discourse (study) of theology is not subject to the discourse of history. It's not denying history but truth is not found in history. These two concepts cannot be mingled because out of it contradictions can be brought forth. When you mix theology and history silly questions begin to be asked for example when did Christ die (6th or 9th hour?) And how many times did the cock crow? This is why it should point you to the fact this is theology and not history. When we mix theology and history we will be asked questions that can never be answered. "But I am going to concern myself with trying to establish which one happened or why because you cannot historicize history to theology because it will never work out" and this not theology because what you are doing now is using bias to make theology work. Scripture is understood as a theological reflection and if it is understood as a theological reflection then everything within Scripture is in a sense the perfect word of God.
The truth of Christ:
The truth that Christ is not a matter of history because then you subject Him and His truth to history which is not correct to do because if you do so then Christ fails to be the promised Messiah. Christ is much more than that and He can now change history if He so chose to. This all goes back to our encounter with and how He changes us. He is then the definition; the content; the starting point. His revelation in this world is a transformation of this world into Himself. Theology is then a very different discourse. An analogy to demonstrate this would be between an icon and photograph. An icon is not a photograph; the saints look at the painter representing the person of Christ so then the saint does not become the focus on the Icon rather the Icon is transformed into a window into heaven to reflect on the person of Christ. This is what distinguishes between an Icon and a photograph. Another analogy is how we understand scripture. Scripture has always been understood as a theological reflection of the community. This explains why Christ "died at different times in the passion narrative or why the cock crew one or three times etc". It's because the gospels representing Scripture is a theological reflection on the person of Christ and not a history book. The sad part is that we have forgotten this discourse and think we are doing theology by asking such questions but we are really doing bad history and in doing so this can shake the personal belief of any individual study scripture either in a secular institution or seminary for that matter.
Canon and hypothesis are related. The articulation of the hypothesis is that canon. What is important is that these two points are not separable from scripture. It is like the arrangement of the tiles of the mosaic. When you read it correctly it depicts Christ. It not a a separate body of doctrine. It is a symphony that is in constant harmony of the coming of the Lord through the law of Scripture. Paul speaks like this in the New Testament when reading his letters. The Logos is a Eucharistic Logos (cf. 1 Cor 10 and 11). The Eucharist is the canon and everything else is a canon. We have this tradition being given to us from the very beginning. In the context of meeting the coming Lord it's always been available to us (cf. Luke 24). The handing down is tradition and this is where it comes out from the last part in chapter 24 of the gospel of Luke; the breaking of bread and opening of scripture. However, understanding Christ in our modern times is not suitable in our study of modern theology. We must understand that Tradition and Scripture are not separable at all. They both come from the same tradition. Tradition is the handing down of that which is taught. This is made relevant in the liturgical life of the church; the breaking of bread and opening of scripture.
The key to all of this is what happens at the beginning point is decisive to what happens next. Those early centuries are foundational to helping us understand what we are doing. This does not mean we accept everything everyone says. It's paradigmatic but not definitive when looking back at the fathers. This is why the era of the fathers never ends but then becomes a living tradition. The fathers are still alive to the present day. The same hypothesis stays the same which is centred on Christ. The discussion turns in upon itself and it forgets what it is talking about and that is the unfortunate part. It would be easy to say that they are infants compared to us (the fathers). In that case the way we interpret gospel is based on our modern approach. The question that we must ask before doing any of that is what is your starting point? Whatever our starting point is shapes our reading. The New Testament only came together and exists as a book within a certain context. The most important question for our age then becomes what is theology? The starting point is vital because we must dive in with a clear mind however, if we first as a question then look at Scripture all will do is just look for the answers to that question and never focusing on "what is Scripture", however if you do what the fathers did and is that go into Scripture then you will see the revealed person of Christ. This explains why all the church fathers up to the 4th century (except for Origen) were converts to Christianity. Christ was revealed to them through the opening of Scripture and breaking of bread.
Christ died a violent death. In light of that at His conquering death by death is how we encounter Christ. Now we can say Adam sinned and death came into the world. Christ came into the world and righteousness came into the world. The encounter of Christ who conquered death showed that death can be conquered. Death is the last enemy. We do not know sin until we encounter Christ. In order to know the problem we have to look at the solution (the cross). You do not start with sin to know Christ but rather we should have an open mind set by first thinking about the solution. If this is how we ought to think about it then having a problem and coming to Christ is not a good thing because we will come out more messed up because we have a perspective (bias) trying to know and encounter Christ. It's when we encounter Christ that we know we are sinful and by doing this we look at the solution and not the problem and by looking at the solution we will see the problem. It's the light that makes you see the darkness and realize it. Darkness does not know it is dark until the light shines. It is not until Paul encounters Christ till he proclaims the sin. That is why when you look at the solution you will understand the problem. Instead of thinking you know your problem, the encounter with Christ redefines what the problem is and not what you think it is. And this is how I know myself as a forgiven sinner. We are then redeemed recreated and any other word you want to use to express this. The church fathers never wrote about "salvation history". The term is a 17th century invention. If the cross is the starting point then we must start with the cross and not Genesis. Salvation has then come through the cross!
Having established the order we are in light of that we can also see that the problem has become the solution. How does Christ conquer death? By his death! It is by death, baptism, taking up the cross etc that we enter into life. Too often people say "Christ has conquered death we are set free as if we are not going to die". Christ has not let the bondage of the fear of death out of us. We were held down by it but by His conquering of death we can see death even more and becomes part of the solution.
