Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Does Orthodox Wiki Reflect the Standard Orthodox View?
Globally? In the English-speaking world?
The OrthodoxWiki entry on Consecration of a bishop:
Is this view the result of Western influence? Or can it be found within the Byzantine tradition itself? How far back does it go?
In the entry for "Presbyter" it is written:
Is this the standard Orthodox understanding of the history of the presbyterate and of the New Testament on the relation between the presbyters and the episkopoi? Unfortunately no sources are given for these points in the article. Are there any historical sources that explain the separation of the two orders and the justification for the presbyterate deriving the power to exercise their office from the bishop?
The OrthodoxWiki entry on Consecration of a bishop:
The consecration of a bishop is the process during which a candidate for the episcopate receives the fullness of the grace of the priesthood through the Sacred Mystery of ordination by the laying of hands (in the Greek: χειροτονία, Cheirotonia) in succession from the Holy Apostles. The office of bishop is the highest clerical rank in the Orthodox Church. While some bishops may receive titles such as Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop, all bishops are equal and the titles are administrative ranks and marks of dignity and honor. At his consecration, a bishop receives grace not only to perform the Sacred Mysteries but also to bestow the grace of ordination on others.
Is this view the result of Western influence? Or can it be found within the Byzantine tradition itself? How far back does it go?
In the entry for "Presbyter" it is written:
The word 'presbyter' is, in the Bible, a synonym for bishop (Gr: επίσκοπος - episkopos), referring to a leader in local Church congregations. However, since at least the second century, it has been understood as distinct from bishop and synonymous with priest. Its literal meaning in Greek (Gr: πρεσβύτερος - presbyteros) is "elder."And later in the article:
The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Is this the standard Orthodox understanding of the history of the presbyterate and of the New Testament on the relation between the presbyters and the episkopoi? Unfortunately no sources are given for these points in the article. Are there any historical sources that explain the separation of the two orders and the justification for the presbyterate deriving the power to exercise their office from the bishop?
A Defense That Actually Highlights the Problem
CWR: The shepherds we need—or the shepherds I want? by Fr. Charles Fox
Bishops are vital to the Church’s life and mission, they face incredibly difficult pastoral situations every day, and they deserve to be treated with justice and mercy, just like anyone else.
The problem? Latin bishops are selected by the bishop of Rome, usually with the assistance of the papal nuncio to the country in question, who solicits suggestions from bishops and others of that country. Do any of the people who are involved in this election process have sufficient personal knowledge of the candidates that if one of the candidates were accused of sexual misconduct, they could state that they believe he is innocent, even if the allegations are "credible"? And we must also consider that transferring bishops from one see to another happens regularly in the patriarchate of Rome, and outsiders are often installed in the see of a diocese. Let us be clear, the naming of bishops by Rome is not a practice that dates back to Sts. Peter and Paul. (And of course the bishop of Rome should not be naming or even "confirming" non-Latin bishops. He should only acknowledge and perhaps congratulate non-Latin bishops upon their election and consecration/installation.)
What should be happening instead? The local Church should choosing its bishop, whether the naming of candidates be by a select few, the presbyteral synod, or with the involvement of the Christian people as well. At the very least they should be able to affirm or reject candidates based on personal familiarity with the character of the candidate? Should the election of one candidate from the many be by lot? Or by voting? These details do not matter at the moment, as we are nowhere near to restoring this ancient custom to the Latin churches. But we should be making some sort of movement to that custom where possible. If it is not possible because the scale of the local Church is too large, then that needs to be changed. If it is not possible because the people are not sufficiently catechized and cannot judge accurately the character of their presbyters and prominent laymen, then maybe the juridical status of the local Church should be abolished and replaced with a mission territory.
This is not to say that any of the other patriarchates or national churches or what have you are completely free of this problem. But is there any jurisdiction which is as centralized as the patriarchate of Rome in this regard?
Bishops are vital to the Church’s life and mission, they face incredibly difficult pastoral situations every day, and they deserve to be treated with justice and mercy, just like anyone else.
Just one difficulty with applying this secular approach to criticism of the bishops is that the bishops did not choose their positions of authority. They were chosen. “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you” (Jn 15:16), Our Lord told His first bishops at the Last Supper.
But isn’t it true that ambition helped propel some of our bishops down the path towards the episcopacy? In all probability, yes. But this admission does not change the more fundamental truth that the Church, in the person of the Pope, chooses priests to become bishops. And so it is unjust to think of public criticism as “part of the package” of the life they have chosen for themselves.
