“At the Assumption this fullness of deification – this purity and inner glory of soul- was made outwardly manifest in her body, which was received into heaven: that is to say (for heaven is not a geographical area), her body was made fully ‘spiritual’. Man, so the Bible teaches, is not a soul imprisoned in a body, but a unity of body and soul; the body is to be redeemed and deified as well as the soul. All Christian saints, therefore, await the resurrection from the dead, when their bodies will rise again, transfigured and glorified. What has happened in our Lady’s case is simply this: because of her outstanding purity and holiness, this bodily resurrection has been anticipated. By God’s special decree she had passed beyond death and judgment and lives already in the age to come, thus constituting (with her Son) the first fruits of the transfigured creation. Yet she is not separate by her Assumption for the rest of the human race, for every Christian, by virtue of his baptism, lives already in some degree in the age to come; and that same bodily glory with the Mother of God already enjoys, all of us hope one day to share.”
Metropolitan Kallistos Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Ethos: Studies in Orthodoxy, Vol. 1, p. 148.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
How An Atheist Came To Believe in the Resurrection
Investigating Easter
By Lee Strobel
I saw plenty of dead bodies as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, but I've never seen anyone come back to life. That was the stuff of mythology and legend. After all, we live in a scientific age. Belief in a resurrection was simply untenable.
At least, that's what I thought until I checked the facts for myself. Using my legal training, I investigated the most audacious claim of history: that Jesus of Nazareth returned from the dead and thus authenticated his claim to being the Son of God.
After nearly two years of research, I found my atheism cracking. Here's some of what I discovered:
First, there's overwhelming evidence Jesus was executed. In addition to multiple, early, independent confirmation in the New Testament documents (which, incidentally, I gave no special treatment), there are also five sources outside the Bible. Even atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann called Jesus' death by crucifixion "indisputable."
Second, we have resurrection accounts that date back so early they can't be legendary - because legends take time to develop. A.N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford, said the passage of two generations was not even enough time for legend to grow up in the ancient world and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.
Yet we have a creed of the early church, recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, that confirms Jesus died, was buried, rose and appeared to named eyewitnesses, including skeptics. Scholars from a wide range of theological belief have dated this creed to within a few years of Jesus' death - and therefore its underlying beliefs go back even further. It's like a historical news flash!
Concluded eminent scholar James D. G. Dunne: "This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death." It would be unprecedented for a legend to develop that fast and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.
Third, there's the empty tomb, which is implicit in the early creed and reported in the earliest Gospel.
Scholar William Lane Craig points out that the site of Jesus' tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians alike. If it weren't empty, it would have been impossible for a movement founded on the resurrection to have exploded into existence in the same city where Jesus had been publicly executed and buried just a few weeks earlier.
Moreover, the empty tomb was implicitly admitted in the early claim that the disciples had stolen the body. Why would Jesus' opponents manufacture such a cover story unless they were trying to explain away the inconvenient truth that the tomb was empty?
Nobody had a motive for stealing the body, especially the disciples. They wouldn't have knowingly and willingly allowed themselves to be tortured to death for a lie.
Finally, scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have enumerated nine sources reporting the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples:
• Paul confirms Jesus appeared to him, and then Paul met with the apostles and they agreed their teaching about the resurrection was the same as his.
• The early creed confirms the disciples (plus 500 others!) encountered the risen Jesus; indeed, many scholars believe two eyewitnesses cited in the creed, Peter and James, were the ones who gave the creed to Paul.
• Peter declared to a crowd in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus' execution that "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." Three thousand people agreed and the church was born.
• Matthew, Mark, Luke and John independently confirm his post-resurrection appearances. These first-century, eyewitness-rooted Gospels have regained respect in recent years. Scholar Craig Evans, who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge, said that "there's every reason to conclude the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements" of Jesus' resurrection.
• Early church leaders Clement and Polycarp were taught by the apostles. Clement said the apostles had "complete certainty" about the resurrection; Polycarp repeatedly confirmed the resurrection.
So convinced were the disciples that they were willing to die for their conviction that Jesus had risen -- not because they had faith in it, but because they were in the unique position to know for sure that it was true.
Even atheist Lüdemann conceded: "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."
He would claim these were hallucinations or visions, yet I don't find that credible. Hallucinations occur in our brains, like dreams. People can't share hallucinations, yet Jesus appeared to groups three different times.
Were these visions by grieving disciples? This wouldn't explain the conversion of Saul, an opponent of Christians, or James, a skeptic. Neither was primed for a vision, yet each died proclaiming Jesus had appeared to him. Besides, if these were visions, the body would still have been entombed.
My books analyze objections that many skeptics, including myself, have raised. None, in my view, overcome the affirmative evidence. So I reached the verdict that the resurrection really happened - and that's why I'm celebrating my 29th Easter as a follower of Jesus.
Lee Strobel, author of the bestselling "Case" series has created the new resources "The Case for the Resurrection" and "The Case for Christ Study Bible."
By Lee Strobel
I saw plenty of dead bodies as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, but I've never seen anyone come back to life. That was the stuff of mythology and legend. After all, we live in a scientific age. Belief in a resurrection was simply untenable.
At least, that's what I thought until I checked the facts for myself. Using my legal training, I investigated the most audacious claim of history: that Jesus of Nazareth returned from the dead and thus authenticated his claim to being the Son of God.
After nearly two years of research, I found my atheism cracking. Here's some of what I discovered:
First, there's overwhelming evidence Jesus was executed. In addition to multiple, early, independent confirmation in the New Testament documents (which, incidentally, I gave no special treatment), there are also five sources outside the Bible. Even atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann called Jesus' death by crucifixion "indisputable."
Second, we have resurrection accounts that date back so early they can't be legendary - because legends take time to develop. A.N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford, said the passage of two generations was not even enough time for legend to grow up in the ancient world and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.
Yet we have a creed of the early church, recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, that confirms Jesus died, was buried, rose and appeared to named eyewitnesses, including skeptics. Scholars from a wide range of theological belief have dated this creed to within a few years of Jesus' death - and therefore its underlying beliefs go back even further. It's like a historical news flash!
Concluded eminent scholar James D. G. Dunne: "This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death." It would be unprecedented for a legend to develop that fast and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.
Third, there's the empty tomb, which is implicit in the early creed and reported in the earliest Gospel.
Scholar William Lane Craig points out that the site of Jesus' tomb was known to Christians and non-Christians alike. If it weren't empty, it would have been impossible for a movement founded on the resurrection to have exploded into existence in the same city where Jesus had been publicly executed and buried just a few weeks earlier.
Moreover, the empty tomb was implicitly admitted in the early claim that the disciples had stolen the body. Why would Jesus' opponents manufacture such a cover story unless they were trying to explain away the inconvenient truth that the tomb was empty?
Nobody had a motive for stealing the body, especially the disciples. They wouldn't have knowingly and willingly allowed themselves to be tortured to death for a lie.
Finally, scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have enumerated nine sources reporting the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples:
• Paul confirms Jesus appeared to him, and then Paul met with the apostles and they agreed their teaching about the resurrection was the same as his.
• The early creed confirms the disciples (plus 500 others!) encountered the risen Jesus; indeed, many scholars believe two eyewitnesses cited in the creed, Peter and James, were the ones who gave the creed to Paul.
• Peter declared to a crowd in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus' execution that "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." Three thousand people agreed and the church was born.
• Matthew, Mark, Luke and John independently confirm his post-resurrection appearances. These first-century, eyewitness-rooted Gospels have regained respect in recent years. Scholar Craig Evans, who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge, said that "there's every reason to conclude the Gospels have fairly and accurately reported the essential elements" of Jesus' resurrection.
• Early church leaders Clement and Polycarp were taught by the apostles. Clement said the apostles had "complete certainty" about the resurrection; Polycarp repeatedly confirmed the resurrection.
So convinced were the disciples that they were willing to die for their conviction that Jesus had risen -- not because they had faith in it, but because they were in the unique position to know for sure that it was true.
Even atheist Lüdemann conceded: "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."
He would claim these were hallucinations or visions, yet I don't find that credible. Hallucinations occur in our brains, like dreams. People can't share hallucinations, yet Jesus appeared to groups three different times.
Were these visions by grieving disciples? This wouldn't explain the conversion of Saul, an opponent of Christians, or James, a skeptic. Neither was primed for a vision, yet each died proclaiming Jesus had appeared to him. Besides, if these were visions, the body would still have been entombed.
My books analyze objections that many skeptics, including myself, have raised. None, in my view, overcome the affirmative evidence. So I reached the verdict that the resurrection really happened - and that's why I'm celebrating my 29th Easter as a follower of Jesus.
Lee Strobel, author of the bestselling "Case" series has created the new resources "The Case for the Resurrection" and "The Case for Christ Study Bible."
Wise Lessons From Saint Moses the Ethiopian
1. A devout prince, upon hearing of the mortification of St. Moses, went with his retinue into the desert to see him. Informing Moses that the prince was coming to his monastery, Moses quickly ran out and began to flee and to hide somewhere, but he unexpectedly encountered the high-ranking visitors. "Where is the cell of Abba Moses?" the servants of the prince asked not suspecting that this was Moses himself. Moses opened his mouth and said: "What do you want him for? He is an ignorant old man, very untruthful and completely impure in life." Hearing this, the visitors were astonished and continued on. When they arrived at the cell of Moses, they inquired about the elder and the monks said that he was not there. Then they began to relate what a monk on the road had said about Moses. The monks were saddened and asked them: "How did he look, this old man, who spoke to you mocking words about this holy man?" And when they said that he was very dark in the face, tall and in a miserable garment, the monks cried out loudly: "But that was indeed the Abba Moses!" By this incident, the prince benefited greatly spiritually and joyfully returned to his home.
2. Abba Moses said to Abba Poemen, and the first word which was spoken by the old man was: “It is better for a man to put himself to death rather than his neighbour, and he should not condemn him in anything.”
3. “It is good for a man to die unto every work which is evil, and he should not vex a man before his departure from the body.”
4. “If a man doth not put himself in the attitude of a sinner, his prayer will not be heard before God.” A brother said unto him, “What is a sinful soul?” And the old man said, “Every one who beareth his own sins, and considereth not [those] of his companion.”
5. Abba Moses used to say, “Secret withdrawal [from work] maketh dark the mind, but for a man to endure and to persevere in his works maketh light the mind in our Lord, and it strengtheneth and fortifieth the soul.”
6. And he used to say also, “Bear disgrace and affliction in the Name of Jesus with humility and a troubled heart; and shew before Him thy feebleness, and He will become unto thee might.”
7. St. Moses knew how fasting helped in his early spiritual combats. He used to say, “These four lead to fornication: eating and drinking, oversleeping, negligence and decoration of clothes.”
8. “If you want to repent to God, beware of living in luxury, for this stimulates all passions and dispels the fear of God from the heart.”
9. “Control of the body diminishes the effects of other desires. Desire of food awakens the passions and emotions; they are controlled by fasting.”
10. A brother went to Abba Moses and asked him for a word of advice. The old man said to him, “Go, and sit in your cell and your cell will teach you everything.”
