Stump the Priest: The Priesthood

Edward G. Robinson, playing Dathan, in the movie the Ten Commandments
Question: "How does the Orthodox Church views the nature of Holy Orders when compared to the view of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman church claims that its priests are "Alter Christus," -- another Christ  -- who undergo a fundamental change in being at their ordination, and who will be priests even in heaven or hell ("once a priest always a priest"). Does the Orthodox Church accept this formulation? Perhaps you could also express the Orthodox view of the Protestant notion of the "Priesthood of all believers.""

We of course believe that, not only priests, but all Christians, are called to be like Christ. We also believe that in certain respects and at certain times in the Liturgy a priest or bishop represent Christ in a symbolic sense. We do not believe that ordination leaves an “indelible mark on the soul” and that therefore once a person is ordained a priest or bishop, he is therefore “forever a priest, after the order of Melchizedek.” St. Basil’s 3rd and 32nd canon make clear that if a person is justly deposed, no sacrament that they perform would be valid.

In commenting on Canon 28 of the Holy Apostles, St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain compares someone who is unjustly deposed with an artist whose tools have been taken away from him. Once the unjust deposition is annulled, he is given back his tools, and is able to paint as before. But a person who is justly deposed is like an artist whose hands are crippled, and even if he takes up his tools again, he is unable to again do with them what he was able to do before.

As for the Protestant view of the "Priesthood of all believers," we would agree with them up to a point. St. Peter indeed says that "you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…. you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:5, 9). You also find the same idea expressed three times in the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But you also find the same idea in the Old Testament. For example in the Law of Moses it says "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel" (Exodus 19:6).

However, in the Old Testament, even though they were a kingdom of priests, they still had a distinct priesthood. And there is a very interesting incident found in Numbers chapter 16, in which some people began to assert that there should not be such a distinction. In fact, the basic argument of Korah, Dathan and Abiram is not much different than what you hear from many Protestants:

"They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"" (Numbers 16:3).

If you read the rest of that chapter, you will see that this attempt to democratize the Liturgical Priesthood of the Old Testament did not end well for them.

Deacons, priests, and bishops have a special grace that is bestowed upon them by the laying on of hands (ordination), and so they have a distinct role in leading the people in worship, and performing the sacraments of the Church. They also have special canonical requirements that not all Orthodox Christians are held to. For example, a blind or deaf person cannot be ordained. They also should have good character, and can only have been married once. And if a man who has married a women who has been married before, even if she is a widow, he cannot be ordained. This does not mean that there is any sin in marrying a widow, but it does mean that clergy have to meet certain standards of ritual purity to be ordained... and so must his wife, if he has one. But clergy function in these roles only because they have the blessing of the Church to do so. If that blessing is taken away, they cannot continue to function in those roles. Also, every Orthodox Christian can pray, and do all the services of the Church without a priest -- short of the sacraments and liturgical blessings specific to the clergy. For example, a parent can and should bless their children by making the sign of the cross over them. If an Orthodox layman is unable to attend a Church, they can do a Vigil as a reader service, and do Typika in the place of the Liturgy. An Orthodox Christian can even baptize someone in the case of an emergency. So we are all a kingdom of priests, but God has established a distinct priesthood to perform a particular role in the life of the Church.

Stump the Priest: How Much is Too Much?

St. Poemen the Great

Question: "In this world where we are taught to enjoy ourselves and seek pleasure, where, even as Christians, we want to glorify God's creation, how are we to know when we have reached a level of overly enjoying the pleasures of the earth or of God's creation? I mean to say, if we are relaxing on the beach, or walking in wood, or gazing at the heavens, how do we know when enough is enough? It seems obvious we could or should all be working continuously for the Lord by praying or doing good works. But then it seems almost sinful to not enjoy the beauties of the world and God's creation as well. Is there a formula mentioned or something to help us know when enough is enough?"

There is not a simple formula. When you learn how to ride a bike, you have to learn how to balance your weight on the bike, while you peddle, but how do you do that? You do that by trying to do it, and when you fall down, you get back on the bike, and try it again.

There are some things that are inherently evil, and so there is no question but that we should abstain from such things. But it is not a sin to enjoy a good meal, or enjoy the company of another person. These are good things, but most good things can be taken to excess, and then it can become sinful.. but the sin is in the excess, not in the thing itself.

It can be an even better thing to abstain from such pleasures, if you are doing so out of love for God and a desire to draw closer to Him and to remove things that distract from that desire. But even asceticism can become sinful if it is seen as an end in itself or used as a means to vainglory.

It is also sinful if you abstain from things that are good, because you find them abominable. Canon 51 of the Holy Apostles says:

"If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly."

So marriage is good. Eating meat is good. Drinking wine is good. However, if you abstain from these out of true asceticism, that is also good. But if you view these things as sinful in and of themselves, this view is itself sinful, and if not repented of will separate you from the Church.

So the key here is to find a balance. And what the right balance is will be different for different people.

In order to find that balance, you need to inform your conscience by regularly studying the Scriptures, the writings of the saints, and other edifying books. You need to keep the fasts of the Church. You should also pray that God will guide you, and go to confession regularly. And remember the words of St. Poemen the Great: "Everything that goes to excess comes from the demons" (Saying 129 of St. Poemen, from the Alphabetical Collection of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers).

You can listen to a sermon on some of the sayings of St. Poemen the Great which relate to this question, by clicking here.

                                                

Unfortunate Trends in the Roman Catholic Church

When confronted with videos of really odd abuses in Roman Catholic Masses, such as the video below, Roman Catholic apologists usually just dismiss them as aberrations:



But aside from the usual She-devil distributing communion, or the occasional priest wearing a Barney suit, if you just listen to the music, what you are hearing is run of the mill Charismatic "praise and worship" music.

But then you have this Mass that was done in Los Angeles, with a dozen or so bishops, including the Cardinal, and quite a few deacons and priests, along with thousands of the laity... and this service was broadcasted as well:



Here we have music that could have been from the "Lion King", followed by a Charismatic "praise and worship" song that could have been sung in any non-denominational Protestant Church in the United States. The only parts of the service that are not completely Protestant are the pagan elements of dancers carrying bowls of incense, who are dancing around the holy table. Nevertheless, we are still told that this was just an aberration.

But then there is this video:



This is from Pope Francis' recent trip to Brazil. Granted, this is not a liturgical dance, but here you have a whole group of Bishops engaged in a tacky dance to celebrate the Pope's visit. Trying to be "hip" and holding fast to the Traditions of the Church do not mix well... and usually those that have tried to make the sacred "hip" have only succeeded in making themselves look foolish, and encouraging the mockery of the sacred.

The Bishops were practicing for this "flash mob" dance, which was done just before the Pope's mass on the beach:


Here is a video of the full mass on the beach:


Here is another video of the current Pope participating in a Children's Mass:


The idea of "Children's Church" is another bad idea imported from Protestantism. What was "Children's Church" in the 70's and 80's, is what is now adult Church in most Protestant Churches. The idea of separating children out from the rest of the Church, and having worship that caters to them has no basis in the Tradition of the Church, and inevitably leads to a dumbing down of the services.