Criticism will always come to every leader, but the critic, especially one who purports to be a devout Catholic, has his own moral responsibility to make sure that both the substance and the form of his criticism are appropriately just and merciful.
The problem? Latin bishops are selected by the bishop of Rome, usually with the assistance of the papal nuncio to the country in question, who solicits suggestions from bishops and others of that country. Do any of the people who are involved in this election process have sufficient personal knowledge of the candidates that if one of the candidates were accused of sexual misconduct, they could state that they believe he is innocent, even if the allegations are "credible"? And we must also consider that transferring bishops from one see to another happens regularly in the patriarchate of Rome, and outsiders are often installed in the see of a diocese. Let us be clear, the naming of bishops by Rome is not a practice that dates back to Sts. Peter and Paul. (And of course the bishop of Rome should not be naming or even "confirming" non-Latin bishops. He should only acknowledge and perhaps congratulate non-Latin bishops upon their election and consecration/installation.)
What should be happening instead? The local Church should choosing its bishop, whether the naming of candidates be by a select few, the presbyteral synod, or with the involvement of the Christian people as well. At the very least they should be able to affirm or reject candidates based on personal familiarity with the character of the candidate? Should the election of one candidate from the many be by lot? Or by voting? These details do not matter at the moment, as we are nowhere near to restoring this ancient custom to the Latin churches. But we should be making some sort of movement to that custom where possible. If it is not possible because the scale of the local Church is too large, then that needs to be changed. If it is not possible because the people are not sufficiently catechized and cannot judge accurately the character of their presbyters and prominent laymen, then maybe the juridical status of the local Church should be abolished and replaced with a mission territory.
This is not to say that any of the other patriarchates or national churches or what have you are completely free of this problem. But is there any jurisdiction which is as centralized as the patriarchate of Rome in this regard?
Monday, March 30, 2020
A Meditation by Dom Pius de Hemptinne
He was a Benedictine (1879–1907), a disciple of Dom Columba Marmion.
NLM
A Latin view, with an emphasis almost solely on our Lord's death and no mention of the Resurrection, and of course the key word is sacrifice, but there is no definition of that word to be found here at least:
NLM
A Latin view, with an emphasis almost solely on our Lord's death and no mention of the Resurrection, and of course the key word is sacrifice, but there is no definition of that word to be found here at least:
THE DEATH OF A GOD, dying for the salvation of men, is the central point in the history of mankind. All ages bear witness to and converge towards it: the preceding centuries point to its coming, the others are destined to harvest its fruits.
The death of Christ is the centre of history, and also the centre of the life of each man in particular. In the eyes of God every man will be great in proportion as he takes part in that deed; for the only true and eternal dignity is that belonging to the divine Priest. The degree of each one’s holiness will be in exact proportion as he participates in that bloody immolation. For the Lamb of God alone is holy.
But although Jesus Christ the divine High Priest appeared only once on earth, to offer up His great sacrifice on Calvary; yet, every day He appears in the person of each one of His ministers, to renew His sacrifice on the altar. In every altar, then, Calvary is seen: every altar becomes an august place, the Holy of holies, the source of all holiness. Thither all must go to seek Life, and thither all must continually return, as to the source of God’s mercies.
A True Believer?
Following upon this post; some videos which reveal Charles Taylor's attitudes towards multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration.
Latin "Integralism"
Tied to a notion of the Papal [ordinary] Magisterium which can make sense only from a maximalist view of the papacy.
The Josias: Coronavirus and Public Masses: An Integralist Perspective by Felix de St. Vincent
The Josias: Coronavirus and Public Masses: An Integralist Perspective by Felix de St. Vincent
In the integralist understanding, the civil authority is subject to the law of the ecclesiastical authority. In Immortale dei, Leo XIII reminds us that nature and reason confirm, “we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will” (Par. 6).
Speculation on Prelapsarian Human Nature
How far can one take it? And why should one take St. Maximos the Confessor as THE expression of Tradition on these points?
Orthodox Christian Theology: How Does Grief Demonstrate Our Original Sin?
If passions, like sadness (or "grief") is a consequence of the Fall, then it is because death is a consequence of the Fall and so we suffer loss and are sad as a result. But what does it mean that sadness is "blameworthy"? Are there no legitimate reasons for being sad, because we have suffered a loss? Is it only legitimate to feel sad out of compassion for the suffering for others? This seems too strict or rigorist to me.