11. Of his other sayings, “Discourse with men of the world and mixing with them darken the soul and make her forget contemplation.”
12. The Elder (St. Moses) also said: “If the deeds do not match the prayer, the prayer is of no use!” The brother asked him: “How can the deeds be suitable for the prayers?” The Elder said:”One who prays for the forgiveness of his sins should thereon be alert because when one surrenders his will, God accepts him indeed!”
13. "So, our way my dear friend is to put forth the maximum effort, in the short time we have on earth, to correct and purify our deeds from all evil hoping to gain salvation by the grace of God from the hands of the devils who are anxious to meet us, especially if any of their works are in us, because they are evil and show no mercy. So, blessed is the soul that is free from them, it will be pleased and her pleasure is great."
14. "For this reason, my dear friend, we have to strive with tears so that the Lord may in his kindness have mercy on us. Because those who sow with tears reap with gladness.
Let us possess the desire to be with God, because those who desire God protect themselves from the desire to commit adultery. And those who desire meekness protect themselves from the love of silver (money).
Let us desire peace to protect ourselves from hatred.
Let us posses patience and long suffering because it will protect us from pettiness of the soul.
Let us posses pure love for everyone to protect us from envy and jealousy.
Let us be humble in every act and every deed.
Let us tolerate being cursed and teased to rid ourselves of pride.
Let us be kind to all our neighbors to avoid condemnation.
Let us reject the glories of the world and its honors to avoid false pride.
Let us use the tongue to glorify God and to protect ourselves from lying.
Let us love the purity of the heart to be saved from corruption, because all of these things surround the soul and follow it when it leaves the flesh.
So, if anyone is wise and works with wisdom, he should not give his deposit (surrender the soul) without having the good deeds that will help him go through the difficulty. So, let us use great care as much as we can and the Lord will help our weaknesses. Because the door of forgiveness is always open to those who repent as long as we are in the flesh."
Apolytikion in the First Tone
Thou didst prove to be a citizen of the desert, an angel in the flesh, and a wonderworker, O Moses, our God-bearing Father. By fasting, vigil, and prayer thou didst obtain heavenly gifts, and thou healest the sick and the souls of them that have recourse to thee with faith. Glory to Him that hath given thee strength. Glory to Him that hath crowned thee. Glory to Him that worketh healings for all through thee.
Kontakion in the Third Tone
O all-blest and righteous Father Moses, thou didst drive away the passions' darkness, being richly illumined with light divine; and with thy vigilant prayers, thou didst wither up the wanton pride of the flesh, and didst mount on high to the citadel above, where do thou continually entreat Christ God to grant great mercy unto us.
'The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity'
The 2-volume, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity edited by John Anthony McGuckin has been published.
"This is a monumental Encyclopedia, in both breadth and depth. It is sure to become a standard reference work for generations to come." — V. Rev. Dr. John Behr, Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary
With a combination of essay-length and short entries written by a team of leading religious experts, the two-volume Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy offers the most comprehensive guide to the cultural and intellectual world of Eastern Orthodox Christianity available in English today.
* An outstanding reference work providing the first English language multi-volume account of the key historical, liturgical, doctrinal features of Eastern Orthodoxy, including the Non-Chalcedonian churches
* Explores of the major traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy in detail, including the Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopic, Slavic, Romanian, Indian and Syriac churches
* Uniquely comprehensive, it is edited by one of the leading scholars in the field and provides authoritative but accessible articles by a range of top international academics and Orthodox figures
* Spans the period from Late Antiquity to the present, encompassing subjects including history, theology, liturgy, monasticism, sacramentology, canon law, philosophy, folk culture, architecture, archaeology, martyrology, hagiography, all alongside a large and generously detailed prosopography
* Structured alphabetically and topically cross-indexed, with entries ranging from 100 to 6,000 words
* I (Tenny Thomas) got an opportunity to contribute to this Encyclopedia. Six entries - Confession, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Monasticism, Nestorianism, St. John Chrysostom and Vestments were part of my contribution.
The Orthodox churches are extensive families of ancient Christianity that derive from apostolic times and took much of their external shape in the Byzantine era. Today they are reemerging after generations of suppression and state persecution in eastern Europe, and now have a growing presence in Western Europe. Their voice is that of the largest single block of world Christians after contemporary Roman Catholics, but it is a voice, so far, largely unheard in the West. This Encyclopedia will serve as a voice for the Orthodox World.
The Encyclopedia is structured alphabetically and is topically cross-indexed, combining essay-length articles and brief, informative notations on hundreds of topics central to the history and theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. This invaluable new work will appeal to both academic and ecclesiastical groups, and represents a major resource for anyone interested in exploring the full breadth of topics surrounding the Eastern Christian world.
About the Author:
John Anthony McGuckin is Nielsen Professor of Early Church History at Union Theological Seminary, and Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Columbia University in New York. A Stavrofor priest of the Romanian Orthodox Church in America, Professor McGuckin is the author of more than twenty books on religious and historical themes, including The Orthodox Church (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), and is widely considered one of the leading experts on Early Christian and Eastern Orthodox traditions writing today.
Why The Lord Permits Assaults On The Church
Why does the good Lord permit assaults and sufferings on the True Faith while He permits the pleasure of tranquility to heresies and paganism? - St. Nikolai Velimirovich
Why? Even St. John Chrysostom asks and immediately replies: "So that you would recognize their weakness (the weakness of the heresies and paganism) when you see that they disintegrate on their own without any disturbance and also to be convinced in the power of faith which endures misfortunes and even multiplies through its adversaries." "Therefore, if we quarrel with the pagans or with the wretched Jews, it is sufficient to emphasize as evidence of divine power that the Faith (Christianity) which was subjected to countless struggles maintained victory" even when the entire world stood against her [the Church].
St. Isaac the Syrian says: "The wondrous love of God toward man is recognized when man is in misfortunes that are destroying his hope. Here, God manifests His power for his [man's] salvation. For man never recognizes the power of God in tranquility and freedom."
Why? Even St. John Chrysostom asks and immediately replies: "So that you would recognize their weakness (the weakness of the heresies and paganism) when you see that they disintegrate on their own without any disturbance and also to be convinced in the power of faith which endures misfortunes and even multiplies through its adversaries." "Therefore, if we quarrel with the pagans or with the wretched Jews, it is sufficient to emphasize as evidence of divine power that the Faith (Christianity) which was subjected to countless struggles maintained victory" even when the entire world stood against her [the Church].
St. Isaac the Syrian says: "The wondrous love of God toward man is recognized when man is in misfortunes that are destroying his hope. Here, God manifests His power for his [man's] salvation. For man never recognizes the power of God in tranquility and freedom."
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Life of Saint John the Damascene
St. John of Damascus (Feast Day - December 4)
By St. Dimitri Rostov
Our venerable father John was born in the great city of Damascus in Syria to noble, pious parents whose ardent faith in Christ, tested by temptations, was more precious than gold tried by fire. They lived in perilous times, for the Saracens had conquered that land and taken the city, bringing terrible calamity upon the Christians. Some they slew, others they sold into slavery, and they permitted no one to confess Christ publicly. John’s parents, however, guarded by providence, remained unharmed, and their property was left untouched. They held fast to the holy faith, and God granted them to win the favor of the Saracens, as once Joseph had won the favor of the Egyptians, and Daniel of the Babylonians. Thus the impious Hagarenes did not forbid the saint’s parents to believe in Christ or to glorify His name. John’s father was appointed magistrate of the city and commissioner of public buildings. Enjoying as he did the rulers’ trust, he was able to benefit his Christian brethren greatly, ransoming captives, setting free the fettered and imprisoned, commuting the sentences of those condemned to death, and extending a helping hand to all the suffering. John’s parents shone amid the Hagarenes of Damascus like beacons in the night, or embers glowing among ashes. They were preserved by God, as was the holy line of David in Israel, because the Lord had chosen them to be the parents of a son who would be manifested as a brilliant light illumining the whole world.
Although the Moslems forbade anyone to be born of water and the Spirit, John’s parents, eager to make him a child of light, did not hesitate to have him baptized. As the child (the namesake of grace) grew, his father was careful to rear him well: not teaching him the customs of the Saracens, nor the military arts, nor how to hunt game, nor worldly learning of any sort, but meekness, humility, and the fear of God, acquainting him also with the divine Scriptures. Moreover, he prayed God fervently that He send a wise and devout teacher who would instruct his son more perfectly in the virtues. God heard his prayer and granted him his desire in the following manner.
The barbarians living in Damascus made frequent raids by land and sea against other countries, taking Christians captive to their city, some to be sold into slavery in the markets, others to be put to the sword without mercy. Once they happened to capture a monk from Italy named Cosmas, a man of noble appearance and even greater nobility of soul. As Cosmas was being offered for sale in the market with other captives, those who were to be put to death fell at his feet, tearfully beseeching him to pray to God for their souls. Seeing the honor in which he was held by those going to their death, the Saracens asked Cosmas what rank he held among the Christians in his homeland. To this he replied, "I held no rank and was never counted worthy of the priesthood. I am only a sinful monk, although one schooled in philosophy, both Christian and pagan." Then, he began to weep, shedding bitter tears.
Not far off stood John’s father, who recognized the elder as a monk by his clothing. Wishing to console him, he approached and said, "Why, O man of God, do you weep? Is it because you have lost your earthly freedom? But your garb proclaims that long ago you renounced the world and died to it."
"I do not weep because I have lost my freedom," answered the monk. "I died to the world long ago, as you say, and care nothing for it. I know well that there is another life, one better than this, immortal and everlasting, prepared for the Lord’s servants, which I hope to inherit by the grace of Christ my God. I lament because I shall depart this life childless, without an heir."
John’s father said in astonishment, "You are a monk, Father, and have consecrated yourself to God, vowing to preserve your chastity. You are not permitted to beget children. You should not grieve over this."
"You do not understand my words, sir," answered the monk. "I do not speak of sons according to the flesh or of a material inheritance, but of things spiritual. It is clear that I own nothing; nevertheless, I possess a great wealth of knowledge, which I have labored hard from my youth to acquire. With God’s help I have mastered every worldly science, including rhetoric and dialectic, the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, geometry, and the theory of music. I have acquainted myself thoroughly with the movements of the heavenly bodies and the courses of the stars, so that through the beauty of creation I might come to a clearer understanding of the wise Creator. Finally, I have learned well the mysteries of Orthodoxy as expounded by the Greek and Roman theologians. Yet while I possess such knowledge myself, I have failed to hand it on to another. Now there is no longer any possibility for me to teach what I have learned. I have no disciple, and little time remains to me, for I am certain that I shall die here by the sword of the Hagarenes. Then I will appear before the Lord and be likened to the tree that brought forth no fruit and the servant that buried his master’s talent in the ground. This is why I weep and lament. Like a married man who has no son, I leave no spiritual heir to inherit the wealth of my knowledge."