Prior to Vatican II, even the worst critics of Rome would have agreed that their services were solemn. Whatever else you might have said, there was an undeniable dignity and reverence to their services. There is not much dignity or reverence in any of the aforementioned.

The first step in fixing a problem is acknowledging that you have one. Rome, you have a problem.

Update:

As a contrast, you can watch the videos of a very prominent Orthodox Liturgy, which was also outdoor, that took place in Kiev this past Sunday, to mark the 1025th Anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' here:

Part 1:



Part 2:



And if your are wondering what the significance of that occasion was, you can listen to my sermon on it from this past Sunday here: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/amvon/the_baptism_of_russia

Second Update: Here is a Roman Catholic video critiquing the "Bishop Dance" in Brazil:


Here is a video with a side by side comparison:



Third Update: A pious Roman Catholic assessment of the state of contemporary Roman Catholicism:

Stump the Priest: Where do the Races Come From?

Question: "Where did all the other races come from?  If God created heaven and earth, did he also create the different languages and different colors of skin?  If so, what was the reason he created all of us different?"

The concept of race actually does not appear in the Bible. In Scripture, people are categorized as belonging to groups according to their family, tribe, people, nation, and tongue.


There are three broad racial categories that we recognize today: Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid -- and so some suggest a connection between these and Noah's three sons, Ham, Shem, and Japeth, but there is no way to prove or disprove that.

National and linguistic divisions, according to Scripture, began with the Tower of Babel, where God divided the nations by creating differences in language (Genesis 11), and so by dividing the nations God set limits on the ability of evil to spread among from one nation  to another.

It should be pointed out that contrary to the beliefs of people prior to the discovery of blood types, all races have all the same blood types. Those features that we consider racial are truly superficial, and the Church does not consider them to be worthy of note.

In Numbers 12 we have an incident that we would think of as racial today, but which was more a question of ethnicity and culture, in which Moses' brother and sister complained about his Ethiopian wife, and it should be noted that God made it clear that it was not Moses who had erred in marrying the Ethiopian, but his siblings in speaking against him on account of it. See "Moses' Black Wife" for more on that incident.

The Jews, of course made a sharp distinction between themselves and the gentiles (nations), but this was not ultimately racial, because it was possible for a gentile to convert to Judaism. But the New Testament repeatedly makes the point that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek," but rather we "are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). St. Peter, after witnessing the Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius, said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34-35).

The Church Fathers and the Services of the Church, speak of  only two races: the race of man (Adam), and the Christian race, and the only mixed marriages we speak of are when an Orthodox Christian marries a heterodox Christian.

In the Kontakion of Pentecost, we are told that at Pentecost, the division of the nations at Babel was undone at Pentecost:

"Once, when He descended and confounded the tongues, the Most High divided the nations; and when He divided the tongues of fire, He called all men into unity; and with one accord we glorify the All-Holy Spirit."

And so while we belong to a particular family, tribe, and nation, and speak different languages, and while we have our racial, and cultural differences -- as Christians we are all one family, and one nation. We are Orthodox Christians first and foremost, and any other difference we may have is only superficial.

Why did he make us with different colors of skin, hair, and eyes? Probably for the same reason that Jacob made Joseph a coat of many colors... such variety makes for more beauty. This is a gift from God to humanity.

Stump the Priest: Mass Ordinations?

A Roman Catholic mass ordination 

Question: "Why did our bishops declare the ordinations of a group of Western Rite clergy invalid because they were ordained in a single service? Why was this such a big deal?"

There are several reasons. To begin with, every clergyman in the Russian Church, before he is ordained, takes an oath before the Gospel and the Cross, saying that they will “…perform all liturgical services or prayers according to the rules of the Church….” This means that we cannot just make up services, or introduce innovations into the services, but must do the services as approved by the Church and in conformity with its Tradition. They also “promise to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authorities and act according to the Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.” And so not even a Bishop may introduce liturgical innovations into the services of the Church that are contrary to Church Tradition, and not sanctioned by the Church that they belong to.

The argument in favor of doing a mass ordination in the Western Rite is that this was the practice in the pre-schism West. The problem with this argument is the assumption that anything that was done in the pre-schism West is therefore acceptable. In Orthodox Liturgics, we partake of only one loaf for communion… and so no matter how large the congregation, a loaf of sufficient size must be used to be consecrated for the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). In Western practice, the priest partakes of one wafer, but the people all partake of different wafers. In Orthodox Liturgics, a clergyman may only serve one liturgy in a day, and only one liturgy may be served on a given altar. In the west, a priest may celebrate as many Masses as he has the time and strength to perform, and he can do so on the same altar. Likewise, in the West, numerous priest, deacons, and bishops can be ordained at one time, but in Orthodox practice, only one Bishop, one Priest, and one Deacon can be ordained at the same liturgy, because each one represents the fullness and unity of that order. In all of these Western deviations, the idea that we all partake of one Eucharist is obscured by the admission of multiplicity. These deviations in the West were already the subject of controversy before the schism, and were criticized by the Eastern Fathers. In the West you also have the practice of a priest serving a private Mass, with no one beside the priest in attendance. In the Orthodox Church, this is forbidden. This is because the focus in the West was on the Mass as a individual act of private devotion, whereas in the Orthodox Church it is a corporate act of communion, which expresses our unity of Faith. What begins as a small deviation in course, over  time leads to one getting very far off course from where they should be. And so while many things were done in the West before the schism, we have to look to the practice of the Church that did not depart into heresy and schism for guidance on these matters.

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, commenting on Canon 68 of the Holy Apostles (which says that one person can only be ordained once to a given office, which means that if a clergyman is deposed for wrong doing, he cannot subsequently be ordained again), wrote:

“What can be the reason why only two of all the seven Mysteries cannot be performed twice, namely, that of baptism and that of ordination into holy orders? The scholastics, on the one hand, say that it is because these two leave an indelible imprint or stamp which according to them (in the fourth chapter of Theology, as it is to be found in the Catechism by Nicholas Boulgaris) is a real quality inherent in the soul and is a supernatural power. This opinion of the scholastics was followed by almost all our own modern theologians, and especially by Koressios. But to me, on the other hand, it seems that the sole reason why these two mysteries alone are incapable of being celebrated a second time in the life of one and the same individual as a recipient thereof, is because they are carried out in the type, or form, of the Lord’s death, which occurred but once and can never occur a second time. For those who are being baptized are baptized into the Lord’s death, according to St. Paul and Ap. c. XLVII. As for priests who have fallen out of holy orders, the reason why they cannot be ordained a second time is that they typify the first and great priest who came but once to the office of holiness, after finding everlasting redemption, according to St. Paul, and He remains perpetually incapable of fall from holy orders. This in my opinion is the real reason why a priest cannot be reordained. For holy orders in Christ are incapable of fall and cannot be forfeited. Hence His type ought always to stand in the purity demanded and required for holy orders, in order that the likeness may be well preserved, as between the high priest and the one typifying Him. Another reason, however, is also the fact that a priest consists mainly in the exercise of sacerdotal functions, or, more plainly speaking, in sacrificing the mystic sacrament, which is the bloodless sacrifice whereby the one death of the Lord is denounced, according to St. Paul. For it is a question whether there is any good and sufficient reason why these mysteries cannot be celebrated a second time in the nature of the imprint or stamp invented or imagined by the scholastics, because second chrismation is permissible, notwithstanding that the chrism is called a seal, and really does imprint a seal and stamp upon the soul of the one receiving it. For John the Evangelist says: “And the chrism which ye have received from him abideth in you” (I John 2:27). And St. Paul says: “Who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” (II Cor. 1:22). Moreover, one must remember that David even called Saul “anointed of the Lord,” not only after his disregard of God, but also after his death (II Sam. 1:14). Hence and for this reason, namely, the Lord’s unique death, only a single deacon, and only a single presbyter, and only a single bishop or other prelate ought to be ordained at any one liturgy, and not two, or several, according to Symeon of Thessalonica (Reply 39), and also according to Job in the Syntagmation of Chrysanthus. As for those who are not uniquely ordained—i.e., who are not ordained once for all—what they are I know not, says the same Symeon, seeing that they have not been ordained in accordance with the tradition of the Church. In spite of the fact that several anagnosts and sub-deacons are ordained at one and the same liturgy; on the theory that they are more imperfect members of the holy orders, and that they are outside owing to their being in a minor service (commonly called “minor orders” in English), according to the same Job (ibid.). For this reason, that is to say, because of the fact that the unique death of Christ cannot occur a second time, the local synod held in the time of Heraclius against Isidorus in A.D. 613 ordained that two liturgies should not be celebrated on one and the same day and on one and the same table, saying: “It is not lawful on one table in the same day for two liturgies to be said, nor on the same table on which the bishop officiated in a liturgy, for any presbyter to officiate in a liturgy in the same day”: which rule the Papists (i.e., the so-called Roman Catholics) transgress. But then the fact is that even our own priests who celebrate liturgy twice in the same day, under the misconception that this conduces to outspoken emphasis and greater impressiveness, are gravely sinning. Accordingly, let them henceforth cease committing this absurd impropriety." The Rudder, p. 120, note 2.

Archbishop Chrysostomos (Alexopoulos) wrote: “By the same token, the tradition which forbids the Ordination of more than one Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop at the same Liturgy is not simply a matter of adherence to legalistic formulæ. The Priesthood is given once and forever, despite the fact that informed “experts” have quite wrongly attributed this characterization of the Priesthood to “Latin” influence. In order to emphasize this sacerdotal singularity and, again, the unique, singular, life-giving death of Christ, a single Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop is ordained at any one Liturgy. St. Symeon of Thessaloniki, a Father with true expertise in issues theological and liturgical, thus clearly states that only one Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop can be ordained at a single Liturgy, and that those who “overturn” this rule are innovators who do not “follow the Church” (“Answer XXXV,” Answers to Various Questions, in St. Symeon of Thessaloniki, Τὰ Ἅπαντα [Thessaloniki: Bas. Regopoulos, n.d. (fourth edition)], pp. 366–367). Also, see the Πηδάλιον, op. cit., p. 90, n. 1, in which St. Nicodemos comments in a similar vein on this issue, making reference to St. Symeon, citing as his thirty-ninth “Answer” that which is cited as “Answer XXXV” in my edition of Symeon’s work). See, finally, Patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem (1663–1731) and his Συνταγμάτιον Περὶ τῶν Ὀφφικίων, Κληρικάτων καὶ Ἀρχοντικίων τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἁγίας Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῆς Σημασίας Αὐτῶν (Târgovis,te, 1715), in which he points out that only a single Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop can be Ordained in a single Liturgy. This he calls an “ancient tradition.” Hence, he, too, affirms that, without violating Holy Tradition and acting “outside the Church,” one cannot accept mass Ordinations.”

Every bishop who serves a diocese for a significant length of time no doubt finds some occasions in which ordaining two or more priests or two or more deacons would be more convenient than doing two or more separate Liturgies, and yet the fact is that for century after century this Tradition has been of sufficient strength and universality that this has not been done.

Even if one were to argue that these saints were simply narrow minded easterners that did not understand the Western traditions, those who would wish to introduce such practices into the life of the Orthodox Church today would need to first seek and obtain the sanction of the Church prior to putting them into practice, and in this case, this was most certainly not done.

No clergyman has inherent “magical” powers to perform sacraments. The power comes from their ordination, and their serving with the authority of the Church, and that authority is to do the services in the manner that the Church has authorized them to be done… not as they might personally wish them to be done.

To see the decision of the Bishops, click here.

Stump the Priest: Divorce

Question: "I have heard Roman Catholics argue that Christ taught that remarriage after divorce was adultery, regardless of who is the innocent party, and they quote Church Fathers that seem to agree. They criticize the Orthodox Church’s position on this. How should we respond?"

There are some background points that have to be understood to understand this question:

1. Christ, St. Paul, and the Church clearly teach that the ideal for each person is that they either remain single, or marry only one person for life. Any second or third marriage is considered less than that ideal, even if you are a widow or widower. In fact, you find in the lives of the saints many examples of people who were betrothed to another, and their betrothed died before they were finally married, and yet they chose to remain faithful to their betrothed even after their death, refused to marry any other, and in many cases became monastics instead. So you will find many fathers that encourage people to not enter into a second marriage for any reason. This is why a deacon, priest, or bishop cannot have been married more than once, nor are priest and deacons allowed to marry again, even if their wife passes away.

2. In the Gospels, Christ does say that if someone is divorced for any reason other than infidelity, and they remarry, they commit adultery and cause their former spouse to commit adultery (Matthew 5:31-32). St. Paul adds another reason for divorce – abandonment (1 Corinthians 7:10-15). All of the reasons for the Church granting a divorce with a blessing to remarry are extrapolations from these two exceptions. For example, if a woman has a husband who is a drunk, beats her, and does not support the family, this is considered a form of abandonment. Nevertheless, divorce is always a last option, a bad option (though in some cases the least bad option) and one best avoided if at all possible.

3. Canon 9 of St. Basil the Great states that the innocent party may remarry without any sin on their part or the part of the person that they marry.

In our time, divorce is treated as a very light matter, and this is contrary to the tradition of the Church. We should enter into marriage without allowing even the thought of divorce to enter into their mind. However, it is not an unpardonable sin, and with the blessing of the Church, a person may remarry.

The irony with Roman Catholics who make these arguments is that they simply call divorce “annulment,” and so in their minds maintain a consistency that they charge us with lacking. I would say that we are honest with it, while they are not. When a couple have been married and have had children together, to call their divorce an annulment, when there was no canonical reason why they should never have been married (such as close kinship) is simply ridiculous. The Orthodox Church is honest, and also pastoral. But we should never forget that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), and so should we.

You can also listen to a sermon that discusses what the Bible says about divorce by clicking here.

Stump the Priest: What Can We Do to Fight for Traditional Values?

 St. Alexander Peresvet in single combat with the Tatar champion Chelubey 

at the opening of the Battle of Kulikovo (8 September 1380).