Orthodox Christian Theology: How Does Grief Demonstrate Our Original Sin?
If passions, like sadness (or "grief") is a consequence of the Fall, then it is because death is a consequence of the Fall and so we suffer loss and are sad as a result. But what does it mean that sadness is "blameworthy"? Are there no legitimate reasons for being sad, because we have suffered a loss? Is it only legitimate to feel sad out of compassion for the suffering for others? This seems too strict or rigorist to me.
Saint Maximus taught that sadness is in fact a blameworthy passion that is the result of the fall—a stain of original sin. In the Questions to Thalassius he writes that after the Fall:[T[he great and innumerable mob of passions was introduced into human life and corrupted it. Thus our life became filled with much groaning…If, on the other hand, our condition of self-love is distressed by pain, then we give birth to anger, envy, hate, enmity, remembrance of past injuries, reproach, slander, oppression, sorrow, hopelessness, despair, the denial of providence, torpor, negligence, despondency, discouragement, faint-heartedness, grief out of season, weeping and wailing, dejection, lamentation, envy, jealousy, spite, and whatever else is produced by our inner disposition when it is deprived of occasions for pleasure. (1.2.15)Now, many may contend with Maximus’ teaching by saying Jesus “groaned” (John 11:34) and “wept” (John 11:35). We must be careful to read these passages in a Christologically orthodox way.We know that Jesus “was tempted in every way,” but we also know that “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13). So, we must understand He was “tempted in every way, WITHOUT SIN” (the Greek does not necessarily include the word “but.”)In other words, He was tempted in every blameless, without sin. sort of way—hunger, thirst, pain, privation—but not by sinful temptations such as sex, avarice, and the like. I have covered in detail elsewhere that Jesus Christ voluntarily assumed blameless passions, which were in fact not inherent to His sinless human nature as by nature flesh that is sinless, like Adam’s in paradise, experiences none of these things. However, Jesus did voluntarily experience these things as it was naturally possible for Him to. Adamite (prelapsarian) flesh is not glorified flesh—it can contain fallen aspects naturally because the fall did really occur in the prelapsarian flesh, turning it into postlapsarian flesh. Prelapsarian flesh tends towards immortality, but it is not truly immortal until it is glorified. Glorified flesh cannot experience the fall. So, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and others (if they exist) with resurrected bodies cannot fall into sin like Adam and Eve, because they have glorified bodies. This, for them, would be an impossibility.This being said, we must be careful not to assume Jesus weeps for the same reason we grieve. We often grieve because we feel an intense, sorrow due to personal loss or some sort of self-love. Jesus did not experience this sort of sorrow, which Maximus states is from the passions.Weeping that arises from the blameless passions is much different. For example, weeping from laughter is not the same as grief. Weeping from hitting one’s thumb with a hammer also is not the same as grief. Weeping out of compassion and empathy is also not the same as grief.When Jesus wept, this does not mean he was weeping from grief—which clearly the
Theotokos did during her son’s crucifixion.As a brief aside, while grief and weeping from such are blameworthy passions, only the consent of the will to despondency is sin. So, our Orthodox icons of the Theotokos and Saint John weeping at the crucifixion is not a terrible example of sin—this would be absurd. It is a demonstration of God’s people, with postlapsarian flesh, experiencing grief as we all do. They were not despondent and so did not sin. Saint Basil (Letter 260, Par 9) and Saint Maximus (Life of the Virgin, Par 53) both speak of the Theotokos having instant healing from precisely this predicament.The preceding being said, how did Jesus weep? First, let’s plainly look at what the Scriptures indicate. In John 11:31 there are “Jews” consoling Mary and Martha. It is not clear whether they were professional mourners (Jer 9:17), but they wept with Mary and Martha (John 11:33) akin to those wailing for a ruler’s dead daughter in Matt 9:23. Clearly, community-mourning was some sort of social custom in Judea. Contextually, we must understand that Jesus was joining in this social custom, which He was obviously accustomed to. What he was not doing was grieving the death of Lazarus, as He was calm four days beforehand being fully cognizant of its occurrence. Clearly, Jesus was showing pity for Mary and those there, joining in the community mourning.
Tradivox, Again
Tradivox: Where Latin tradition of the second millenium is identified with the Tradition of the Church Universal.
