Tag: Orthodoxy

Remembering at Passover and Easter

Passover is a divinely commanded remembrance ritual that celebrates the liberation from Egypt of the enslaved descendants of Jacob/Israel.
   The Bible describes the many, failed attempts to convince the Pharaoh to grant them freedom. Ten plagues or divine actions were meant to force his hand. He resisted nine, but with the tenth, the death of every firstborn son, he relented and allowed the Hebrews to leave Egypt.
   Through Moses and Aaron, God had instructed the Hebrew people what to do to safeguard their firstborn sons during this final, dreadful, and decisive plague.
   They had been told to sacrifice a lamb, to smear its blood on the doorposts and lintel of their dwellings as a sign to the angel of death to pass over them, and to make a meal of the sacrificed lamb.
   For many centuries the key element of the Passover ritual was an actual sacrificial offering, in the Jerusalem temple, of a lamb, followed by a sacrificial meal. But, with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, it was no longer possible to have the sacrifice.
   Gradually, the meal, the remembrance ritual changed. The remembrance included that of the sacrificial lamb itself, and the meal, no longer actually sacrificial, became more symbolic, a reminder of the ancient salvific acts of God.
   The Passover ritual meal (the Seder) also includes various other symbols that remind the participants of details of what they are remembering of the past with thanksgiving and hope.
   Jesus’s death is tied to Passover; his last supper meal with his disciples before his death is usually identified as a Passover ritual—and anticipatory to the great sacrifice of Jesus’ life (as the lamb of God).
   For Christians, this ultimate sacrifice of Jesus is at the heart of their version (the Mass) of the ancient remembrance ritual.

   Just as on the evening of the tenth plague a lamb was sacrificed and its blood became salvific, so the first followers of Jesus viewed his death on the cross.
   Just as, in the Seder, the sparing of the firstborn of the Hebrews and their liberation is symbolically celebrated, so too, in the Mass, our being spared and liberated by the death of Jesus is remembered and symbolically celebrated.
   Jesus himself gave the remembrance symbols to his followers: the broken bread, shared by all at the table, this was his body, broken for their and our salvation, and the cup of wine, shared by all at table, this was his blood, shed for their and our salvation.
   “Do this in remembrance of me.” he said.
   This Christian remembrance ritual, rooted in the Passover and associated with the Resurrection, began to be enacted every Lord’s Day (Sunday), not just once a year at Passover (Easter) time. It even became a daily ritual for many.
   Because of centuries of theologizing and analyzing of the specifics of the ritual and the exact meaning of the Lord’s words, as well as great religious divisions about the matter, a great emphasis was placed on transubstantiation and real presence.
   An unintended consequence was less attention to the original significance of the remembrance ritual’s principal symbolic actions, the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the wine.
   Liturgical reforms in the last century were not so much refinements of complex ceremonials, elaborate vesture, and special architectural arrangements as a challenge to us to rebalance our understanding of this core remembrance ritual of our lives.

16 April 2023
(Adopted from a
21 March 2021 original)

Freedom of Spirit

It’s curious how sometimes a relatively familiar thing suddenly catches your eye and all of a sudden you see it in a new light.
   I was praying the Divine Office, when a concluding Morning prayer struck me like that:

   God of power and mercy.
   Protect us from all harm.
   Give us freedom of spirit
   and health in mind and body
   to do your work on earth.

   Of course, I would ask for health of mind and body to work for God—but to ask for freedom of spirit…? (Were I Hamlet, I might say, “there’s the rub!”)
   To work for God usually involves obeying the commandments, following the laws of the Church, and “doing what you’re told.”
   “Freedom of spirit,” that’s skating on thin ice. It implies that you might be going against tradition to work for God—at least in the sense that you become convinced that God is pushing or pulling you in a new direction!
   “Freedom of spirit” implies that you are seeking to be open to the action of God in your life, no matter how strange or innovative it may be for you.
   To exercise freedom of spirit suggests that you are open to new possibilities, that you are not afraid to be a trail blazer, that you may decide to go “where no one has gone before”.
   Of course, this can be a recipe for disaster, too! We can mistake our desires for God’s action and will! We may be courageously stupid!
   But, isn’t that what freedom of spirit implies? We don’t always get things right, especially at first.
   We learn by doing! We learn by trial and error. We learn by experimenting and experiencing.

