A New Year Meditation

In light of our upcoming New Year celebrations, I have posted a portion of an article by Fr Patick Henry Reardon, a Senior Editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.

Quote:

Whereas English has only one word for time, other European languages more carefully distinguish between time as instance ("How many times?") and time as sequence ("How much time?").

The ancient Greeks, who thought a great deal about time (among many subjects), also had two different words that we English-speakers are forced to translate with the single word "time." Since there is a very profound difference between those two words, and because time is an important theological subject in the New Testament (itself written in Greek), it is useful to examine this difference.

The first Greek term is chronos, meaning time on the move, time as before and after, time as the future passing through the present and so becoming the past. From this Greek word chronos we derive such English terms as chronic, chronicle, and chronology. Thus, we call an illness chronic if it lasts a long time. A chronicle is an account of events through a sequence of time. Chronology is the itemized, studied measurement of time.

Indeed, measurement is one of the distinguishing characteristics of chronos, which is a quantitative concept. Time that cannot be measured is not chronos. Time in this sense is dimensional, quantifiable; it can be "accounted for."

In addition to chronos, however, the Greeks also spoke of time as a moment, time as occasion, time as qualitative rather than quantitative, time as significant rather than dimensional. This second word for time is kairos.

Strictly speaking, we don't measure kairos. We don't ask someone, for example, "How much Christmas did you have?" We inquire, rather, "what sort of Christmas did you have?" With kairos we employ the category of qualis, not quantum.

The reason that time in the sense of kairos cannot be measured is because it is always a now. A now is obviously indivisible; an instant is, so to speak, too brief to account for. By the time you stop to measure a now, it is already gone. Now is punctuated by a swift, indecipherable passage from this to that. Furthermore, if now cannot be measured, it can also not be counted. It is futile, for example, and probably a threat to sanity, to ask how many nows there are in an hour. Unlike the past and the future, nonetheless, the now really exists. Indeed, now is the only time that does exist. In the strictest sense, "there's no time like now."

Kairos, because it is present, is an icon of eternal life. To experience the now, after all, one must be alive. The dead know nothing of now. Therefore, the now, the kairos, is an icon of the life of heaven. Indeed, eternal life is an everlasting now, in which there is no sequence, no before and after.

Eternity is not a long time. Strictly speaking, there is simply no length to it. Nothing elapses. The infinite is not measurable. Thus, "when we've been there ten thousand years/ bright shining as the sun/ we've no less days to sing God's praise/ than when we've first begun."

(The Rev. Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, 2009; article found at http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/ReardonChronos.php,)

A Christmas Meditation

QUOTE:

The origins of the title the “Mother of God” are obscure. What is clear is that the first completely authenticated instances of the use of the title came from the city of Alexandria. Alexander (the predecessor to Athanasius) referred to Mary as Theotokos in his encyclical of circa 319, in his defense against the heresy of Arius. It seems reasonable to conclude that this title already enjoyed widespread acceptance in the piety of the faithful at Alexandria and beyond. (Mary Through The Centuries, Pelikan, 1996)

COMMENTARY:

In any study of Mary, in and in particular, in the study of her role in the redemption of the world, one of the issues that stands out in bright colors is that of her titles. Her titles illumine certain areas of theology in very important & unique ways. Even a cursory analysis of these titles teach us about the various aspects of union between God and man.

Mary’s primary title is that of Theotokos, it is generally translated “mother of God”, however, a more accurate translation would be “bearer of God.” As is obvious this title highlights just as much, if not more, about God than about Mary. The whole point of the title is the incarnation of God.

However, there is an addition benefit gained form the title Theotokos, the title also connects her faithfulness to our salvation, thus giving great value & importance to Mary for each and every Christian. For the Christian, Mary’s value consists of her unique co-operative work (energy) with the desires and work (energies) of the Trinity. By this faithfulness, she unlike Eve, (the mother of those who die) becomes the mother of the one who lives forever, & those who live forever in him. And this faithfulness consisted of freely choosing to gestate, bear, & raise, our Lord. The title Theotokos therefore connects humanity to God, first by highlighting the role of human faithfulness in the plan or redemption, and second by highlighting the role of the incarnation.