We then must ask was the fall inevitable? You put yourself in a situation to ask should have it happened? Well what we do know is that Christ conquered death by death and we can say sin came into the world by Adam; the enemy of death is removed from us and He has turned it inside out by becoming the means of life. We have then to die in order to live! You can unpack that much more fully like Adam had the breath of life which would die eventually; Christ brought the spirit which is life eternal. All things are encompassed by Christ action. It is not a question about if death had to happen or not. We all have been dying. Christ showed us that we are dying because we are not living his law in light of Christ. The selfless sacrificial life is not how we have been living. We have been living for ourselves. We have been taught all our lives that we have life in ourselves. What do we do with that? We secure it develop it etc. Christ says you are a fool. If you think you can preserve it you will lose it but if you lay it down you will gain it. This life then cannot go through death because we have gone through death! The fact of our mortality is a means to enter His life because He showed us what it means to be god. This plays out from the whole of creation. Adam is the type of one to come meaning the one to come must have lived before Him and Adam must model Him but the problem is that Christ was not shown or revealed. The life of God is not known and it it is not known then the human race lived for itself! We come into this world very egocentric. We do not start living for others but we come into the world asking to be freed. We have to learn to live for others. We better learn this because we are going to "die" either way.
God reduces everything to nothing in order to build it back up and this is a major theme in Scripture. Death and baptism play on this theme and death and Eucharist plays on this theme of death. If Christ is the Eucharist then when we die when we are partaking of the Eucharist by choosing this death. Creation happens at the end not the beginning. Creation happens when we chose death not life. Creation is death in Christ. To be a creature of God you must be the will of God. This is looking at the solution first before looking at the problem. This is coming to Christ with the solution who then reveals the problem. The potter makes the pot and he makes it as he wants it and not what the pot wants. We are not yet creatures of God if we do not carry God's will. This will happens when we break down to clay and He will fashion us. He has to break it down in order to bring it up; the same theme echoed in Scriptures. Origen is then not wrong when he says Christ is a being because he is referring to this whole process of the breaking down and brings it back up as the means of salvation. Christ then had to become human (breaking down) in order to save (to come back up). When you get into the 4th century, you get the reality of begotten etc. If we are not creatures then we are creatures in process. We are being formed but we are not yet perfected. Christ was the perfect being.
To conclude we have focused on the question of death. This all goes back to the point Christ shows us what it is to be god in the way he dies as human being. If that is the case we are in a difficult position because people today do not see death. Yes we know people die but "we do not see death". The biggest change in the whole history of human race that's changed in the past 50 years has to do with the concept of death. A common feature was back not too long ago you would have had a sibling dying at child birth or even before they reached the age of adulthood. You would have had their bodies in your house for a few days at least. Society was a part of death but death was seen as a good thing because death was not understood as something bad. However, when someone dies today the medical services have to come in as soon as possible to take the body away. People today do not see death. People today do not have funerals but a party to celebrate the life of the individual. If Christ shows us how to die as a human being and if we do not see death we do not see the face of God and if we do not see the face of God then we will never understand the point which was echoed by scriptures and by the fathers; "Christ shows us what it is to be god in the way he dies as a human being". And this would explain why during the climax of the liturgical year we sing the hymn of the resurrection..."Christ is risen from the death trampling down death by death and upon those in the tomb bestowing eternal life".
This following talking given by Fr. John Behr relates to what was written in this blog entry. I recommend everyone to watch it completely but the part that speaks about this blog entry starts at the 47 minute mark of the video and goes for about 10 minutes. Enjoy.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The enthronement of Patriarch Tawadros II the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria
Axios, Axios, Axios the church shouted in joy and happiness. On Sunday November 18th we remember a few things. It was the same day the council of Nicaea began according to the Synaxrium. Also more importantly we remember the day of the Lord and His resurrection (Sunday). Also on this very special day we also remember the enthronement of His Holiness Patriarch Tawadros II, the 118th Patriarch of Alexandria decedent from the Apostle St. Mark. What a true joy it is to share in such a blessing. The church had not witnessed such a moment since 1971 with the enthronement of his late Patriarch Shenounda III, his memory be eternal. November 18th was for many a blessed day because it was the first time they got to see such an occasion within the church. One should appreciate the beauty and depth of the Orthodox Church after seeing what they saw. Most important the love that all Orthodox Churches have for each other was truly expressed on this day. Many representatives from all Orthodox Churches were present and this shows the love we all have for each other. The selfless sacrifice that we are called to carry out in our lives. The love was also expressed at the climax moment when Metropolitan Bachomius said and I will paraphrase here I will return to my dioceses to serve under the feet of my son Patriarch Tawadross II. How amazing, is this as Metropolitan Bachomius essentially was saying that me being the teacher will learn from the kid I brought up and thought to be my student. This is the ultimate form of love and sacrifice anyone can show to another human being. Truly a blessed service and may God grant the newly ordained Patriarch Tawadros II many years and a peaceful time at the Patriarch of Alexandria and to all Orthodox Christians in the world. The joy of this celebration can be expressed by one word as Patriarch Theodore II, the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria proclaimed when giving his gift to Patriarch Tawadros; Axios!
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Father Arseny
This is a beautiful story and I recommend everyone to read Fr. Arseny's book. This is an excerpt from one of the chapters that my beloved brother shared on his blog and I thought I would share the beauty and to see how one ought to live there lives. This is what it is meant and exemplified by living out ones liturgy. Father Arseny never held back and always lived according to the will of God in every insistent that was presented to him. I hope you see the beauty from this one small example of his life and in seeing the beauty and we live out our liturgy constantly in our lives!
http://returnorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-story-of-father-arseny.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)