   From one point of view the Sacred Scriptures, the collection of writings that we call the Bible, are a record of our collective learning experiences over the long past centuries, a record of successes and failures.
   A God-given freedom of spirit includes freedom to make mistakes, to better understand the will of God, to stumble and bumble to get things right.
   From the point of view of keepers of records, of curators of museums, of defenders of the past, it may seem an invitation to chaos.
   A God-given freedom of spirit includes both the courage to risk innovating and the courage to risk failure—in other words, the courage to learn new things.
   The great prophets of the Bible innovated and often paid a steep price for their innovations. Jesus’s teachings were not always fully understood nor accepted.
   It’s curious, when it comes to scientific research and development, we unhesitatingly applaud the great (and successful) experimenters.
   But, when it comes to religion and belief, it’s the opposite; we hesitate to applaud experimenters.
   Doing the work of God absolutely may include experimenting, trial and error, and mistakes and successes. But, all this is part of the plan of God for human life.
  Progress is not possible without freedom of spirit as well as health in mind and body. And, freedom of spirit is not without failures as well as with successes.
    But, beware blithe spirits. Remember, before asking God for freedom of spirit and health in mind and body, we pray to be protected from all harm!


1 January 2023

Testing for Orthodoxy

With two, going on three, years of living with Covid, we’ve all become accustomed to certain dangers and also protective measures—and testing procedures and kits.
   Besides concern for physical health and well-being, how about spiritual? Is there any way we can test ourselves about our religious belief and practice? Is it good? Is it right? Is it Orthodox? Is it in accordance with the will of God?
   Especially with the kind of polarization that seems to afflict modern thought, including politics and religion, it gets harder and harder to get things right.
   Is there a simple, easy, and reliable test we can use?
   Believe it or not, St. Vincent of Lérins, a Gallic monk, who lived about 1,800 years ago in what we now call France, proposed a simple and easy test for healthy faith:
   Believe that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.
   In other words, test for universality, antiquity, and consent. He identified this as being truly and properly “Catholic” (meaning “universal”).
   He explained, “We shall follow
   -universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses;
   -antiquity if we in no way depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed;
   -consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
   Is this an iron-clad, absolutely effective, always faultless test? Of course not! No human devising ever can be—but it’s pretty accurate and a useful tool for self-examination.
   Remember, St. Vincent of Lérins also wrote strikingly about the difference between development and alteration:

   Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
   Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
   The understanding, knowledge, and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning, and the same impact.
   Vincent compared this kind of development with that of the body: Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were.
   If you sometimes feel uncomfortable with certain changes and developments in the Church, which you may consider to be too “newfangled” to be trusted, it may be of some consolation to realize that change and development have always been part of the life of the church—and part of the growth of the church.
   St. Vincent was trying his best to assure his monastic brothers and others who read his writings that all is well.
   Growth, development, and new insights and understandings can be very valuable, healthy, progressive—and vice-versa! Sorting out the differences is a pretty tricky business.
   It’s reassuring to realize that this is not a new or exclusively recent phenomenon. St. Vincent was trying to clarify a similar situation centuries ago. His test is still good!


13 November 2022

A Loving Heart

I want a loving heart more than sacrifice, knowledge of my ways more than holocausts.
   (An antiphon from The Liturgy of the Hours according to the Roman rite)

   In chapter 11-12 of his Gospel, Matthew tells how Jesus is challenged in Jerusalem by the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders (11:27). They sent some Pharisees and Herodians to ensnare him in his speech (12:13). Some Sadducees, also joined in (12:18) . . .
   One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?” Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
   The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, ‘He is One and there is no other than he.’ And ‘to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself’ is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
   And when Jesus saw that he answered with understanding, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (12:28-34)
   This scribe really understood the radical teaching of Jesus. The Judaism of that time gave great importance to Temple sacrifices of all kinds including burnt offerings.
   For devout people, animal and vegetable sacrificial offerings in the Temple and rules about clean and unclean food were the most important of their religious observances.

   Jesus, when asked which was the first of all the commandments of God, said there is nothing more important than love—love of God and love of neighbor.
   The scribe who commended him clearly understood how startling Jesus’s response was—Jesus placed love ahead of all the other commandments, all the Temple sacrifices, and all the other religious observances and practices of his day.
   Do we realize the radical nature of Jesus’s teaching? Do we understand the overriding importance of love in the scheme of things? Remember, at his last supper, Jesus made this his legacy commandment:
   I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. (John 13:34)
   As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.
   I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete.This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
   You are my friends if you do what I command you. (John 15:9-14)
   This is the highest priority for a follower of Jesus—more important than any other commandment, rule, custom, practice, religious devotion, preference, or teaching.
   Better to miss Mass on Sunday than not love! Better to live together without marriage than not love! Better to be unorthodox than not love!
   I want a loving heart more than sacrifice . . . more than holocausts.