Perhaps, one of the main reasons that many contemporary Christians have such a truncated understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation and human works is due to their elimination of Mary & her titles from Christian doctrine. Properly recovering Mary, will be the task of this century for the post reformation west.

The Proceeding and Sending of the Spirit, are They The Same?

QUOTE

We can summarize the chapters 14-16 of John’s gospel by saying that it is the Father who sends the Spirit, but the Spirit’s coming is conditioned by, and is in the most intimate connection with the person of the Jesus, and the completion of his work in his death and resurrection.

We can cite John 14: 16, I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate (NRSV), or 14: 26 the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name. Or also 15: 26, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf” (NRSV). Here, it is Jesus Himself who sends the Spirit- which is what the west wanted to underline- but, it is from the Father that He is Sent; it is from the Father that the ultimate source proceeds, and that is what the east wanted to underline.

The New Testament witness, expressed particularly by John but confirmed by the other evangelists, is that the Spirit is sent by & from the Father but through the Son. The manner in which the Father and the Son are involved in the sending is described in a way that enables both sides to make a credible appeal to the texts. (Nicene Christianity, Thomas Smail, 2001)

COMMENTARY

The battle between East & West regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit has several layers at which the subject must addressed. One is, who gets to create and change the contents of the creeds of the catholic faith? That layer of concern, I will deal with in another post. In this one I will address the canonicity of each side’s claim regarding the procession of the Spirit. As Smail points out, even a cursory overview of the respective passages in scripture reveal that both sides have valid parts to their arguments. However, in order to get to the root of the debate I want to assert that the solution can be found in making a the distinction between the proceeding and sending of the Holy Spirit. What is meant by proceed is that point from which the Spirit finds its origin and its first sending, and what is meant by sending is the continuation of the Spirit to its originally intended destination.

With this distinction made, it seems that the claim of the east while true may be incomplete. Not being exhaustive does not make one's claims wrong, & no one would argue that the original version of the creed meant to be totally exhaustive. Nevertheless, it can also be said that there is incompleteness in the Original creed's dealings with the final destination of the Spirit. the real question is whether or not it is necessary to be more complete in with this creed.

It is here that the west took some risks. One cannot deny that the west's desires were well founded in that they wanted to assert that the procession of the Spirit stops at Jesus unless Jesus sends the Spirit to the church. This assertion of the west is not only correct, but in their opinion a necessary distinction. However it is here that the west errs. Proceeding & sending are not identical. The Spirit initially proceeds from the Father to the Son, and only secondly does the Son send that same Spirit to His Body the church. Therefore to say that there is a double procession is not completely accurate. Yet it is totally true that the sending by the Son completes the destination of the original procession. In short, the procession is through the son. The west seems to have used a term that caused confusion when it added, and the Son (filioque) to the creed, even though the point they tried to make was valid.

Because of the first layer of concerns, which is authority in the church, I personally do not advocate changing the creed from its original form of 381 (without the filioque). However, I am convinced that if instead of the filoque, the west would have would have inserted, “Who proceeds from the Father to the Son,” there would have been no contention raised by the east, & both sides would have gotten their point across. As it stands however, the term proceeding from the Father and the Son is not completely satisfying, and it can even lead to several dangerous misunderstandings regarding the Trinity's nature as primarily a hierarchy. At the same time, I want to affirm that I agree with the west that addressing the sending of the Spirit by our Lord Jesus is relative and important, because without it the work of Christ is belittled, and truncates thus Trinitarian understanding.

The fact is that the east and the west need each other in order to have the fullness of that faith which was delivered to the saints, and this doctrine is just one perfect example of that truth!

Will The Real Trinity Please Stand Up!