John’s father rejoiced when he heard this, because he was certain he had found the treasure for which he had sought so long. He comforted the elder, "Do not sorrow, Father; for God may yet grant you the desire of your heart." Thereupon he hastened to the Caliph of the Saracens, and falling at his feet, earnestly begged to be given the captive monk. The Caliph did not refuse him, and John’s father happily took the ruler’s precious gift, the blessed Cosmas, to his home, where he offered him hospitality and the opportunity to rest. He sought to console the monk, who had suffered much at the hands of the Moslems, saying, "Father, my house is yours, and I wish you to share in all my joys and sorrows." He added, "God has not only granted you freedom, but the desire of your heart as well." Then he presented his two sons and said, "I have two children, my son John and this boy who, like you, bears the name Cosmas. He was born in Jerusalem and orphaned while still a babe, and I adopted him. I pray you, Father, instruct them in the sciences and in good conduct, teaching them every virtue. They shall be your spiritual children, begotten anew by your teaching. Rear them and make them heirs of your spiritual riches, a wealth that no one can steal."
The blessed elder Cosmas rejoiced and glorified God, and began to instruct both youths with all diligence. Since the boys were intelligent, they progressed rapidly in their studies. Like an eagle soaring through the air, John attained the understanding of lofty mysteries, while Cosmas, his spiritual brother, in a short time plumbed the depths of wisdom, quickly crossing the sea of learning like a boat driven by a favorable wind. Studying assiduously, like Pythagoras and Diophanes, they mastered grammar, dialectic, philosophy, and arithmetic. So profound was their understanding of geometry, that they might well have been termed new Euclids. The ecclesiastical hymns and verses they composed testify to their skill in poetry. They were also well acquainted with astronomy and the mysteries of theology. Besides tutoring them in all these subjects, their teacher instructed them in good morals and the life of virtue. In a word, both acquired perfect understanding of spiritual and external wisdom, especially John, who caused his teacher to marvel. John surpassed even his tutor in certain fields of knowledge, becoming a great theologian, a fact to which his divinely inspired and wise books attest. Nevertheless, he did not become proud because of his learning: like a fruitful tree that bends lower to the ground as it becomes more heavily laden with fruit, so the blessed lover of wisdom, John, thought less and less of himself in his heart the more he excelled in his studies. He knew how to extinguish the vain imaginations and passionate thoughts of youth, and kindled within his soul, radiant with spiritual wisdom, the fire of divine desire so that it shone like a lamp full of oil.
One day, the teacher Cosmas said to John’s father, "My lord, your desire has been fulfilled. Your children have studied well, surpassing me in knowledge. Thanks to good memories and diligent toil, they have sounded the depths of wisdom. God has granted increase to the gifts bestowed on them, and they can learn nothing more from me. Indeed, they are ready to teach others. Therefore I pray you, my lord, grant me leave to depart for a monastery, where I may become a disciple to monks who have achieved perfection and can instruct me in higher wisdom. The external wisdom I have mastered leads me on to spiritual philosophy, a wisdom purer and more honorable than any worldly science, for it profits the soul and leads it to salvation."
John’s father was grieved at this, because he was loath to part with such a wise and worthy instructor. He did not, however, dare prevent the elder from doing as he wished, or give him cause for sorrow. Rewarding him handsomely, he permitted him to depart in peace. Cosmas took up his abode in the Lavra of Saint Sabbas, where he remained, leading the life of virtue until the day of his departure unto God, the most perfect Wisdom.
Some time later, John’s father also died in great old age. The Caliph summoned John, wishing to make him his chief counselor, but John declined, having another desire: to labor for the Lord in silence. Nevertheless, he was forced to accept the position and was charged with even greater authority in the city of Damascus than his father had enjoyed.
At that time Leo the Isaurian reigned over the Greek Empire. He rose up against the Church of God like a roaring lion, casting the holy icons out of the Lord’s churches, committing them to flames, and mercilessly destroying those who venerated them. Hearing of this, John was aroused with zeal for piety like Elijah the Tishbite and Christ’s Forerunner. He took up the sword of the word of God and hewed down the heretical arguments of the inhuman Emperor, writing many epistles in defense of the holy icons. These he circulated among the Orthodox, wisely demonstrating from the ancient traditions of the God-bearing Fathers that it is fitting to honor the sacred images. He asked his readers to show the letters to other Orthodox brethren and confirm them in the faith. Thus the blessed John traveled the whole world, not on foot, but by means of his divinely inspired letters, which were read everywhere in the Greek Empire, confirming the Orthodox in piety and flailing the heretics as if with a goad. Word of this reached the impious Emperor Leo himself, who, unable to endure this denunciation of his ungodliness, summoned other heretics who shared his opinions and ordered them to inquire among the Orthodox for a copy of a letter written by John in his own hand. If one of the Emperor’s agents should find such a letter, he was to take it on the pretext that he wished to read it. After much effort a letter written by John himself was found and brought directly to the Emperor. He in turn gave it to skilled scribes, commanding them to copy the handwriting and write a letter purporting to be a message to him from John. The forged letter read as follows: "Hail, O Emperor! In the name of our common faith I rejoice in your might, rendering due homage to your Imperial Majesty. I wish to make known to you that our city of Damascus, which is held by the Saracens, is poorly defended by them with a weak and paltry guard; therefore I entreat you for God’s sake to show compassion and send your brave army to our rescue. If it appears to be headed elsewhere, and then suddenly falls upon Damascus, the city can be taken under your rule without difficulty. I will do much to assist you in this, for the city and this entire country are under my administration."
Next the devious Emperor ordered that a letter from himself to the Saracen Caliph be composed. This letter read: "Nothing, I believe, is more blessed than to live in amity and enjoy friendly relations with one’s neighbors, for to keep a vow of peace is a thing most praiseworthy and pleasing to God. Truly, I desire ever to keep the peace I have concluded with you, honorably and faithfully. However, a notable Christian living in your domain often sends me letters urging me to attack you without warning and promises to deliver the city of Damascus into my hands without a great battle, if only I should come against it with my army. As a token of my friendship and so that you may know the truth of what I write, I am sending you one of the letters penned by that Christian. Thus informed of his audacious treachery, you will know how to reward him."
The Emperor sent both letters to the Caliph. After reading them, the barbarian Prince summoned John and showed him the forged letter he had supposedly written. John examined it carefully, saying, "The handwriting is similar to mine, but it was not me who wrote it. It has never entered my mind to write the Greek Emperor or to deal falsely with my master!"
John understood at once that this was a plot of the malicious and cunning heretics, but the Caliph raged with anger and commanded that John’s right hand be cut off. John begged the ruler to allow him to explain the reason for the evil Emperor’s hatred toward him and to give him a little time to establish his innocence, but this was refused. The Caliph would permit no delay, so John’s right hand, which had so greatly strengthened the Orthodox and assisted them in remaining faithful to God, was severed. That hand which had censured most forcefully those who hated the Lord was now stained, not with ink from the pen employed to defend the holy icons, but with its own blood.
After the amputation John’s hand was hung aloft in the city market, and the saint, weak from pain and the loss of much blood, was returned to his home. Just before darkness fell, the blessed one was told that the Caliph’s wrath had abated; whereupon John sent him this request: "My pain continues to increase, giving me indescribable torment. Permit my hand to be returned from the market, my lord, that I may bury it and so assuage my pain."
The Caliph granted the request, and when the hand was brought, John entered his prayer-room and fell to the floor before his icon of the most pure Theotokos. Pressing the severed hand to his wrist, he sighed and wept, praying from the depths of his heart: "O Lady, most pure Mistress and Mother of God, behold: my right hand hath been cut off for the sake of the divine icons by the tyrant Leo! Whatsoever thou willest, thou canst accomplish, for through thy holy prayers, the right hand of the Most High, Who was incarnate of thee, worketh numerous miracles; wherefore, come quickly to mine aid, that He may heal my hand by thine intercession, O Theotokos. May I again be permitted to defend the Orthodox faith; may my hand write once more in praise of thee and thy Son!"
With this John fell asleep and beheld in a dream the most pure Theotokos looking down upon him from the icon with warm, compassionate eyes. She said, "Your hand has been restored. Do not be troubled any longer, but return to your work and labor diligently, like a swiftly writing scribe, even as you promised me."
John arose from sleep, felt his right hand, and realized that it had indeed been healed. His spirit rejoiced in God his Saviour and in the Lord’s most pure Mother, who had done such a great thing for him. He rejoiced throughout the night with all his household, chanting a new hymn: "Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power. Thy right hand hath healed my severed hand and crushed Thine enemies, who do not revere Thy precious image or that of Thy most pure Mother. It shall destroy those who destroy the icons, and multiply Thy glory!"
John’s neighbors heard him and the others chanting songs of gladness and thanksgiving, and learning the reason for their joy, marveled greatly. It was not long before the Caliph learned of it as well. He summoned John and ordered him to display his severed hand. Around John’s right wrist was a mark like a red thread, which the Mother of God had allowed to remain as testimony to the fact that his hand truly had been cut off. Seeing this, the Caliph asked John what physician had rejoined the hand to his wrist, and what treatment had been used to heal it. John did not hesitate to proclaim boldly, "It was my Lord, the almighty Physician, Who healed me! He hearkened unto my earnest supplication, offered through His most pure Mother, and restored the hand that you cut off."
"Woe is me!" lamented the Caliph. "I condemned you, a good man, unjustly, without investigating the accusation made against you. I beseech you to forgive me for passing judgment so hastily and foolishly. Agree to accept your former rank of chief counselor. Henceforth nothing shall be done in the realm without your advice or consent!" But John fell at the Caliph’s feet and pleaded to be released from service. He begged the ruler not to forbid him to take the path his soul desired, but to allow him to follow the Lord with those who have renounced themselves and the world, and have taken up Christ’s yoke. The Caliph was loath to agree, since he wished to retain John as overseer of his palace and entire domain. Each continued his attempts to persuade the other, but finally John prevailed.
Returning home, John immediately distributed his possessions among the poor, freed his slaves, and set out for Jerusalem with Cosmas his foster-brother. After venerating the Holy Places, he went to the Lavra of Saint Sabbas, where he implored the abbot to accept him as a lost sheep and admit him to his chosen flock. The superior and brethren knew of John, since he was famous even in Palestine due to his writings and the high rank he had held. Rejoicing because such a man had come to him in poverty and humility, the abbot received him with love. He called for a brother experienced in asceticism, to entrust the novice to his care for training in spiritual philosophy and the traditions of monasticism, but the monk refused to accept John, being unwilling to become teacher to a man who surpassed so many in knowledge. Then the abbot summoned another, but he too refused. A third and a fourth monk were brought, but they and all the rest declared that they were unworthy to instruct such a man. All were daunted by John’s wide learning and former exalted rank. Finally, a simple but wise elder was summoned who agreed to be John’s guide. The elder received John into his cell, and wishing to set for him the foundation of a life of virtue, first imposed upon him the following rules: never to do anything according to his own will; to offer God his labors and fervent supplications as a sacrifice; and to shed tears to wash away the sins of his former life, since God regards tears as an oblation more precious than any incense. These rules the elder regarded as the basis for the higher works that are perfected by labors of the body. Furthermore, he required that John not harbor any worldly thoughts; that he not dwell on unseemly images, but preserve his mind pure, untouched by every vain attachment; and that he not boast of his learning or consider that by his studies he had attained a perfect understanding. He also forbade John to seek revelations or the understanding of hidden mysteries, or to imagine that his reason would remain unshaken till the end of his life, and that he would never wander from the path of truth. On the contrary, he warned him that men’s thoughts are feeble and their understanding damaged by sin. For that reason, he said, he ought not to permit his thoughts to wander, but should take care to control them, so that his mind would be enlightened by God, his soul sanctified, and his body cleansed of every impurity. He enjoined the saint to strive to bring into concord body, soul, and mind after the image of the Holy Trinity, and to be ruled neither by the body nor the soul, but by the noetic faculty. In this way it is possible for a man to become altogether spiritual. Such were the rules given to his son and pupil by this father and teacher, who added to them these words: "Write to no one, and speak to no one of the secular sciences. Keep a discreet silence. Remember that it is not our wise men alone who teach the value of a quiet life; Pythagoras also had his disciples keep a lengthy silence. Pay heed to David, who said, "I held my peace, even from good," and understand that it is not profitable to speak out of season. And what gain did he derive from silence? He says: "My heart grew hot within me;" that is, the fire of divine love was kindled in him by reflection on God."