What are the ways (either derived from doctrine, history, or as guided by current leadership) that ordinary members of the Church--those who need to go to work everyday and may not have a whole lot of extra time to devote--contribute in trying to influence our culture to affirm traditional values and "push back" against those forces that are trying to destroy them?

There are a number of different levels on which we have to push back:

1). The most important thing for us to do is to begin with ourselves, and to make sure that we are living a pious Christian life, in accordance with the Orthodox Tradition. If we do so, we will influence those around us, and what we say and do otherwise to defend traditional values will carry weight, whereas if we speak out about these values, but do not live them ourselves, everything else we say and do will be a waste of time.

2). Going one step further, we must make sure that our homes reflect traditional Orthodox Christian values. Aside from working on ourselves, ensuring that our children will grow up to be devote Orthodox Christians is the greatest work we can accomplish.

3).We should also work within our parish to make sure that there is one more welcoming spiritual haven for those seeking salvation. A parish has many things that need to be done, and not everyone can do them all, but everyone can do something. We should ask God to show us what our part is, and take it as seriously as we would our secular jobs… in fact we should take it more seriously.

4). Beyond that, there are a number of things that we can do impact those outside of our parishes:

a). We can of course pray for our country and for the whole world. This is a very important duty that we all have.

b). Since we live in a representative democracy, we can and should vote for candidates that reflect Christian values. We never have perfect choices, but we should pray, and vote for those who come closest to the values that we hold. Among the highest values that we hold are the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of the family. We should not vote for those who favor killing innocent unborn children for the sake of convenience. We should also not vote for those candidates that seek to undermine the traditional definition of marriage, or support other policies that are detrimental to the family. Sometimes weighing these values and looking at the choices we have can be difficult, and of course reasonable Christians can disagree, but let everyone vote their conscience first -- not their pocketbook.

c). We can make sure that we are well informed, so that we can talk intelligently with our friends and coworkers about these issues, and hopefully sway them over time.

d). Some may be called to run for public office themselves, and there is no reason why a pious Orthodox layman should not pursue so a path, if they feel that this is what God has for them to do.

e). You can support groups that defend Tradition values with your time and/or your money. You can also engage in lawful protests.

f). And if it should come to the point that the government is either asking us to do things that we cannot in good conscience do, or forbids us from doing things that our conscience requires us to do, we can engage in civil disobedience.

I would encourage you to read The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, especially the section on the relationship between Church and State, Christian Ethics and Secular Law, and the section on the Church and Politics.

God's Reply to the Supreme Court on Homosexual Marriage

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" 

(Luke 12:51).

On Wednesday, June 26th, the United States Supreme Court struck down much of the Defense of Marriage Act, and began to lay the ground work for declaring homosexual "marriage" to be a constitutional right.

The Orthodox Epistle reading for that same day was Romans 1:18-27:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

I don't believe this was mere coincidence.

This past Sunday, I decided to preach on that passage: Click Here to Listen.

Stump the Priest: "What About the Violence in the Old Testament?"

 The Destruction of the city of Ai

Question: "What are we to make of passages of Scripture in the Old Testament in which God commanded  the Israelites to slaughter entire cities or tribes, including the women and children? How do we square such a vengeful God with the merciful God we find in the New Testament?"

This is a question that is often raised by atheists to attack the Christian Faith, but it is also raised by sincere laymen who are unsure of how we should understand these passages. To answer the question requires that we consider several issues, and not look at the question in a superficial way.

What is interesting is that people do not generally raise moral objections to the flood in the days of Noah, even though every man, woman, and child, except Noah's family, was drowned. Nor do they raise moral objections to the fact that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even though women and children were no doubt killed. And no one raises moral objections when the Scriptures talk about God sending other nations to destroy the Israelites, even though men, women, and children were killed as a result.

The problem we have with God telling the Israelites to kill women and children is that we live in a rationalistic age, and people are not so sure God really talked to people like Joshua. Also, we don't want folks to go around killing people because they claim God told them to do it. But if God could wipe out a city with fire and brimstone, there's no reason why He couldn't do it via the Israelites if that was indeed His choice. And so if He did indeed tell the Israelites to utterly destroy a city, He had the sovereign right to do so, and the people of Israel, who had seen so many miracles worked by God had every reason to believe that God was speaking to them through, Joshua, and later through their Judges. The Church has not taken this as a precedence, but has seen it as something of literal application only to that specific time and place. The applications we can make from these passages today would be primarily of an allegorical nature, from a patristic perspective.

Another thing that we should keep in mind is that, if you really believe in God and in the afterlife, death is not the worst fate that could befall someone. Far worse than physical death is spiritual death, and it was for the salvation of future generations that these things were commanded. Death is a punishment for sin, but it is also a mercy in that it puts limits on the evil men may do, and also gives them cause to repent and turn to God. God sometimes allows people to die young in order that they might be spared worse things that would come their way. For example, the wicked king Jeroboam’s son was allowed to die at a very early age, “because in him there is found something good toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam,” and so of the house of Jeroboam, only this child died in peace, and was properly buried. And no doubt, in his early death he was also spared the evil influence of his family (1 Kings 14:13).

God judges nations in history. Nations do not have an afterlife in which they can receive punishment or reward. God dispenses His justice upon nations in history, and so this justice by its very nature is dispensed collectively. If a nation is wicked, it will suffer the fruits of that wickedness, and unfortunately that means even the youngest children in that nation reap the bitter harvest sown by their parents. Our culture is very individualistic, but in Scripture, we find a view of the human race that sees us as having a corporate personality as well as being individuals. We are ultimately judged as individuals in eternity, but in this life we are not just individuals... we are part of families, tribes, and nations. If our forefathers make wise decisions, we reap benefits that are not due to our individual choices or merit. If our forefathers make wicked decisions, we also reap what they have sown. This is why you find people in Scripture not only repenting of their own sins, but of those of their forefathers. Of course if we come from a line of unbelievers, we can make the decision to embrace the Gospel and change the future for our descendants for the better. Is it “fair” that a child who is born in a Christian home hears the Gospel, and is more likely to grow up as a Christian than a child born to an unbeliever? Is it fair that a child born to a drug addict will grow up facing challenges that other children do not? If you look at this with a purely individualistic mindset, it might seem unfair, but the Biblical worldview is that we are not islands unto ourselves. We are not just souls who had the misfortune or fortune to be born to a particular set of parents, but we are their offspring, and are connected to them on a deeper level. Adam and Eve’s choice to sin has affected all of their offspring – we were not consulted before they made their decision, and yet we have suffered the effects of their decision. However we have been given the option of placing ourselves under a new head, and aligning ourselves with a new Adam – Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:20-49), and so we can change the future for our offspring for the better, though they have not been consulted either.

The other thing that has to be kept in mind is that the level of civilization at the time, made things like internment camps impossible. If the Israelites were going to spare the children, they would have had to have spared the mothers, and unless they were going to marry the mothers or keep them as slaves, they would have needed to spare the men also. But the Canaanites were an incredibly evil people who engaged in ritual prostitution and child sacrifice, and so leaving Canaanite culture in their midst would prove to be a snare to the Israelites, who were like children spiritually, and more likely to be influenced by the Canaanites than to be able to convert them to a better way of living and thinking. It was God’s intention that the Canaanite culture be wiped out, and that could not be accomplished if the adults of the Canaanites were spared. Even the pagan Romans were shocked by the evils of the Carthaginian culture, which was Phoenician colony, that shared the same religion as that of the Canaanites – which is why their battle cry was "Carthago delenda est!" (Carthage must be destroyed!).