QUOTE:

The uncontroversial third article of the creed of 381 became highly controversial some centuries later and led to the Great Shcism between east and west. Where the creed had originally affirmed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father, the west, in an excess anti-Arian zeal, began to confess that the Spirit preceded from the Father and the Son (The Council of Toledo 589 AD). This addition however, was violently rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. (Nicene Christianity, Seitz, 2001).

COMMENTARY:

Many western Christians have no idea why it is that the eastern church gets so frazzled about the “Filioque” clause that was added to the Nicene Creed. The fact is however that for most western reformation Christians, the Trinity is not central to daily life. Yes, reformation Christians know that the Father is credited for bringing about the creation, the Son for redemption of that creation, and the Spirit for the giving life, but beyond that the doctrine looses its centrality. Not so for the first millennium churches. Each of the two communions, the Latin and the Greek, developed a different way of looking at the Trinity and therefore at looking at God.

The Trinity can only be approached from two perspectives, either from the oneness of the godhead (the west), or from the three-ness of the godhead (east). Since Augustine, the west saw the oneness as the place to begin, pure essence, thus in the godhead they concluded was a hierarchy. The Father is first, & He begets the Son, the Son is second, and from the two together proceeds the Spirit. The east however, saw no hierarchy in the godhead, only a circle of mutual self- emptying love. Hence, the Father begets the Son, and from the Father proceeds the Spirit. The Spirit proceeds to the Son & back to the Father, through the Spirit the Father begets the Son, who in turn gives himself to the Father. In this view God is a concilliar Godhead living in perfect wholeness and love, rather than a hierarchical godhead that flows from the top down.

These two differing views produce two different Gods, two different kinds of churches, and two different views of salvation. One sees a monarch that needs to be satisfied for the wrongs done to him, the other sees a co-equal God, each person serving the other. One sees salvation as keeping the hierarch happy by satisfying his legal requirements thru payment, the other sees salvation as on entering into the concilliar life of the godhead by the destruction of death. One sees the church as hierarchical, the lower serving the greater (papal), the other sees the church as concilliar, all serving one another with order.

Thus it is easy to see that unilaterally altering the creed was not only destructive to unity, but also injured the church, and salvation itself, and we in the west now bear its injuries.

An English Orthodox Book of Common Prayer

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

The Administration of the Sacraments and
Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church

IN THE ENGLISH PAROCHIAL TRADITION,
ACCORDING TO ORTHODOX
CATHOLIC USAGE

TABLE of CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Daily Office

the general confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the order for daily morning prayer . . . . . . . . . . . .

old testament canticles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the Athanasian creed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

an order for prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

an order for sext, or midday prayer . . . . . . . . . . . .

the order for daily evening prayer . . . . . . . . . . . .

benediction of the blessed sacrament . . . . . . . . . .

an order for compline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the psalter, or psalms of david . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

prayers and thanksgivings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a bidding prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

forms of prayer to be used in families . . . . . . . .

a penitential office for ash wednesday . . . . . . .

the litany, or general supplication . . . . . . . . . . .

The Mass, or Divine Liturgy

the proper of the season, part i . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

an outline of the mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the asperges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the order for holy mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the proper of the season, part ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the proper of the saints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Sacraments and Pastoral Offices

holy baptism and confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the sacrament of penance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the reception of converts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the solemnization of matrimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the churching of women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

holy communion outside mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the visitation of the sick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the communion of the sick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the anointing of the sick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the litany for the dying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the burial of the dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

the burial of a child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices

i. the calendar of the christian year . . . . . . . . .

ii. the daily office lectionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii. opening sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv. historic eucharistic canons . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v. guides to the mass and the daily office . . . . .

COMMENTARY

The Book of Common Prayer has defined the English Church’s theology, ecclesiology, and piety since the 1549. The book has seen various rewrites since its first version. Some have been very Roman in content, others much more protestant, others more Anglo-catholic, and most recently liberal catholic in content. All reflect Anglicanism as understood by differing sectors of the Anglican Church who produce prayer books for their provinces.