The elder’s instructions fell like seed upon fertile ground in John’s heart, taking root there. John lived for a long time with the divinely inspired elder, carefully fulfilling his injunctions and submitting to him without pretense, gainsaying, or murmuring. Even in his thoughts he never contradicted the elder’s commands, and he inscribed in his heart this saying as on tablets of stone: "Every command given by one’s father is to be obeyed without wrath and doubting, as the Apostle says." Indeed, how does a novice profit by fulfilling a task with his hands, while grumbling with his lips? What gain is there in doing what is commanded, while contradicting with the tongue and mind? How can such a man attain perfection? Never will he reach his goal. He labors in vain, for by thinking that he has achieved virtue through obedience, he has only hidden a serpent in his breast by complaining. But the blessed John, who was truly obedient, never grumbled, no matter what tasks he was ordered to perform.
One day, the elder, wishing to test John’s humility, ordered him to fetch a large number of baskets, which they made and sold. He said to John, "I have heard, child, that baskets sell for much more in Damascus than in Palestine. As you see, we are lacking in necessities of every sort and are in need of money. Go without delay to Damascus and sell our baskets there." The elder set a price for the baskets far above their value, and insisted that John accept nothing less, but the true son of obedience did not protest in word or thought. He did not object to being sent on such a long journey, nor was he ashamed to sell baskets in a city where he was known to everyone and had been a man of great authority, because he was determined to emulate the Master Christ, Who was obedient unto death. He asked for his father’s blessing and loaded the baskets on his shoulders. Arriving in Damascus, he began to walk through the markets, offering his goods for sale. Those who wished to purchase them asked what they cost, and learning their high price, would laugh at John, mockingly insulting him. Clad as he was in rags, the blessed one was not recognized by anyone, since the people of Damascus had always seen him wearing gold-embroidered robes. Moreover, his face was worn by fasting, his cheeks were sunken, and his handsome appearance had faded away. But finally one citizen, who had been John’s servant while the saint was in a position of authority, did recognize him after staring for some time. Astonished at seeing John clothed in wretched tatters, he was moved from the bottom of his heart. Pretending not to know him, the man approached John and gave him the full price set by the elder; not because he was in need of baskets, but because he felt compassion for his former master, who, having enjoyed great fame and wealth, had come to such poverty and humility for God’s sake. Accepting the money, John returned to his elder like a victor from battle, having cast to the ground his enemy, the proud and vainglorious devil, by obedience and humility.
Some time passed, and one of the monks of the lavra fell asleep in the Lord. He had a brother according to the flesh who grieved inconsolably for him. Although John spoke at length with the man, trying to comfort him, he was unsuccessful, for the mourner was wounded by measureless sorrow. Then the monk began to entreat John to compose compunctionate burial hymns, to console him in his sadness. At first John refused, not wishing to transgress the command given by his elder, who had forbidden him to do anything without permission, but the mourning brother did not cease his entreaties, saying, "Why will you not have pity on my sorrowful soul? Why do you not wish to give me a little medicine to heal my grieving heart? If you were a physician and some illness had stricken me, and I asked you to cure me, would you disdain me and leave me to die, though you had the ability to treat me? I am suffering greatly from heartache and seek only a little help, but you spurn me! If I die of grief, will you not have to answer for me to God? If you are afraid to violate your elder’s injunction, I will conceal what you have written so that he will not learn of it." At length John yielded to such persuasion and wrote the following troparia: "What sweetness of life," "Like a flower that withereth," "All human vanity," and others, which are used to this day in the funeral service.
One day, while the elder had left the cell, John was chanting the hymns he had composed. Upon his return the elder, drawing near the cell, heard John singing. He rushed in and reproached the disciple angrily, "How is it that you have forgotten your vows so quickly and make merry, singing to yourself instead of weeping?" John told him the reason and explained that he was compelled by the brother’s tears to write the hymns he was singing. Begging forgiveness, he fell to the ground before the elder, who nevertheless remained unyielding and forbade the blessed one to continue living with him.
Driven out of the cell, John recalled Adam’s expulsion from Paradise because of disobedience. He remained for some time before the door weeping, as once did Adam before the gate of the Garden. Afterwards, he went to the other fathers whom he knew to be perfect in the virtues, and entreated them to go to his elder and ask him to forgive his offense. They implored the elder to pardon John and permit him to return, but their pleas were unavailing. One of the fathers said to him, "Impose a penance upon the sinner, but do not forbid him to live with you."
To this the elder replied, "This is the penance I give him: if he wishes to be forgiven his transgression, let him wash out all the chamber-pots in the lavra and clean every one of the latrines."
When the monks heard this, they departed in consternation, amazed at the elder’s crudity and unyielding disposition. John went out to meet them as they returned, and bowing down before them, as was the custom, asked what was his father’s reply. They told him of the elder’s harshness, but did not dare relate what he had set as a penance. John, however, fervently besought them to tell him what his father demanded, and when he learned, he rejoiced exceedingly and was eager to undertake the shameful task. Preparing without delay the equipment necessary for the cleaning, he began the work with diligence, touching excrement with fingers once fragrant with perfumes, and soiling the right hand healed miraculously by the most pure Theotokos. Oh, the profound self-abasement of that wondrous man and true son of obedience! Seeing how John gladly allowed himself to be humiliated, the elder was moved to compunction and hastened to embrace his spiritual child, kissing him upon the head, shoulders, and hands. He exclaimed, "Oh, what a great sufferer for Christ have I begotten! Truly, he is a son of blessed obedience!" Flustered by the elder’s words, John fell at his feet, weeping. He did not permit feelings of pride to gain access to his heart because of his father’s praises, but humbled himself all the more, begging to be forgiven his offense. The elder took him by the hand and led him back to the cell. So elated was John by this that it seemed to him he was being led into paradise. After this he lived with his father in their former accord.
Soon thereafter, the Mistress of the world, the most pure and blessed Virgin, appeared to the elder in a dream, saying, "Why have you blocked up a stream which pours forth an abundance of sweet water, a water preferable to that which sprang from the rock in the wilderness or the water that David longed to drink? This is the water Christ promised the Samaritan woman. Do not hinder the flow of this spring that will water the whole world, drowning heresies and their bitterness! Let the thirsty hasten to this water, and let those who do not possess the pure silver of an unsullied life sell their passions and gain it by emulating John, a man radiant with purity and good deeds, and most learned in the dogmas of the Church. He will take up the psaltery of the prophets and David’s harp to sing a new song to the Lord God, one that shall surpass the canticles of Moses and Mariam. The fabled odes of Orpheus will be counted as nought when compared with his works, for he will sing a spiritual and heavenly hymn like that of cherubim. He will make the churches of Jerusalem like maidens playing the timbrel, chanting unto God and proclaiming Christ’s death and resurrection. He will expound in writing the dogmas of Orthodoxy and denounce the perverse teachings of the heretics; his heart shall pour forth a good word, and he shall speak of the wondrous works of the King."
The next morning, the elder summoned John and said to him, "O son of obedience to Christ, speak what is stored up in your heart! Let your mouth declare wisdom, announcing the things God has revealed to your mind. Open your mouth and proclaim, not legends and dark fables, but the truths of the Church and her dogmas. Speak to the heart of the Jerusalem that truly beholds God, that is, the Church, which He has reconciled unto Himself. Do not pour out empty words into the air, but relate what the Holy Spirit has inscribed in your heart. Ascend the lofty Sinai of the vision of God and the revelation of divine mysteries: ascend by means of your great humility, which is a bottomless abyss, to the summit of the Church, and there proclaim the Gospel to Jerusalem. Lift up your voice mightily, for the Mother of God has told me wondrous things of you. And forgive me, I pray, for my crudeness and ignorance have been a hindrance to you."
From that time the blessed John resumed writing sacred books and composing melodious hymns. He wrote The Ochtoechos, which, like a spiritual flute, delights the Church of God even to this day. John began this book with words he had once sung when his hand was restored: "Thy victorious right hand hath in godly manner been glorified in might." The hymn "In thee all creation rejoiceth, O thou who art full of grace" he also first chanted when exulting after the wondrous healing. John always wore upon his head the bandage he had used to wrap his severed hand, in remembrance of the miracle worked by the most pure Theotokos. He also wrote the lives of a number of saints, composed festal homilies, and various compunctionate prayers. He denounced the heretics, especially the iconoclasts, expounding the dogmas of the true faith and the mysteries of theology, and to this day the faithful are spiritually nourished by his edifying treatises, from which they drink as from a sweet stream.
The venerable John had as a helper in his labors the blessed Cosmas, who was reared with him and studied under the same learned monk. Cosmas, who was later consecrated Bishop of Maiuma by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, urged John to write sacred books and compose hymns, and himself assisted in this work.
The same Patriarch that consecrated Cosmas ordained John presbyter; but John, not wishing to tarry in the world and be praised by the laity, returned to his cell in the Monastery of Saint Sabbas like a bird to its nest. There he devoted himself to the reading and writing of sacred books, and the attainment of his salvation. Collecting all the books, homilies, and sermons he had previously written, he edited them carefully, so that no errors would remain in them. John passed much time in these labors, which greatly benefitted both his soul and the entire Church of Christ. He attained perfect holiness, and having pleased God in all his works, departed unto Christ and His most pure Mother. Not before their icons does he now pay them homage, but instead he gazes upon their countenances in the glory of heaven. Moreover, he prays that we also be deemed worthy of divine vision by the grace of Christ, to Whom, with His all-hymned and most blessed Mother, be honor, glory, and worship forever. Amen.
According to Theophanes, Saint John had two surnames: Chrysorolus and Mansur. He was called Chrysorolus because the grace of the Holy Spirit shone like gold in him and was evident both in his writings and his life. Mansur was the family name he inherited from his ancestors.
Source
Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
You are a guide of Orthodoxy, a teacher of piety and modesty, a luminary of the world, the God inspired pride of monastics. O wise John, you have enlightened everyone by your teachings. You are the harp of the Spirit. Intercede to Christ our God for the salvation of our souls.
Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
Come, O ye faithful, let us praise the hymn-writer, the Church's luminary and wise instructor, the hallowed John, who cast down all her enemies; for since he took up the Cross of the Lord as a weapon, he drave off the heresies, with their every delusion. And as our fervent champion with God, he granteth all the forgiveness of trespasses.
Troy Polamalu Says 'Kala Christougena!'
Christmas arrives today for many Orthodox Christians around the world.
Ann Rodgers
January 07, 2011
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The most famous Orthodox Christian in Pittsburgh, if not the nation, has a greeting for his fellow believers today:
"Kala Christougena!" said Steelers safety Troy Polamalu. That's Greek for "Merry Christmas!"
Mr. Polamalu and his wife, Theodora, actually celebrated Christmas 13 days ago, but they keep the same Orthodox traditions as those who observe today. Most Orthodox celebrate on Dec. 25, but many Slavic churches tie liturgy to the old Julian calendar, which is 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar. The Greek Orthodox Church and some others have adopted the Gregorian calendar -- except at Easter.
"We all celebrate Easter on the same day," said Mr. Polamalu, 29. Orthodoxy is the Eastern wing of the earliest Christian church, which split into the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054.
He and Theodora converted to Orthodoxy about five years ago. His background was Catholic and Protestant, hers Muslim and Protestant. They were Christians in search of a deeper, more consistent experience of God.
"Orthodoxy is like an abyss of beauty that's just endless," he said. "I have read the Bible many times. But after fasting, and being baptized Orthodox, it's like reading a whole new Bible. You see the depth behind the words so much more clearly."
That fasting is a Christmastime difference between Eastern and Western Christians. While many Americans pile on the food from Thanksgiving to Christmas, Orthodox Christians start fasting Nov. 15 or 28.
"Christmas Lent" or "Winter Lent" lasts 40 days, broken by a feast on Christmas, said the Rev. Stelyios Muksuris, administrative assistant to Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh and professor of liturgy and theology at Ss. Cyril & Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Slavic Orthodox keep a strict fast, abstaining from meat, dairy products, oil and fish for 40 days. Greeks usually permit fish, cheese and oil for the first few weeks, then fast strictly for the last two, he said.
Mr. Polamalu is of Samoan heritage, and belongs to the Greek church, but fasts like a Russian.
His consists of a "fast from dairy, from meat and from oil for 40 days -- as well as from sex," he said. "It's to prepare you for the birth of Christ, of God incarnate."
Fasting doesn't affect his football fitness, he said. "When you fast, you can eat extremely healthy by eating a lot of light food, like fruits and vegetables."
There are other aspects to fasting.
"Maybe not watching as much TV, or not getting caught up in idle talk or different things, in order to keep you spiritually healthy," he said.
The most important Orthodox fast is Great Lent, for 50 days before Easter.
When he has kept longer fasts "I have never felt more spiritually strong," he said. Referring to great theologians of the early church, he said, "The church fathers have said that when you eat gluttonously or you eat a lot of meat, your passions get stronger, so your inclination toward sinning becomes stronger. ... [Fasting] really does soften your passions. It gives you spiritual insight."
In Orthodox theology "passions" are negative impulses -- such as sadness or greed -- that can harm the soul.
He doesn't claim that practicing the faith improves athletics. The player known for crossing himself on the field has seen his faith grow more from his injuries than his interceptions.
"When I got injured, I learned so much from it spiritually, just thanking God for the health that I had when I was healthy," he said.
"People have this idea that the more pious and devout I am, the more successful I am. Which is very dangerous. If you look at faith in that way, you're bound to fail at both -- spiritually and in your career."
As the Polamalus build Christmas traditions for their children, Paisios, 2, and Ephraim, 3 months, "It's become less about Santa Claus and more about the birth of Christ and the celebration of the Virgin birth," he said.
They spent Christmas Eve at an Orthodox monastery. The service lasted several hours, ending at 1 a.m. It was entirely chanted.
"Orthodox chanting is non-emotional, it's very monotone," said Mr. Polamalu, who also calls it "the most beautiful thing."
"It's the perfect environment for prayer," he said. "Chanting in Greek ... is like a beautiful opera, but way better. You have candles, not [electric] lights. It's dark. You have the women sitting on the left and the men sitting on the right. Everything is to keep your mind focused on God. ... To me the most beautiful thing anyone on earth can experience, other than maybe marriage and child-bearing, would be the Orthodox Liturgy."
Before he became Orthodox, he said, songs in church sometimes moved him to tears. He now distrusts those passing feelings.
"I'd start crying and feel 'This is awesome.' If I'd had a Red Bull, I'd feel it even more. If I'd had breakfast, I'd feel good. If I didn't have breakfast, I didn't feel anything, I was grumpy," he said.
"It was a very superficial experience. I was thinking, 'God, why did I not feel you today?' because I wasn't feeling the music today. Orthodoxy is very sensitive to that, to take the emotion out of it, to really go after the heart."
The difference between the heart and emotion, he said, is like the difference between the deep love he has for his wife and their daily ups and downs.
"I could say, emotionally, I'm mad and sad with my wife. But that has nothing to do with how much I love my wife within my heart," he said.
"Before we were Orthodox we were able to separate our spiritual lives and our daily lives. Now that we're Orthodox, because of the prayer life that is required ... and the fasting, it consumes your life. It's the number one thing in your life."
Kneeling In Church On Sundays
By the late Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens
Preamble
The issue of kneeling on Sundays continues to engage clergy and laity, due to the fact that diametrically opposite views have been formulated concerning this practice.
On the one hand there are those who claim that this practice is prohibited by the Sacred Canons. In particular, Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod states that no kneeling should be practiced on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost. According to this canon, kneeling, it states, is not consistent with the joyous and paschal character of these days, because kneeling is an expression of repentance and of godly sorrow.
On the other hand, there are others who make the opposite claim. They argue that kneeling at the time of the blessing of the Bread and the Wine, at the point we say “Your own from Your own we offer…,” is not a kneeling of sorrow, but of worship which is done because of the miracle which is effected at that moment by the God of our worship.
There is also a third category of theologians, who claim that kneeling on Sundays is neither recommended nor prohibited. It is simply tolerated, wherever it is enforced and observed.
There is no doubt that those Christians who kneel on Sundays do not do this out of irreverence, but out of great piety. They do it because they have been taught that at the point when we say “Your own from Your own we offer…” awe-inspiring mysteries take place: the Bread and the Wine that are used in the Eucharist are changed by the invocation (epiklesis) of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. At the same time, however, it is certain that these Christians have not read the Sacred Canons, and have not studied the Holy Fathers. They simply behave according to what their Christian conscience dictates, without realizing that their behavior violates the order of the Church.
In the following paragraphs, we try to present in an analytic and objective manner the various aspects of this issue in an attempt to specify what is right and should be followed by the faithful Christians.
A. What Does The Term Kneeling (In Church) Mean?
The Sacred Canons on lesser and proper kneeling: Before we proceed to the next step, it is useful to observe what the Sacred Canons mean by the term kneeling in church. To begin with, kneeling in church is an ancient religious custom, whereby the people who are at prayer express their faith. Such kneeling is distinguished by two types:
Firstly, there is the kind when a person that prays bends the knees while holding the body upright and looking towards the foreground. This position is usually accompanied by simultaneous crossing oneself. It is the position we take at the Vespers of Forgiveness, i.e. the Vespers of Pentecost. (Indeed, the first prayer of this Vespers alludes to this in saying, “offering supplication by bending the neck and inclining the knees”).
Secondly, there is the type when a faithful rests on his knees on the ground, places his hands on it and bends down his forehead onto the earth, or when he is standing up and decides to go down on the knees to the point that his face touches the floor and then stands up again. This is repeated several times.
Kneeling and Repentance: The first kind of kneeling is called a minor repentance, and the second, major repentance, or prostration or ground prostration. Major repentances are practiced in the Presanctified Divine Liturgies, at the point when the Holy Gifts pass by the faithful. Greater use of them is made by monastics, and sometimes spiritual masters impose these major repentances as a penance on those Christians who have sinned and repented for their sins. Saint John the Faster introduced this custom of penances, and called the major type of (church) kneeling simply kneeling. Basil the Great closely identified repentance with the prostration.
When do we kneel and when do we not kneel in church: A differentiation is made between the minor and the major types of kneeling in the Kollyvadian Book of Liturgical Rubrics of the erudite economos Fr. George Regas of Skiathos, where we read the following: “Repentances are of two kinds, minor and major. The minor ones are the prostrations we do when we cross ourselves and bow only our head without bending the knees. These minor repentances are done each day and on many occasions throughout the day without ceasing. The major repentances are characterized by the bending of the knees. These are never allowed on a Saturday or Sunday (apart from the Feast of the Precious Cross), but are done only during the Great Lent and on any day except Saturday and Sunday.”[1]
Kneeling and the four types of repentant persons: From what has been said so far, we gather that prayer which is accompanied by repeated kneeling has the meaning of repentance, i.e. the return of a sinner. It is known that in the ancient Church the repentant persons were subdivided into four types:
Firstly, there were those who mourned. These people remained outside the church nave and invited other faithful to pray for them.
Secondly, there were those who simply listened to the services. These people entered only the narthex, and listened from there the reading of the Scriptures.
Thirdly, there were those who bended the knee or knelt to the ground. These people remained in this position in order to indicate their repentance.
Fourthly and finally, there were those who remained standing.
These types of repentance indicated people who had humbled themselves and were seeking God’s mercy. They symbolized human falling into sin and standing up against it. The falling to the ground indicated contrition and compunction, whereas the standing up indicated deliverance and salvation. As Basil the Great writes, “Each day by practicing kneeling to the ground and standing up again we show that through sin we fell to the earth and through the love for mankind of our Creator we were recalled to heaven.”[2]
B. What The Sacred Canons And Their Interpreters Say
What to do or what not to do on Sundays: Sunday was always distinguished from any other day as a day of joy and celebration, because of the Resurrection. This is why on Sunday we do not fast, and when we go through a period of fasting and do not use oil, Sundays and Saturdays are exempted. The 66th Canon of the Holy Apostles stipulates: “If any clergyman is found to be fasting on a Sunday, or on a Saturday, except on Great Saturday, he should be defrocked.”[3]
Why we should follow the Sacred Canons: One may ask, why do the Canons deal with such matters and do not leave the people free to do what they like and what they wish? The question is plausible. Nevertheless, we should not follow on all matters what we like, but what is right. Otherwise there will be no order in the Church and the symbolic actions will not be observed, in spite of their essentially dogmatic content. The ever-memorable professor of Liturgics John Foundoulis had this to say: “The position one takes in the Divine Liturgy should not be determined by our own personal piety and disposition, but by the Tradition of the Church, on the basis of the meaning which is given to every liturgical position and at every moment of the Church’s worship.”[4]
On Sundays we neither kneel nor fast: Along with fasting, the Sacred Canons prohibit all kneeling on Sundays.