But the fact is, the Israelites did not obey God. They did not kill all the Canaanites, and in fact the Canaanites and their culture were a thorn in their side that continually led them astray up until the time that God finally sent the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem, and to take the people into exile. When Israelite farmers had Canaanites telling them that if they wanted their crops to grow, they had to make Baal happy, they repeatedly gave in to the temptation to cover all the bases, and engage in the ritual prostitution and child sacrifice that the Canaanites believed were the only sure way to ensure good harvests. As it says in Psalm 105 (106):34-39: "They did not destroy the heathen, concerning which the Lord had spoken to them. They mingled among the nations and learned their works; and they served their graven things, and it became for them a stumbling-block. And they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons. And they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the graven things of Canaan. And the land was befouled with the blood of murder, and it was defiled with their works; and they went a whoring with their own inventions."

It was only after this experience of the exile that the Jews matured spiritually enough that they would never again be tempted into idolatry by their neighbors, though they often lived in a diaspora, in which they were a small minority surrounded by a pagan majority. Having the fullness of Gospel, we are better able to resist the temptations that come with being surrounded by evil people, and in fact, we are called to bring the Gospel to those wicked people, and to change the spiritual climate by the power of the Gospel, and not by the sword, as before, in the Old Testament.

What is perhaps most ironic about this issue is that the atheists that point to these passages to argue against Christianity are appealing to a Christian sense of morality, love, and mercy, in order to be outraged. But the fact is, as Dostoyevsky pointed out, if there is no God, all things are lawful. If there is no God, the slaughter of innocent children is of no more moral significance than when a colony of ants is washed away in a flood. There is no moral standard that one can appeal to. There is only power, and those who have the will to use it. And in fact, if you want to see the worst and most monstrous examples of the brutal slaughter of innocents by the millions, no one has surpassed brutality of militant atheism in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, etc.

The only moral standard that can have any real meaning is one based on what God has revealed. God has revealed the most excellent way of the Gospel to us, and that is the standard we live by now. God, who is the giver of life, does not have to answer to us when He chooses to take it. We know that He is Love, and we know that He is Holy. We know that He always seeks the salvation of men, but we also know that He punishes the wicked, and places limits on their wickedness by His judgments, and that “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether” (Psalm 18(19):9).

None of this means that we should read these accounts and feel no sense of grief over what happened. In fact, we have an entire book of the Bible that is called "Lamentations", and it was written by the Prophet Jeremiah, who prophesied that the judgment of God would fall on the Kingdom of Judah, and he lived to see it come to pass. And this book is a lament over the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophesy, because the people did not listen before it was too late. Obviously, he knew that the judgment of God was just, but he nevertheless wrote:

"Oh, that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!" (Jeremiah 9:1).

"My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled; my bile is poured on the ground because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city" (Lamentations 2:11).

"The young and the old lie on the ground in the streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword; Thou hast slain them in the day of Thine anger; Thou hast killed, and not pitied" (Lamentations 2:21).

But even in the midst of the Prophet Jeremiah's lament over the destruction of his people, he also confesses:

"But though He cause grief, yet will He have compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. For He doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men" (Lamentations 3:32-33).

We should grieve over such destruction, but we should grieve for the right reason – not because God wished to destroy the Canaanites for some arbitrary reason, and that this was unjust of Him; but rather because sin and rebellion against God inevitably lead to such horrible ends as this.

It should also be pointed out that one finds a great deal of God's mercy revealed in the Old Testament, and one finds a great deal of God's wrath revealed in the New Testament. There was a heresy in the early Church called "Marcionism" and this heresy taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament, and so Marcion, the heresy's founder, rejected all of the Old Testament, but also much of the New Testament – he only accepted the Gospel of Luke and 10 of St. Paul's epistles, but he also edited those books he did accept in order to come up with a version of Scripture that matched his views. But the Church decisively condemned Marcionism as a heresy, and so the God of the Old Testament is the same God that we find in the New. He find God more fully revealed in the New Testament, but rejecting what we find in the Old is heretical.

Finally, it is a tempting approach to this problem to simply say “Those Israelites were primitive people, and God wouldn’t have really said those things.” However, if you say that about the passages in which God commanded the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites, there is no reason why someone else could not come along and apply the same logic to the question of sodomy, for example, and say “Those Israelites were primitive people, and God wouldn’t have really said those things.” In fact, once you go down that road, there’s no reason why you couldn’t dismiss just about anything in Scripture that you may happen to not like. However, if we believe, as the Church always has, that the Scriptures are fully inspired, this solution to this question is unacceptable.

Additional Reference:

You can listen to a podcast on this question by Dr. Eugenia Constantinou by clicking here.

Blessed Theodoret writes in his "Questions on Joshua", in Question 12: "There are those who accuse the prophet [Joshua] of cruelty for slaying everyone without exception and crucifying the kings.

    Whoever accuses the prophet accuses him who gave the order: It was he who, through Moses, the lawgiver, enjoined the slaying of every single inhabitant of that land for reaching the limit of lawlessness and committing crimes deserving of extermination. For this reason, in ancient times he brought on the flood and wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah with Fire.

    The prophet also ordered the officers to place their feet on the necks of the kings so that they would grow in confidence and go into battle with greater enthusiasm. And this is just what Jesus our Lord told us to do: "Lo, I have given you power to walk on snakes, and scorpions, and on all the might of the foe." So, may we too put our feet on the necks of hostile spirits!" (Theodoret of Cyrus,trans. Robert C. Hill, The Questions on the Octateuch, vol. 2, On Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), pp. 285-287).

The Truth About Illegal Aliens, Amnesty Aliens, and Food Stamps

With the current discussion about "immigration reform", on the one hand, you have people like Marco Rubio, saying these those given amnesty will not be about to get "welfare", but others saying that they already do. So can they get Food Stamps (now known as SNAP) or not? The answer is "yes and no", but mostly "yes".

I have not worked in the Food Stamp, Medicaid, or TANF programs directly since 2005, but I checked the online policy handbook for Texas Health and Human Services Commission, and the policies are basically the same in this regard. Most illegal aliens tend to have intact families, and so usually they would not be on TANF (cash assistance), but their children, if born in the United States, are usually eligible for Medicaid, and their children are eligible for Food Stamps. Not only that, the fact that the parents are "not eligible" for Food Stamps, often results in them getting more Food Stamps for their household than they would have if they were eligible -- because instead of counting their income fully, their income is prorated.