Lancelot Andrewes Press has just released a new Book of Common Prayer that makes a very serious attempt to reform the theology, ecclesiology, and piety of the its users to that of the first millennium English church. It is assembled by Anglican rite Orthodox liturgists, and it is in line with that Holy Orthodoxy that would have existed prior to the great schism between east and west. I have only had this Prayer book for less than one week, but am convinced that it excels beyond in content beyond any other version that I have ever seen, read, or used. May this prayer book restore Anglicanism to the Orthodoxy that rightly belongs to it.

Purification

QUOTE:

For our God Jesus Christ was , according to God’s dispensation, the fruit of Mary’s womb, of the seed of David; He was born and baptized in order that he might make the water holy by His passion. (Letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius of Antioch, ca 100 AD)

COMMENTARY:

Everything about Jesus’ humanity had a purifying affect on the creation. He was as a kind of filter for the removal of all things evil. The teachings of the fathers tell us that everything He came into contact with was mystically transformed for all eternity. According to Ignatius, the power behind this transformative energy is His passion or sufferings. It may be said that the Passion of Christ restored all things to their proper place in creation. But can we really sense that change?

The fact is that all things are not pure in our reality, all water is not pure, all bread is not pure, and all wine is not pure; that being the case how can this be true? The answer to that is found in the mysteries (sacraments) left to us by Christ. When a physical object is employed in a mystery or sacrament, that object used receives the purity that Jesus procured for it. Whether it is the water used for baptism, the oil used for chrysmation, or the bread and wine used for communion, all of these, once consecrated receive the purity that Jesus procured by his passion and that is to come to all creation in the final resurrection, here and now. Hence, the mysteries are a participation in that purity which Christ will bring to creation in the present. Simultaneously, since the energy that obtained this purity was the passion of Christ, when we partake in these mysteries, we also partake in Christ’s passion. This is the reason why the Apostle can say, Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Rom 6: 3. The mysteries or sacraments are a doorway into the death of this corrupted age, and the purity of the age to come for all who believe now.

Has God’s Creation Failed?

QUOTE

In this world Christ was rejected. The fragmentary life of this world was gathered into His life: he was the heartbeat of the world and the world killed him. In that murder the world itself died, and lost its chance to become the paradise that God created it to be. We can go on developing bigger and better things, and even a more humane society that may keep us from annihilating ourselves, but when Christ the true life of the world, was rejected, it was the beginning of the end. That rejection had finality about it. As Pascal said “Christ is in agony until the end of the world.” Christianity often appears however to preach that if men try hard enough to live the Christian lives, the crucifixion can somehow be reversed. This is because Christianity has forgotten itself; it has forgotten that it must first of all stand at the cross. (For the Life of the World, Alexander Schmemann, 1963)

COMMENTARY

There is a huge misapprehension within the church regarding the roles of Christians in this world. Some believe that the world is not worth our time because to labor in it is to polish brass on a sinking ship. Others believe that the ship has arrived, and that it is now time to set things right for its crew. Both of these popular views miss the main point of our true situation. Fr. Alexander gets at the heart of the matter when he writes, “Jesus was the heartbeat of the world and the world killed him”, and consequently by “that murder the world itself died, and lost its chance to become the paradise that God created it to be”. The significance of this for Christian living is gigantic because it strips the Christian mind of every delusion that we can bring this world back to life. We cannot bring the world back, it is dead! Now there is only the hope of a new world. Therefore, all right belief and right practice for this life must begin at the cross of our Lord Jesus.

Seeing the dead state of this present creation has real consequences upon what we think, say, and do. When St Paul said, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 1 Cor 2: 2.” he affirmed the fact that all right belief and right practice for this life must have as its launching pad a view of the crucifixion of our Lord. Consequently, this means that this it also includes an understanding that this is a failed creation and that real life lies in another creation. It is upon that creation that we place our sights and our hopes here and now in the midst of death. For now we have life amongst the dead. This may seem like a dark way to view the world, and in many ways it is, but how much worse would it be if all there were is death. Our great hope is that death is going away, and true life is on its way.