11 September 2022

Mindful of the Poor

About twenty years after the resurrection of Jesus, a controversy arose in the Christian community of Antioch about requirements for new members. Some Christians of Jewish background insisted observance of the Mosaic law was required for salvation; the Christians of pagan background disagreed.
The community decided to send Paul, Barnabas and some others to Jerusalem to talk to the apostles and elders about the issue. Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles tells us they set only a few minimums for new Christians, not the whole Mosaic law.
But, Paul’s report on the meeting, in his letter to the Galatians, mentions an important requirement for all Christians, not referred to in Acts, “. . . to be mindful of the poor.”
This mandate drove Paul for the rest of his life. He spoke of it in his letter to the Romans; in his first letter to the Corinthians, he urged, “each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford” for the poor.
His second letter to the Corinthians praised the Macedonians, “for in a severe test of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their profound poverty overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part.
“For according to their means, I can testify, and beyond their means, spontaneously, they begged us insistently for the favor of taking part in the service to the holy ones, and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and to us through the will of God.”
Paul urged the Corinthians also to excel in charity, “…not by way of command, but to test the genuineness of your love by your concern for others.”
He spelt it out for the Corinthians — and for us — giving reason after reason to be generous:

• “For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake he became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich.
• “. . . not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality.
• “Consider this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
• “. . . God loves a cheerful giver.
• “The one who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed and increase the harvest of your righteousness.
• “. . . you are glorifying God for your obedient confession of the gospel of Christ and the generosity of your contribution to them and all the others . . .”
Pope Benedict described Paul’s collection for the poor of Jerusalem as “a completely new initiative in the area of religious activities: it was not obligatory, but free and spontaneous; all the churches that were founded by Paul in the West took part.”
Almost two thousand years later, we still have desperately poor people with us — and “to be mindful of the poor” still ought to be a defining characteristic of the followers of Jesus.
But, daily we hear about tragedy after tragedy. The temptation is, “What can I do about it? Does the little I can do make a significant difference?” Because we can’t solve the problem, we often decide to do nothing about it.
Remember,“Better to light one candle then to curse the darkness.”

(An early version was
published in
one, 35:5, September 2009 )

The Brotherhood of the Orthodox

When the Christian community — the church — began to grow from its origins in Jerusalem, it spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. The westward expansion of the church in the Roman Empire is better known through the New Testament writings.
Christianity also thrived in the empire’s three great urban centers: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. After the foundation of a new Christian capital, Constantinople, it took a prominent place among them.
The four Christian centers or patriarchates of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the daughter churches that sprang or separated from, them are usually described as Orthodox churches — although the title reflects a later period of history when these churches sought to distinguish themselves from Rome.
Many of them share the same liturgy, customs, and traditions; others, different but similar ones.

The ancient Eastern patriarchates. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are “autocephalous” or independent churches, each headed by a patriarch.

Daughter churches of Constantinople. Over the centuries, the Patriarchate of Constantinople constituted or recognized the independence of other churches.
Five are headed by a patriarch: the Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Georgian churches. Five others are headed by an archbishop or metropolitan: the Cypriot, Greek, Polish, Albanian, and Czech-Slovak churches.
The churches of Finland and Estonia are autonomous but not independent.
Five other churches in North America and one in Europe are under Constantinople.

Daughter church of Jerusalem. The monastery of Mount Sinai is autonomous.

Daughter churches of Moscow. The Patriarchate of Moscow constituted the Orthodox Church in America as autocephalous and granted autonomy to churches in Japan and China.

Oriental churches. At the 451 Council of Chalcedon, three churches separated from communion with the others while retaining it among themselves. They and their descendants constitute the Oriental Orthodox churches.
Ancient Armenia was a nation situated on the fringe of the Roman Empire. Its autonomous church was until Chalcedon in communion with the others.
The Coptic (Egyptian) church gradually departed from the usages of ancient Alexandria finally becoming autonomous under its own patriarch. A similar process was repeated in modern times when the Ethiopian church separated from the Coptic and the Eritrean from the Ethiopian.
The Syriac church similarly separated from the Antiochian and, in turn, part of the Malankara (Indian) from the Syriac.

Other churches. Four or five small churches, mostly in Eastern Europe, are in varying degrees of separation from the rest of the Orthodox world.

All these churches take pride in their “orthodoxy” — their fidelity to authentic doctrine. Their faithful witness is part of the precious patrimony of the one Church of Christ.


(Published as “Classifying Orthodox” in
one, 33:2, May 2007)