I remember when the Amnesty Aliens under the Reagan Amnesty completed their five years of "ineligibility" in the early 1990's. Back in those days my Spanish was better than it is now, but still limited, however, I could usually get through most of an eligibility interview before calling in a translator to make sure that something wasn't confused. And if I was dealing with someone who could speak some English, usually I could get through the whole interview. On one occasion I was interview a man who was a blue collar worker, making decent money, who was married, and had about 5 kids. He had been getting several hundreds of dollars each month in Food Stamps, despite him and his wife being "ineligible". I made it through almost the entire interview, but when I ran the budget on the case, now that he was "eligible" and his income was counted fully, his case was denied. So I tried to explain to him that now that he was "eligible" he was ineligible for anything. He was understandably confused. Finally he said, "Somebody speaka da Spanish?" So I brought in an interpreter, but it didn't make any more sense in proper Spanish. Welcome to the United States of America!

It makes no sense that a household should end up with more benefits because the wage earner is "ineligible" than they would get if he was "eligible". What should be the policy is that the benefits should be calculated for the household the same way as they are for a fully eligible household, but then the benefits should be divided by the number of people in the household, and multiplied by the number of "eligible" people. And so, for example, if the whole household would otherwise be eligible for $400.00 per month, and there are two ineligible adults and 5 eligible children, it should be calculated thus: $400/7*5=$286. But in the case that I mentioned above, since his whole household would have been ineligible, it should have been calculated as $0/7*5=$0 all along.

Stump the Priest: What about "closed communion"?

Question: "What is a considerate response to the question as to why we have "closed" communion, especially since none of us are really worthy?"

First we should talk about the reasons why we do not allow the non-Orthodox to commune, and then we can talk about how to explain them to people whom we do not want to unnecessarily offend.

The word "communion" in Greek is Koinonia, and that word can be translated as "communion" or "fellowship". When we receive communion, we are not just expressing our communion and fellowship with God, but also our communion and fellowship with one another. We are proclaiming our oneness of mind and our unity of Faith every time we commune. So if we commune with those who are not Orthodox, we would be proclaiming a lie, because we do not share a oneness of mind or a unity of Faith. If we did, they would be Orthodox. We do not judge them, or condemn them, but we cannot pretend that we have a unity that we do not. For more on this, see "What should Orthodox Christians do, when there is no parish nearby?"

Now as to how to present this without causing unnecessary offense, it would depend on who you were dealing with. If you are dealing with a typical Evangelical who denies that the Eucharist is really the Body and Blood of Christ, I would begin by asking them what they believe about communion, and when they express their belief that communion is simply a memorial of Christ's death, I would explain what we believe, and then point out that we cannot share communion when we do not agree on what communion is.

If you get into a more involved discussion about the meaning of Communion, you can point out what St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

What he is saying is that if we do not recognize that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, and approach it with repentance, and awe, we are eating and drinking to our own damnation. And if someone does not even believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, they are clearly "not discerning the Lord's body." And so it is the priest's responsibility to ensure that people who are not prepared for communion do not harm themselves by communing unworthily.

It is true that none of us is worthy of communion, but we can prepare ourselves to partake of communion in a worthy manner, as St. Paul teaches... and being a member of the Orthodox Church, and sharing in the unity of our Faith is a basic prerequisite to that.

Now if the person does believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, then they come from a tradition that also understands closed communion, even if they have relaxed it to some extent in recent years. No group that I am aware of affirms the Eucharist to be the true Body and Blood of Christ, and does not have some measure of closed communion. Roman Catholics are told that they may receive communion from the Orthodox, and would be willing to commune the Orthodox; but the reverse is not true, and this is a very recent change on their part. The historic position of the Church is that only those that you are officially in communion with may share communion. Being in communion with someone or some group is synonymous with saying that we are in the same Church. If we are not in the same Church, we are by definition not in communion.

And after explaining that we cannot share communion so long as we are not of oneness of mind and faith, and members of  the same Church, be sure to point out that we would be happy to fix that for them if they would like, and refer them to your priest, if they are interested.

Stump the Priest: Corrective Baptism?

Question: "I am/was a Baptist convert to Orthodoxy, and though it's been many years (about 20) that I was accepted into Orthodoxy through Chrismation, I have read things in the Rudder, and Canons which state that this was an anathema to the faith of the Church. I still, after all these years, feel that I should have been Baptized, and yet I have done other Sacraments in the Church. I have a certificate of Chrismation, but I still feel very uncomfortable! Should I be baptized in the Orthodox Church now?"

The short answer is "no". But to get to the longer answer, there are several things to consider here:

If the question is should a Baptist, who has been baptized by a single immersion, be received by chrismation? -- my answer would be that I do not believe that they should. The reason for this is that being baptized by triple immersion (or pouring, in cases of necessity) in the name of the Trinity is the canonical standard of a baptism that is valid in outward form. Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council lists various groups that would either be received by confession of faith, or by chrismation, but specifically mentions that the Eunomians "who are baptized with a single immersion" are to be received by baptism. Of course there are bishops and jurisdictions that take the position that anyone who is baptized in the name of the Trinity should be received by chrismation, even when only baptized by a single immersion, and that is why you were received the way that you were.

The historic practice of the Russian Church has been to receive Monophysites, Roman Catholics, Reformed (Episcopalians, Presbyterians), and Lutherans by economia. Since the 70's, the practice of the Russian Church Outside of Russia has been to baptize all converts as a rule, unless the bishop gives a specific blessing to receive someone by economia.

Another question we should consider is how does the Church view the baptisms of those outside of the Church? True baptism unites one to the Church, and obviously, those who are baptized outside of the Church are not united to the Church by their baptism. We pass no judgment on the souls of those outside of the Church, and leave that question in the hands of God, but we can say that at least in this life, they remain outside of the Church until and unless they are received into the Orthodox Church.

In the early Church there was a dispute about whether converts who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics should be baptized or not. St. Cyprian of Carthage took the position that they should, and he presided over a council in Carthage that declared there is no true baptism outside of the Church. And this canon was affirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in its second canon. However, that same canon also affirmed the canons of St. Basil, and his first canon, provides a bit more nuance. He agreed that the Church is under no obligation to recognize baptisms that take place outside of the Church, but states that for the sake of "economia" the Church may do so, though he also noted that in different regions, different practices prevailed when it came to how certain heretics or schismatics were received.

So what happens when the Church accepts a baptism that was done outside of the Church, by economia? St. Augustine compared baptism to the "military mark" which was a tattoo a soldier was given when entered the Roman Army, and it showed what commander he belonged to. St. Augustine said that such a mark could be retained by deserters (schismatics), and it could illicitly be given to those who had never been in the army, and yet unless and until such men actually joined (or rejoined) the army, those marks did not have the real significance that they should have... however if they did rejoin or join the army, the mark would not need to be redone. And so what happens when someone is received by economia is they are finally united to the Church, and their baptism is then given the real meaning of what true baptism is.

But getting back to the question of what to make of someone who had been baptized by a single immersion, and was received by economia -- even though, as I said, I do not agree that this should have been done; the fact is that it has been done. Bishops, as successors of the Apostles have the power to bind and to loose (Matthew 18:18), and so when the bishop over the parish that you were received in made the decision that this is how you should be received, you were truly received into the Church. If anyone will have to answer for that, it will be the bishop, and not you. And so I would not allow yourself to be troubled by this question any further.