What the Canons say: Saint Irenaeus writes: “The practice of not bending the knee on a Sunday is a symbol of the Resurrection, through which we were delivered by the Grace of Christ both from our sins and from the death which was put to death by Christ himself.”[5]
In a similar fashion pseudo-Justin bears witness in his 115th answer to the prohibition of all kneeling on Sundays. ´This custom was initiated in Apostolic times as blessed Irenaeus, the martyr-bishop of Lyons, says.”[6]
Of great importance for this matter is Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod, which stipulates: “Because there are some persons who kneel in church on a Sunday and during the days of Pentecost, with the view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it seemed best to the Holy Council that prayers should be offered to God while standing.”[7] In other words, the Holy Synod stipulates that on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost Christians should pray in Church standing.
Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod is even clearer. Here is what is specified: “We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays when we honor the Resurrection of Christ. Since this observation may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, that after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the evening of Saturday in question, let none of them bend the knee until the evening of the following Sunday, when, after the Entrance in the Vespers, we bend the knees again, and begin to offer prayers to the Lord. For inasmuch as we have received it that in the night succeeding Saturday was the precursor of our Savior’s rising, we commence our hymns at this point spiritually, ending the festival by passing out of darkness into light, in order that we may hence celebrate en masse the Resurrection for a whole day and a whole night.” In other words from the evening of Saturday, after Vespers, until the Vespers of Sunday we are obliged not to kneel when we pray. Here is Balsamon’s comment on this Canon: “The Resurrection of Christ took place on Saturday evening, i.e. before Sunday had dawned, so that what relates to the feast might start at night and end towards the light and so the vigil of the Resurrection is celebrated through the entire night and day.”[8] Indeed, it is known that the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated during the days of the Great Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays. The reason for this is that the Divine Liturgy is a template of the Resurrection and the Kingdom of God.
What the Fathers say: Let us now see what the Fathers say about this matter. Peter of Alexandria says this in his Canon 15: “As for Sunday, on the other hand, we celebrate it as a joyous holiday because of Him who was resurrected on it, on which day we have not even received instruction to bend the knee.”[9]
St. Nikephoros the Confessor stipulates through his Canon 10 the following: “One must bend the knee for the sake of bestowing a kiss on Sunday and throughout Pentecost, but one ought not to make the usual genuflections.”[10]
Basil the Great says in his Canon 91: “We offer our prayers on the first of the Sabbaths (Sunday) in a standing position.”[11] And he goes on to explain the reasons which obligate us not to make the major genuflections on a Sunday and during the entire period of Pentecost. These reasons are basically the fact that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection of our Lord and consequently we are obligated to remain standing in an upright position as resurrected persons. Besides, every Sunday is a symbol of the eighth day, i.e. of the age to come and for this reason the Church trains and teaches the faithful to remember the age to come and to be prepared to welcome it in an upright position which indicates vigilance. “In which (Sunday) the upright position of prayer should be preferred as the stipulations of the Church have trained us to do, so that by a sort of active reminder our mind might transmigrate from the present to the future realities.”[12]
The minor kneeling (genuflection) or repentance used in worship. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite is the one among the Fathers who clarifies that the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not include the minor kneeling, the so-called minor repentance, which we make when we venerate the holy icons. The Church does not forbid practicing this type of genuflection in church on Sundays. This is why we hear, “Come let us worship and prostrate before Christ…”[13] These minor prostrations which are done in veneration are not forbidden. The major kneeling, however, which involves bending the knee to the ground and touching the floor with the forehead, is forbidden, because it is contrary to the paschal and eschatological character of Sunday, i.e. to the joyful and festive spirit, which, on this account, is incompatible with any sense of mourning or contrition which is indicated by the major kneeling. This why the Church sings: “This is the Day which the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in It.”[14]
C. Other Views
There are theologians, however, who do not agree with what we wrote above. Here are their main arguments. When the Myrrh-bearing women met with the Risen Lord they fell on his feet and venerated Him. It was a Sunday when this took place. It was on the Mount of Galilee that the eleven Disciples venerated the Lord in the same way after His Resurrection. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, describes the gathering of the church for worship where each believer “falls down with his face onto the ground to worship God.”[15] Here, of course, it is not clarified whether the Apostle refers to the Sunday gathering for worship.
Serious arguments for major (proper) kneeling on Sundays: Such arguments, biblical, historical and canonical, are provided by Professor P. Trempelas in his book “Kneeling on Sundays.”[16] In this book, the wise professor invokes the witness of Codices 865 and 2055 of the National Library of Greece concerning the Hierarch who “makes three repentances.” Nevertheless this detail is not serious enough as to justify kneeling on Sundays. The same observation applies to the Typikon (Book of Liturgical Rubrics) of the 12th-13th century which has been published by Dimitrievsky and makes mention of “a triple kneeling of the priest.”[17] For these references, however, Matthew Vlastares’ comment made in the Pedalion (Rudder) is important: “The typika (rubrics) which are made by the founders of monasteries should be observed as long as they do not contradict the canons.” The same professor tries, on the basis of Canon 91 of Basil the Great, to render relative the upright position in Sunday prayers by writing that the opinion of the Holy Father is derived “from the unwritten tradition,”[18] although Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod had preceded it. At the same time the ever-memorable professor appeals to the witness of the Typikon of St. Savva, saying that it foresees for Sundays “bending of our knee and bowing towards the earth.”[19] Nevertheless in the edition of this Typikon of the year 1771 that was printed in Venice by Hierodeacon Spyridon Papadopoulos, the exact text reads as follows: “bending and bowing unto the earth.”[20] Indeed, it is known that Trempelas’ arguments were offset by other counter-arguments through the special study of Metropolitan Hezekiel the Thessaliotis in the journal Ekklesia.[21] Finally, with regard to the argument that in the ordinations, which usually occur on Sundays, we kneel down, it should be carefully observed that the most important codices do not refer to kneeling, either of the candidate or of the people. The later liturgical practice speaks of the kneeling of the candidate, but not of the people.
In addition, the ever-memorable Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos in his book “The Period of the Pentecostarion” insists on the distinction of various forms of kneeling. He clearly states, regarding this matter, that “this manner of combining the upright position with the bowing down in worship does not contradict the stipulations of the Church but satisfies a deep psychological need. This need is the worshipful prostration in the face of the one who already stands before us, under the species of bread and wine, namely, our King and Savior.”[22] And it seems that the solution to the whole problem is hidden behind this point.
Professor Basil Anagnostopoulos of the Theological School of Halki in his monograph “Kneeling at the Consecration of the Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord on Sundays: The Tradition of the Theological School of Halki” deposits his living memories from the School, where all the Patriarchs and Rectors of the last decades, such as the Patriarchs Maximos and Athenagoras, Melito of Chalcedon, Germanos of Thyateira, Gennadios of Elioupolis, Michael of America, as well as the two last Rectors of the period of his studies and the two of the period of his professorial service, used to kneel on Sundays. Ezekiel the Thessaliotis, however, deposits the witness of Polykarpos of Trikke and Stagoi (as Deacon to Patriarch Anthimos VII) according to which in the Patriarchate “no one ever bent the knee on a Sunday, because they regarded this custom as alien and strange to Greek Orthodoxy.”[23] Also, Archimandrite Eusebios Matthopoulos, the founder of the Zoe Brotherhood of Theologians, honored the custom of kneeling, having taken it from his Geronta Fr. Ignatios Lampropoulos.
A serious argument in support of the non-absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays, which is put forth, is the Church’s praxis, whereby she transferred, through its pertinent authority and apparently for pastoral reasons, the Vespers of the Sunday of Pentecost when all believers kneel, from the vesperal hours of the Sunday of Pentecost when believers also kneel (because there is no prohibition of kneeling on this occasion, according to Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod) to the morning of the Sunday of Pentecost. Therefore, according to this view, the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not have an absolute character, but can be overlooked on account of spiritual-pastoral expediency. The position of Trempelas is indeed, that “since the transference of the Vespers to the morning was allowed, the prohibition of kneeling is of relative force and tolerable of exceptions and flexibility.” Also, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes, that the prayers of kneeling should not be said in the morning because in this way the prohibition of kneeling is thereby abolished. “Hence when we read these prayers in the morning, we do it wrongly and sinfully and in contradiction to the Sacred Canons.”[24] In addition, it is known that the Church has accepted the liturgical repentances on Sunday worship. At this point we should remark that we regard of special importance the observation of Professor Trempelas that the Sacred Canons which prohibit kneeling on Sundays do not impose penalties for possible transgressions of the specific stipulation.
Professor Ioannes Foundoulis attributes the introduction of the custom of kneeling to Russian influence, which was exerted upon our customs most probably by Queen Olga through the practice that was established in the Palace chapel and was transmitted from there to the parishes. In Russia, this custom was introduced at the time of Peter the Great and was due to European influence. The same distinguished Greek liturgist, criticizing the support of this custom, writes: “The tragic aspect of this case is not that some faithful and even some clergy bend their knee at the consecration of the Precious Gifts, but that this is taught and encouraged by the teachers of the Church in spite of the Sacred Canons and the ages long ecclesiastical tradition and order. Our piety in worship is bound to the liturgical order and consists in our coordinating ourselves to the rhythm and the pattern of common prayer. Otherwise we cause disarray and arbitrariness by not obeying the ecclesiastical institutions and not trying to understand their spirit, but, rather, to introduce our personal pietistic and pious-looking practices which are alien to our ecclesiastical tradition.”[25]
D. The View of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece
The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece at its meeting of October 1999 included in its agenda the topic entitled, “Liturgical precision, orderliness and unity, and ballot vote on a Constitution for a Special Synodal Committee of Liturgical Regeneration” with Metropolitan Nikodemos of Patrai as chairman on account of his tempered knowledge of liturgical matters. The Most Reverend Metropolitan Nikodemos presented to the Synodal body the conclusions of the 10 member Committee which had examined the above topic under his chairmanship. On the matter of kneeling the Committee proposed the following: “That kneeling on Sunday is not required at the consecration and is not imposed. It is simply tolerated.”
This view was based on a combination of the two opposing views that were outlined above, because it was determined that neither those who over-emphasize the absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays are right, nor do those who bend their knees at the awesome moment of the consecration ignore “what the Spirit (of the sacred Canons) says to the Churches.” In other words, the Holy Synod took the view that according to the rule (canon) Christians should not kneel on Sundays at the moment of “Your own from Your own we offer…” because this is what the Sacred Canons suggest because it is characteristic of these days to stress the Resurrection. Nevertheless, kneeling can be tolerated by concession (kat oikonomian), because it does not indicate any irreverence, but rather indicates great reverence and conscientious recognition of the awe-inspiring sacrifice which takes place on the Holy Table at the invocation (epiklesis) of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
What St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite says: We prefer to base our view not so much on the exercise of concession for those who bend the knee, or less on the absolute potency of the prohibition, but mainly on the distinction of the two senses of “kneeling” – as they were explained above and as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite had explained the Canon. Here is what he writes in his interpretation of Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod. “Note, however, that the present Canon is not referring to those genuflections which among us are more commonly called major repentances, which, properly speaking, are called prostrations that are made before kissing the icons of the saints or before the awesome sacraments and are not prohibited neither on a Sunday nor on the days of the period of Pentecost as Canon 10 of St. Nikephoros says. Indeed this is what the sacred hymns also say on occasions: 'Before You we fall down who was raised from the Tomb,' or 'Come let us worship and fall down before Christ the risen One…' and other such like hymns.”[26] And St. Nikodemos continues: “In my view the Canon does not refer to this kind of genuflection, but to the genuflection wherein while bending our knees we pray, as we do, for instance, during the evening of Holy Pentecost.”[27]
That is to say, yes the literary meaning of kneeling is the attachment of the knees to the ground, but this should be avoided on Sundays, because the Sacred Canons explicitly prohibit it and therefore, both clergy and laity should bend their body deeply when the consecration takes place in order to indicate that they stand before the sacrament in a spirit of veneration and worship. In this way, neither the Sacred Canons are infringed, nor is the pious disposition of the faithful overlooked or criticized.