1P5: Tradivox: Bringing Solid Catechisms to the Hungry Faithful
1P5: Tradivox: Bringing Solid Catechisms to the Hungry Faithful
Which catechism is the best?
We get asked this constantly, and the answer really depends on how you measure. A few certainly stand out. The Roman Catechism remains the most authoritative. There are the priceless historical works of Saints Canisius and Bellarmine. The excellent little catechism of Pope St. Pius X must be mentioned, and the extensively reprinted Baltimore Catechism comes to mind for many Americans. These would be a few of the more significant texts in the genre.
Are these your own personal favorites?
Actually, no. My personal favorites are some of the more obscure texts, mostly for devotional reasons. I’ve grown to deeply love the Catholic martyrs and confessors from the early years of the Anglican schism, so there are several catechisms “baptized in blood” from that period that are dear to me — Vaux, Turberville, Doulye, and White, to name a few. The later, more compendious works of Bp. George Hay and Fr. Michael Müller are some other favorites.
The catechisms must all have fascinating histories.
Yes, there are so many stories. We try to give some of that backdrop in the preface of each volume, hoping to assist readers in experiencing a greater spiritual kinship with our Catholic forebears. I recall one man sharing with us that after reading Volume 1 of our Index, he not only learned things about the Faith that he had never heard (after years of Catholic schooling), but was also deeply moved by reading with awareness that these texts were very much written “by martyrs, for martyrs.”
Sunday, March 29, 2020
The Eucharist Makes the Church
Public Orthodoxy: The Church without the Eucharist Is No Longer the Church
A (telephone) conversation with Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas (March 23, 2020)
(also published here)
"I don’t agree with the Divine Liturgy being transmitted by television. I’m confined to my home and will not be able to attend Liturgy. However, I will not turn the television on in order to watch the Liturgy. I consider that an expression of impiety. It is impious for someone to sit and watch the Liturgy."
Related:
Eucharistic Living without the Eucharist by Nicholas Denysenko
Do the Sacraments Prevent Illness? A Survey of Liturgical Sources by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko
No Danger of Disease from Holy Communion, Scientific Studies Say by Fr. Joseph Gleason
A (telephone) conversation with Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas (March 23, 2020)
(also published here)
"I don’t agree with the Divine Liturgy being transmitted by television. I’m confined to my home and will not be able to attend Liturgy. However, I will not turn the television on in order to watch the Liturgy. I consider that an expression of impiety. It is impious for someone to sit and watch the Liturgy."
Related:
Eucharistic Living without the Eucharist by Nicholas Denysenko
Do the Sacraments Prevent Illness? A Survey of Liturgical Sources by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko
No Danger of Disease from Holy Communion, Scientific Studies Say by Fr. Joseph Gleason
"Transubstantiation" in the Byzantine Tradition?
Eclectic Orthodoxy: Transubstantiation: Maybe Dositheos Got It Right by the Very Rev. Christiaan Kappes, S.L.D., Ph.L., Ph.D.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Binitarian?
Fr. Hunwicke: OLD MASS: NEW DECREES: Prefaces (1) and OLD MASS NEW DECREES: PREFACES (2)
From the second part:
Setting aside the question of the prefaces -- Will the prayers of the Roman rite ever develop to the point that the Holy Spirit is included? One cannot force a patriarchate to "properly receive" the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, but can one oppose such a development in the name of "tradition" which is really just ideological conservatism?
From the second part:
DISCUSSION.
In my unhumble opinion, the sensible and real choices are either to argue
(1) that the CDF should be asked to reconsider the matter of the Advent and Pre-Lent Prefaces; or
(2) that the Roman Rite, with its severely and primitive binitarian instincts, does not favour the imposition of a Trinitarian character on most of the Sundays of the year, so we should go back to the pre-1759 situation and use simply the Common Preface on Sundays through Advent and Pre-Lent; or
(3) that Sunday is by nature Trinitarian; as long ago as the pre-Gregorian exemplar which Moelcaich the scribe of the Stowe Missal copied, the preface has had a Trinitarian character ... rather as it does in the Byzantine Rite. So ... back to Clement XIII.
Setting aside the question of the prefaces -- Will the prayers of the Roman rite ever develop to the point that the Holy Spirit is included? One cannot force a patriarchate to "properly receive" the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, but can one oppose such a development in the name of "tradition" which is really just ideological conservatism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)