Fr. Seraphim (Rose) was a Methodist who was received by Chrismation, and St. John of Shanghai received people in this manner, and never suggested corrective baptism.

The New Martyr Elizabeth Fyodorovna was a Lutheran, who was received by Chrismation prior to the revolution, and is now a highly venerated saint of the Church.

See Also: Valid Sacraments?

Stump the Priest: Does Hades still Exist?

“I recently heard a priest who said that hades no longer exists, because in our hymns, we say that Christ destroyed hades by his resurrection. Is that true?”

It is true that in the Paschal Matins, we sing: “We celebrate the death of death, the destruction of hades, the beginning of another life eternal, and leaping for joy, we hymn the Cause, the only blessed and most glorious God of our fathers” (Ode 7), but it is also true that we have hymns that say things like “… by Thy death, Thou hast destroyed the devil…” (Bright Wednesday, Praises), and yet we know that the devil has not ceased to exist as a result of the resurrection, because we are told by St. Peter “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Hades and the devil have been destroyed in that their power over mankind has been broken by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. This does not mean that they have ceased to exist. Today is the 69th anniversary of D-Day, and we could say that Hitler's realm was destroyed on D-Day, but it wasn't ultimately destroyed until VE-Day (Victory in Europe Day).

Another problem we have in English is that the word “hell” is used to translate the Greek word “Hades” as well as “Gehenna”. Hades in the New Testament means what Sheol in the Old Testament meant, which is "the abode of the dead." "Gehenna" refers to the lake of fire, or the final place where the wicked are condemned -- which is what most people have in mind when they think of "hell." Even before the resurrection, the wicked were receiving a foretaste of punishment, and the righteous we receiving a foretaste of blessedness. But prior to the Resurrection of Christ, even the souls of the saints of the Old Testament abode in Hades. At the resurrection, the righteous were set at liberty, and taken into paradise, but this is still not the final state of blessedness that will only be accomplished after the general resurrection. The wicked in Hades likewise will only experience the fullness of their punishment, after they are resurrected unto damnation, which is called the “second death”. At present, there are in Hades the souls of those who have died in a state of repentance, but who have not brought forth the fruits of repentance, and are not yet ready to enter into the presence of God. Many of those souls will enter in heaven before the final judgment, through the prayers of the Church, but some will await the final judgment there, and yet be saved. We do not believe that these souls suffer for their sins, but we do believe that our prayers are of some benefit to them. In the Kneeling Vespers of Pentecost, we pray: “[God] Who also on this most perfect and saving feast hast deigned to receive propitiatory prayers for those who are kept in hades, giving us great hope that through Thee release and consolation may be sent down to those held there in bondage and vileness." We even believe that our prayers are of some benefit to those who will not ultimately enter into heaven, though we cannot speak of these things with precision, because these things have not been fully revealed to us.

There is an excellent three part talk on this subject by Clark Carlton that you can listen to here:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/heaven_and_hell_the_view_of_the_early_church

Three Homilies on Psalm 67 (68)

Part 1: Let God Arise and let his enemies be scattered (verses 1-6)

Part 2: Butter Mountain? (verses 7-18)

Part 3: Wondrous is God in His Saints (verses 19-35)

Pictures from Pascha at St. Jonah 2013

The Midnight Office

The beginning of the Paschal Matins

The blessing of Paschal Baskets

After the Agape Vespers

The Paschal Piñata

Prayer to the Holy Pious Prince Peter and Princess Febronia of Murom

The following is a prayer to Ss. Peter and Febronia of Murom recently approved by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church for their commemoration (and for the emphasizing of the importance of Christian marriage) that was previously approved for the Sunday prior to September 19th n.s., which was previously approved in December 2012 (along with petitions for the augmented litany).

The original text of this prayer is posted here: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3005167.html

This translation was graciously provided by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, with a minor tweak from Fr. German Ciuba.

Prayer to the Holy Pious Prince Peter and Princess Febronia of Murom

O ye who have greatly pleased God as all-wondrous miracleworkers, pious Prince Peter and Princess Febronia, intercessors of Murom, protectors of honorable marriage and zealous prayerful intermediaries for all of us to the Lord!

During the days of your lives you showed an example of piety, Christian love and faithfulness to one another even to the grave, and thus you glorified lawful and blessed marriage.

For this we turn to you and we pray with firm zeal: lift up for us sinners, your holy prayers to the Lord our God, and beseech for us all that is good and profitable for our souls and bodies: true faith, good hope, unhypocritical love, unshakeable piety, success in good deeds*, and, especially, through your prayers grant to those who have been joined in the bond of marriage chastity, love for one another in the bond of peace, oneness of mind and body, a bed undefiled, a blameless life, long-lived seed, the blessing of children, homes filled with all good things, and, in eternal life the unfading crown of Heavenly glory.

Yea, O holy wonder-workers! Disdain not our prayers, which we raise up to you with compunction, but be our eternal intercessors before the Lord and grant unto us through your intercessions to receive eternal salvation and to inherit the Heavenly Kingdom, that we may glorify the inexpressible love for mankind of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, God, worshiped in the Holy Trinity, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

*if the Moleben is served for those who are about to enter into matrimony, then the prayer is read in the following redaction:

especially to those who wish to be joined in the bond of marriage grant, through your prayers, chastity, faithfulness to one another and love in the bond of peace, oneness of mind and body, a blameless life and, in eternal life the unfading crown of Heavenly glory.

Stump the Priest: Commemorations

Question: "How exactly do the commemoration lists work? I know I write the names of Orthodox or non-orthodox people I’m praying for, and then eat the Prosphora bread afterwords… But how do I get the commemorations read out during liturgy? I’m praying for a deceased friend of a friend… Also, for commemorations of the living, are those typically just the sick? Or do we do list those we’re praying for “in general”? For instance, my parents, God Parents, friends that I’m trying to introduce to the church, etc…"

Commemorations can be submitted during the liturgy by either writing out the names of those who are to be commemorated, on the sheets of paper that are placed near the prosphora, or by getting a commemoration book and putting their names in it. If you are using the sheets of paper, there are sheets with read ink that are for the living, and sheets with black ink that are for the dead. In commemoration books, the living are listed in the front section, and the section for the dead follows that.

You simply place your commemoration list with a prosphora into the appropriate basket. Only Orthodox Christians can be commemorated by name during the services. You can include the names of the non-Orthodox in your commemoration book, but they should be labeled as such, and it is best to have them listed in a separate section. For more on how one could set up a commemoration book, see "How to Set Up a Personal Commemoration Book."

It is very important that we not just submit names to be prayed for by the priest, but that when we submit those names, we first pray for them ourselves. As Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) of blessed memory used to say, we should not be like cuckoo birds that lay eggs in the nests of other birds, and leave the job of hatching those eggs to others. If we ask others to pray for someone, we should also be praying for them. By submitting a prosphora with a list of commemorations, you are participating in the proskomedia, and you are praying with the priest for those people that you have listed.

In our parish,  these commemorations should be submitted before the end of the first litany at the beginning of the liturgy.

If you have a commemoration book, you can also pray for those you have listed during the week as part of your morning and/or evening prayers. In the Jordanville Prayer Book there is a section at the end of the morning prayers in which these commemorations could be done.

It is a pious practice to take the prosphora from your commemorations, cut it up and let it dry out, and to eat a little bit each morning, after your morning prayers, and to take a sip of holy water. Prosphora should be eaten before you eat anything else that day. For those who cannot attend a daily liturgy, this is a way of participating in the liturgy to a lesser extent throughout the week (see also: Sanctified Bread, by Fr. Victor Potapov).

There are generally three places in the Liturgy in which Orthodox Christians can be commemorated aloud:

1. The Augmented Litany, at which time we can pray for people who are celebrating a special occasion, such as a names day; we can pray for those who are ill; and we can pray for those who are traveling.

2. Commemorations  are also done at the Great Entrance. In our parish, aside from the fixed commemorations, we usually only pray for the departed, but some parish also do other commemorations at this point.

3. At weekday Liturgies, apart from Great Feasts, a litany can be done for the departed. There are several Soul Saturdays during the year in which we especially pray for the departed.

If there is someone that you would like to have commemorated aloud during the Liturgy, it is best to let the priest know before the Liturgy begins. In a pinch, you could have a note sent into the altar, but again, only the Orthodox can be commemorated aloud by name during the services.

You can also ask the priest to serve a pannikhida for any Orthodox reposed you may wish to pray for. This is especially done on or near the anniversary of their repose. For the recently departed, a pannikhida is usually done on the first, third, ninth, and fortieth day of their repose. For the non-Orthodox, I would recommend that you use the Akathist for the Repose of the Departed, which is in the Book of Akathists from Jordanville. For the living, you can request a moleben to pray for any pious purpose, which would certainly include prayers for the salvation of a relative. You can also do a reader's moleben for those purposes as well.

Stump the Priest: The Prayer of the Heart

This is the first post in a new series I will be doing: Questions and answers about the Orthodox Faith. If you have a question, you can e-mail me.

Question: Often we read in the Fathers that, when we are practicing the Jesus Prayer, we should "let our mind descend into our heart." What does this mean and how do we do it? Maybe that's an easy one, but I've never understood it. 

Answer: I cannot speak to this question from personal experience, but I would recommend two books on the subject, and then will quote some excerpts from one of them, which in turn quotes from the other in answer to your question.

1. "On the Prayer of Jesus", by St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov).

2. "The Power of the Name", by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware).

Metropolitan Kallistos writes:

"The repeated Invocation of the Name, by making our prayer more unified, makes it at the same time more inward, more a part of ourselves — not something that we do at particular moments, but something that we are all the time; not an occasional act but a continuing state. Such praying becomes truly prayer of the whole person... In Orthodoxy, as in other traditions, prayer is commonly distinguished under three headings, which are to be regarded as interpenetrating levels rather than successive stages: prayer of the lips (oral prayer); prayer of the nous, the mind or intellect (mental prayer); prayer of the heart (or of the intellect in the heart). The Invocation of the Name begins, like any other prayer, as an oral prayer, in which words are spoken by the tongue through a deliberate effort of will. At the same time, once more by a deliberate effort, we concentrate our mind upon the meaning of what the tongue says. ...In more technical terms, this means that we are called to advance from the second level to the third: from "prayer of the intellect’ to ‘prayer of the intellect in heart’. ‘Heart’ in this context is to be understood in the Semitic and biblical rather than the modern Western sense, as signifying not just the emotions and affections but the totality of the human person. The heart is the primary organ of our identity, it is our innermost being, ‘the very deepest and truest self, not attained except through sacrifice, through death’. According to Boris Vysheslavtsev, it is ‘the centre not only of consciousness but of the unconscious, not only of the soul but of the spirit, not only of the spirit but of the body, not only of the comprehensible but of the incomprehensible; in one word, it is the absolute centre’. Interpreted in this way, the heart is far more a material organ in the body; the physical heart is an outward symbol of the boundless spiritual potentialities of the human creature, made in the image of God, called to attain his likeness.

To accomplish the journey inwards and to attain true prayer, it is required of us to enter into this ‘absolute centre’, that is ,to descend from the intellect into the heart. More exactly, we are called to descend not from but with the intellect. The aim is not just ‘prayer of the heart’ but ‘prayer of the intellect in the heart’, for our varied forms of understanding, including our reason, are a gift from God and are to be used in his service, not rejected. This ‘union of the intellect with the heart’ signifies the reintegration of our fallen and fragmented nature, our restoration to original wholeness. Prayer of the heart is a return to Paradise, a reversal of the Fall, a recovery of the status ante peccatum. This means that it is an eschatological reality, a pledge and anticipation of the Age to Come — something which, in this present age, is never fully and entirely realized.

... Orthodox writers in the last 150 years have in general laid little emphasis upon the physical techniques. The counsel given by Bishop Ignatii Brianchaninov (1807-67) is typical:

"We advise our beloved brethren not to try to establish this technique within them, if it does not reveal itself of its own accord. Many, wishing to learn it by experience, have damaged their lungs and gained nothing. The essence of the matter consists in the union of the mind with the heart during prayer, and this is achieved by the grace of God in its own time, determined by God. The breathing technique is fully replaced by the unhurried enunciation of the Prayer, by a short rest or pause at the end, each time it is said, by gentle and unhurried breathing, and by the enclosure of the mind in the words of the Prayer. By means of these aids we can easily attain to a certain degree of attention."

As regards the speed of recitation, Bishop Ignatii suggests:

"To say the Jesus Prayer a hundred time attentively and without haste, about half an hour is needed, but some ascetics require even longer. Do not say the prayers hurriedly, one immediately after another. Make a short pause after each prayer, and so help the mind to concentrate. Saying the Prayer without pauses distracts the mind. Breathe with care, gently and slowly.""

Starting a Mission and Building a Parish

This is an article I put together on lessons learned from starting a mission. For those of you who have gone through that as well, if you have some insights that you would like to add, I would appreciate the feedback:


http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/parish_building.html

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: An Orthodox Response to an Anti-Orthodox Defense of Gay Marriage

A response to David J. Dunn's original article on Gay Marriage, guest posted on the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Blog: http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2013/04/11/an-orthodox-response-to-an-anti-orthodox-defense-of-gay-marriage/

Homilies on the Psalms at "Lord, I have cried..."

These are five sermons preached from July 25, 2010 through August 22, 2010 on the Psalms chanted at Lord, I have cried, at Vespers:

Part 1: "Set a watch, O Lord" (Psalm 140:1-3 lxx).

Part 2: "Making excuse with excuses in sins" (Psalm 140:4-5 lxx).

Part 3: "I am alone until I pass by" (Psalm 140:6-10 lxx).

Part 4: "Bring my soul out of prison" (Psalm 141 lxx).

Part 5: "The Truth of the Lord Abideth Forever" (Psalm 129 & 116 lxx).

Sermons now podcasted on Ancient Faith Radio

My sermons on now being podcasted on Ancient Faith Radio, in a series entitled "From the Amvon". First sermon: Does Doctrine Matter. And for those who may ask, what is an "Amvon"? See Orthodoxwiki: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Amvon