Certainly we understand that this solution may cause the reaction of those who are used to kneeling to the ground on Sundays. This matter, however, has to do with pastoral and liturgical discipline, because people should be taught rightly why the Sacred Canons prohibit kneeling in church on Sundays. This is the duty of the clergy, who are required to undertake the responsibility to teach the faithful what is right and to use the liturgical sermon to educate their parishioners. There is no reason to allow the infiltration into the Divine Liturgy of personal and sentimental elements which change its character. Also, there is no need to try to find on every occasion pretexts or explanations of deviations which are not approved by the Church. The Divine Liturgy is not a personal affair. The Church lays down the order and she has specified that paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which stresses the Resurrection and which has been from the beginning associated with Sunday. We do not need to prove the paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which is connected with the Resurrection and the Last Things (eschatology). Besides, the Church prohibited the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on days of fasting and this, of course, has been today restricted to the period of the Great Lent, but the primary sense still remains intact: the Eucharist is an eschatological event and cannot be anything else but a celebratory occasion, full of joy and radiance.[28]
------------------
[1] See his Typikon, Thessalonica, 1994, p. 42.
[2] Ralles-Potles, Syntagma, vol. 4, p. 286.
[3] Translator’s note: See the Πηδάλιον Ἀγαπίου Ἱερομονάχου καὶ Νικοδήμου Μοναχοῦ (3η ἔκδοσις, Ζάκυνθος, 1864), ἐκδ. Ἀστήρ, Ἀθῆναι 1970, σ. 82. The English translation of the above, i.e. The Rudder of Agapius and Nikodemus, translated by D. Cummings, published by The Orthodox Christian Education Society, Chicago Illinois, 1957, p.110 gives the number 64 for this Canon, because, as it states it is so number in the majority of editions. However, the more recent editions of the Sacred Canons (Ἱεροὶ Κανόνες) of H. Alivizatos (1949) and Bl. Feidas (1997) give the number 55 to this Canon.
[4] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, p. 237.
[5] Εἰρηναίου, Ἀποσπάσματα ἐξ ἀπολεσθέντων ἔργων, ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 5, 1955, p. 174, 15-17.
[6] ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 4, 1955, p. 128.
[7] The Rudder, p. 196.
[8] The Rudder, pp. 394-5.
[9] The Rudder, pp. 754-5.
[10] The Rudder, p. 965.
[11] The Rudder, p. 855.
[12] The Rudder, p. 855.
[13] The Introit of the Small Entrance of the Divine Liturgy.
[14] The 3rd Antiphon of the Divine Liturgy.
[15] I Cor. 14:25.
[16] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ἐν ταῖς Κυριακαῖς, Τύποις Φοίνικος, Ἀθῆναι 1948.
[17] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ... ενθ. αν. σ. 8. Πρβλ. Αlekej Dmitrievskij, Opisanie Liturgitseskich Rukopisej, I, Τυπικά, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), p. 812.
[18] Εκκλησία, τευχ. 33-34, 1948.
[19] Εκκλησία 25-26 σ. 198.
[20] p. 5.
[21] Εκκλησία 33-34, 1938.
[22] Περίοδος Πεντηκοσταρίου, Το Εκκλησιαστικόν Έτος 2, έν Αθήναις 1973, σσ. 94-95.
[23] Ekklesia, issues 33-34, 1948, p. 280.
[24] Pedalion, p. 151.
[25] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, pp. 239-240.
[26] The Rudder, p. 965.
[27] Ibid.
[28] On this see further the article of The Most Reverend Metropolitan John of Pergamon in the journal Synaxis, 51 (1994) 88-89. See also, Archimandrite Kyrillos Kostopoulos, Sacred Tradition Regarding Kneeling: A Theological Reference to the Jewish Sabbath and to the Lord’s Day, Athens 2000.
Source: Translated by Protopresbyter George Dion Dragas and edited by John Sanidopoulos
Preamble
The issue of kneeling on Sundays continues to engage clergy and laity, due to the fact that diametrically opposite views have been formulated concerning this practice.
On the one hand there are those who claim that this practice is prohibited by the Sacred Canons. In particular, Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod states that no kneeling should be practiced on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost. According to this canon, kneeling, it states, is not consistent with the joyous and paschal character of these days, because kneeling is an expression of repentance and of godly sorrow.
On the other hand, there are others who make the opposite claim. They argue that kneeling at the time of the blessing of the Bread and the Wine, at the point we say “Your own from Your own we offer…,” is not a kneeling of sorrow, but of worship which is done because of the miracle which is effected at that moment by the God of our worship.
There is also a third category of theologians, who claim that kneeling on Sundays is neither recommended nor prohibited. It is simply tolerated, wherever it is enforced and observed.
There is no doubt that those Christians who kneel on Sundays do not do this out of irreverence, but out of great piety. They do it because they have been taught that at the point when we say “Your own from Your own we offer…” awe-inspiring mysteries take place: the Bread and the Wine that are used in the Eucharist are changed by the invocation (epiklesis) of the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. At the same time, however, it is certain that these Christians have not read the Sacred Canons, and have not studied the Holy Fathers. They simply behave according to what their Christian conscience dictates, without realizing that their behavior violates the order of the Church.
In the following paragraphs, we try to present in an analytic and objective manner the various aspects of this issue in an attempt to specify what is right and should be followed by the faithful Christians.
A. What Does The Term Kneeling (In Church) Mean?
The Sacred Canons on lesser and proper kneeling: Before we proceed to the next step, it is useful to observe what the Sacred Canons mean by the term kneeling in church. To begin with, kneeling in church is an ancient religious custom, whereby the people who are at prayer express their faith. Such kneeling is distinguished by two types:
Firstly, there is the kind when a person that prays bends the knees while holding the body upright and looking towards the foreground. This position is usually accompanied by simultaneous crossing oneself. It is the position we take at the Vespers of Forgiveness, i.e. the Vespers of Pentecost. (Indeed, the first prayer of this Vespers alludes to this in saying, “offering supplication by bending the neck and inclining the knees”).
Secondly, there is the type when a faithful rests on his knees on the ground, places his hands on it and bends down his forehead onto the earth, or when he is standing up and decides to go down on the knees to the point that his face touches the floor and then stands up again. This is repeated several times.
Kneeling and Repentance: The first kind of kneeling is called a minor repentance, and the second, major repentance, or prostration or ground prostration. Major repentances are practiced in the Presanctified Divine Liturgies, at the point when the Holy Gifts pass by the faithful. Greater use of them is made by monastics, and sometimes spiritual masters impose these major repentances as a penance on those Christians who have sinned and repented for their sins. Saint John the Faster introduced this custom of penances, and called the major type of (church) kneeling simply kneeling. Basil the Great closely identified repentance with the prostration.
When do we kneel and when do we not kneel in church: A differentiation is made between the minor and the major types of kneeling in the Kollyvadian Book of Liturgical Rubrics of the erudite economos Fr. George Regas of Skiathos, where we read the following: “Repentances are of two kinds, minor and major. The minor ones are the prostrations we do when we cross ourselves and bow only our head without bending the knees. These minor repentances are done each day and on many occasions throughout the day without ceasing. The major repentances are characterized by the bending of the knees. These are never allowed on a Saturday or Sunday (apart from the Feast of the Precious Cross), but are done only during the Great Lent and on any day except Saturday and Sunday.”[1]
Kneeling and the four types of repentant persons: From what has been said so far, we gather that prayer which is accompanied by repeated kneeling has the meaning of repentance, i.e. the return of a sinner. It is known that in the ancient Church the repentant persons were subdivided into four types:
Firstly, there were those who mourned. These people remained outside the church nave and invited other faithful to pray for them.
Secondly, there were those who simply listened to the services. These people entered only the narthex, and listened from there the reading of the Scriptures.
Thirdly, there were those who bended the knee or knelt to the ground. These people remained in this position in order to indicate their repentance.
Fourthly and finally, there were those who remained standing.
These types of repentance indicated people who had humbled themselves and were seeking God’s mercy. They symbolized human falling into sin and standing up against it. The falling to the ground indicated contrition and compunction, whereas the standing up indicated deliverance and salvation. As Basil the Great writes, “Each day by practicing kneeling to the ground and standing up again we show that through sin we fell to the earth and through the love for mankind of our Creator we were recalled to heaven.”[2]
B. What The Sacred Canons And Their Interpreters Say
What to do or what not to do on Sundays: Sunday was always distinguished from any other day as a day of joy and celebration, because of the Resurrection. This is why on Sunday we do not fast, and when we go through a period of fasting and do not use oil, Sundays and Saturdays are exempted. The 66th Canon of the Holy Apostles stipulates: “If any clergyman is found to be fasting on a Sunday, or on a Saturday, except on Great Saturday, he should be defrocked.”[3]
Why we should follow the Sacred Canons: One may ask, why do the Canons deal with such matters and do not leave the people free to do what they like and what they wish? The question is plausible. Nevertheless, we should not follow on all matters what we like, but what is right. Otherwise there will be no order in the Church and the symbolic actions will not be observed, in spite of their essentially dogmatic content. The ever-memorable professor of Liturgics John Foundoulis had this to say: “The position one takes in the Divine Liturgy should not be determined by our own personal piety and disposition, but by the Tradition of the Church, on the basis of the meaning which is given to every liturgical position and at every moment of the Church’s worship.”[4]
On Sundays we neither kneel nor fast: Along with fasting, the Sacred Canons prohibit all kneeling on Sundays.
What the Canons say: Saint Irenaeus writes: “The practice of not bending the knee on a Sunday is a symbol of the Resurrection, through which we were delivered by the Grace of Christ both from our sins and from the death which was put to death by Christ himself.”[5]
In a similar fashion pseudo-Justin bears witness in his 115th answer to the prohibition of all kneeling on Sundays. ´This custom was initiated in Apostolic times as blessed Irenaeus, the martyr-bishop of Lyons, says.”[6]
Of great importance for this matter is Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod, which stipulates: “Because there are some persons who kneel in church on a Sunday and during the days of Pentecost, with the view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it seemed best to the Holy Council that prayers should be offered to God while standing.”[7] In other words, the Holy Synod stipulates that on Sundays and during the period of Pentecost Christians should pray in Church standing.
Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod is even clearer. Here is what is specified: “We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays when we honor the Resurrection of Christ. Since this observation may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, that after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the evening of Saturday in question, let none of them bend the knee until the evening of the following Sunday, when, after the Entrance in the Vespers, we bend the knees again, and begin to offer prayers to the Lord. For inasmuch as we have received it that in the night succeeding Saturday was the precursor of our Savior’s rising, we commence our hymns at this point spiritually, ending the festival by passing out of darkness into light, in order that we may hence celebrate en masse the Resurrection for a whole day and a whole night.” In other words from the evening of Saturday, after Vespers, until the Vespers of Sunday we are obliged not to kneel when we pray. Here is Balsamon’s comment on this Canon: “The Resurrection of Christ took place on Saturday evening, i.e. before Sunday had dawned, so that what relates to the feast might start at night and end towards the light and so the vigil of the Resurrection is celebrated through the entire night and day.”[8] Indeed, it is known that the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated during the days of the Great Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays. The reason for this is that the Divine Liturgy is a template of the Resurrection and the Kingdom of God.
What the Fathers say: Let us now see what the Fathers say about this matter. Peter of Alexandria says this in his Canon 15: “As for Sunday, on the other hand, we celebrate it as a joyous holiday because of Him who was resurrected on it, on which day we have not even received instruction to bend the knee.”[9]
St. Nikephoros the Confessor stipulates through his Canon 10 the following: “One must bend the knee for the sake of bestowing a kiss on Sunday and throughout Pentecost, but one ought not to make the usual genuflections.”[10]
Basil the Great says in his Canon 91: “We offer our prayers on the first of the Sabbaths (Sunday) in a standing position.”[11] And he goes on to explain the reasons which obligate us not to make the major genuflections on a Sunday and during the entire period of Pentecost. These reasons are basically the fact that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection of our Lord and consequently we are obligated to remain standing in an upright position as resurrected persons. Besides, every Sunday is a symbol of the eighth day, i.e. of the age to come and for this reason the Church trains and teaches the faithful to remember the age to come and to be prepared to welcome it in an upright position which indicates vigilance. “In which (Sunday) the upright position of prayer should be preferred as the stipulations of the Church have trained us to do, so that by a sort of active reminder our mind might transmigrate from the present to the future realities.”[12]
The minor kneeling (genuflection) or repentance used in worship. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite is the one among the Fathers who clarifies that the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not include the minor kneeling, the so-called minor repentance, which we make when we venerate the holy icons. The Church does not forbid practicing this type of genuflection in church on Sundays. This is why we hear, “Come let us worship and prostrate before Christ…”[13] These minor prostrations which are done in veneration are not forbidden. The major kneeling, however, which involves bending the knee to the ground and touching the floor with the forehead, is forbidden, because it is contrary to the paschal and eschatological character of Sunday, i.e. to the joyful and festive spirit, which, on this account, is incompatible with any sense of mourning or contrition which is indicated by the major kneeling. This why the Church sings: “This is the Day which the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in It.”[14]
C. Other Views
There are theologians, however, who do not agree with what we wrote above. Here are their main arguments. When the Myrrh-bearing women met with the Risen Lord they fell on his feet and venerated Him. It was a Sunday when this took place. It was on the Mount of Galilee that the eleven Disciples venerated the Lord in the same way after His Resurrection. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, describes the gathering of the church for worship where each believer “falls down with his face onto the ground to worship God.”[15] Here, of course, it is not clarified whether the Apostle refers to the Sunday gathering for worship.
Serious arguments for major (proper) kneeling on Sundays: Such arguments, biblical, historical and canonical, are provided by Professor P. Trempelas in his book “Kneeling on Sundays.”[16] In this book, the wise professor invokes the witness of Codices 865 and 2055 of the National Library of Greece concerning the Hierarch who “makes three repentances.” Nevertheless this detail is not serious enough as to justify kneeling on Sundays. The same observation applies to the Typikon (Book of Liturgical Rubrics) of the 12th-13th century which has been published by Dimitrievsky and makes mention of “a triple kneeling of the priest.”[17] For these references, however, Matthew Vlastares’ comment made in the Pedalion (Rudder) is important: “The typika (rubrics) which are made by the founders of monasteries should be observed as long as they do not contradict the canons.” The same professor tries, on the basis of Canon 91 of Basil the Great, to render relative the upright position in Sunday prayers by writing that the opinion of the Holy Father is derived “from the unwritten tradition,”[18] although Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod had preceded it. At the same time the ever-memorable professor appeals to the witness of the Typikon of St. Savva, saying that it foresees for Sundays “bending of our knee and bowing towards the earth.”[19] Nevertheless in the edition of this Typikon of the year 1771 that was printed in Venice by Hierodeacon Spyridon Papadopoulos, the exact text reads as follows: “bending and bowing unto the earth.”[20] Indeed, it is known that Trempelas’ arguments were offset by other counter-arguments through the special study of Metropolitan Hezekiel the Thessaliotis in the journal Ekklesia.[21] Finally, with regard to the argument that in the ordinations, which usually occur on Sundays, we kneel down, it should be carefully observed that the most important codices do not refer to kneeling, either of the candidate or of the people. The later liturgical practice speaks of the kneeling of the candidate, but not of the people.
In addition, the ever-memorable Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos in his book “The Period of the Pentecostarion” insists on the distinction of various forms of kneeling. He clearly states, regarding this matter, that “this manner of combining the upright position with the bowing down in worship does not contradict the stipulations of the Church but satisfies a deep psychological need. This need is the worshipful prostration in the face of the one who already stands before us, under the species of bread and wine, namely, our King and Savior.”[22] And it seems that the solution to the whole problem is hidden behind this point.
Professor Basil Anagnostopoulos of the Theological School of Halki in his monograph “Kneeling at the Consecration of the Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord on Sundays: The Tradition of the Theological School of Halki” deposits his living memories from the School, where all the Patriarchs and Rectors of the last decades, such as the Patriarchs Maximos and Athenagoras, Melito of Chalcedon, Germanos of Thyateira, Gennadios of Elioupolis, Michael of America, as well as the two last Rectors of the period of his studies and the two of the period of his professorial service, used to kneel on Sundays. Ezekiel the Thessaliotis, however, deposits the witness of Polykarpos of Trikke and Stagoi (as Deacon to Patriarch Anthimos VII) according to which in the Patriarchate “no one ever bent the knee on a Sunday, because they regarded this custom as alien and strange to Greek Orthodoxy.”[23] Also, Archimandrite Eusebios Matthopoulos, the founder of the Zoe Brotherhood of Theologians, honored the custom of kneeling, having taken it from his Geronta Fr. Ignatios Lampropoulos.
A serious argument in support of the non-absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays, which is put forth, is the Church’s praxis, whereby she transferred, through its pertinent authority and apparently for pastoral reasons, the Vespers of the Sunday of Pentecost when all believers kneel, from the vesperal hours of the Sunday of Pentecost when believers also kneel (because there is no prohibition of kneeling on this occasion, according to Canon 90 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod) to the morning of the Sunday of Pentecost. Therefore, according to this view, the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays does not have an absolute character, but can be overlooked on account of spiritual-pastoral expediency. The position of Trempelas is indeed, that “since the transference of the Vespers to the morning was allowed, the prohibition of kneeling is of relative force and tolerable of exceptions and flexibility.” Also, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes, that the prayers of kneeling should not be said in the morning because in this way the prohibition of kneeling is thereby abolished. “Hence when we read these prayers in the morning, we do it wrongly and sinfully and in contradiction to the Sacred Canons.”[24] In addition, it is known that the Church has accepted the liturgical repentances on Sunday worship. At this point we should remark that we regard of special importance the observation of Professor Trempelas that the Sacred Canons which prohibit kneeling on Sundays do not impose penalties for possible transgressions of the specific stipulation.
Professor Ioannes Foundoulis attributes the introduction of the custom of kneeling to Russian influence, which was exerted upon our customs most probably by Queen Olga through the practice that was established in the Palace chapel and was transmitted from there to the parishes. In Russia, this custom was introduced at the time of Peter the Great and was due to European influence. The same distinguished Greek liturgist, criticizing the support of this custom, writes: “The tragic aspect of this case is not that some faithful and even some clergy bend their knee at the consecration of the Precious Gifts, but that this is taught and encouraged by the teachers of the Church in spite of the Sacred Canons and the ages long ecclesiastical tradition and order. Our piety in worship is bound to the liturgical order and consists in our coordinating ourselves to the rhythm and the pattern of common prayer. Otherwise we cause disarray and arbitrariness by not obeying the ecclesiastical institutions and not trying to understand their spirit, but, rather, to introduce our personal pietistic and pious-looking practices which are alien to our ecclesiastical tradition.”[25]
D. The View of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece
The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece at its meeting of October 1999 included in its agenda the topic entitled, “Liturgical precision, orderliness and unity, and ballot vote on a Constitution for a Special Synodal Committee of Liturgical Regeneration” with Metropolitan Nikodemos of Patrai as chairman on account of his tempered knowledge of liturgical matters. The Most Reverend Metropolitan Nikodemos presented to the Synodal body the conclusions of the 10 member Committee which had examined the above topic under his chairmanship. On the matter of kneeling the Committee proposed the following: “That kneeling on Sunday is not required at the consecration and is not imposed. It is simply tolerated.”
This view was based on a combination of the two opposing views that were outlined above, because it was determined that neither those who over-emphasize the absolute character of the prohibition of kneeling on Sundays are right, nor do those who bend their knees at the awesome moment of the consecration ignore “what the Spirit (of the sacred Canons) says to the Churches.” In other words, the Holy Synod took the view that according to the rule (canon) Christians should not kneel on Sundays at the moment of “Your own from Your own we offer…” because this is what the Sacred Canons suggest because it is characteristic of these days to stress the Resurrection. Nevertheless, kneeling can be tolerated by concession (kat oikonomian), because it does not indicate any irreverence, but rather indicates great reverence and conscientious recognition of the awe-inspiring sacrifice which takes place on the Holy Table at the invocation (epiklesis) of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
What St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite says: We prefer to base our view not so much on the exercise of concession for those who bend the knee, or less on the absolute potency of the prohibition, but mainly on the distinction of the two senses of “kneeling” – as they were explained above and as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite had explained the Canon. Here is what he writes in his interpretation of Canon 20 of the First Ecumenical Synod. “Note, however, that the present Canon is not referring to those genuflections which among us are more commonly called major repentances, which, properly speaking, are called prostrations that are made before kissing the icons of the saints or before the awesome sacraments and are not prohibited neither on a Sunday nor on the days of the period of Pentecost as Canon 10 of St. Nikephoros says. Indeed this is what the sacred hymns also say on occasions: 'Before You we fall down who was raised from the Tomb,' or 'Come let us worship and fall down before Christ the risen One…' and other such like hymns.”[26] And St. Nikodemos continues: “In my view the Canon does not refer to this kind of genuflection, but to the genuflection wherein while bending our knees we pray, as we do, for instance, during the evening of Holy Pentecost.”[27]
That is to say, yes the literary meaning of kneeling is the attachment of the knees to the ground, but this should be avoided on Sundays, because the Sacred Canons explicitly prohibit it and therefore, both clergy and laity should bend their body deeply when the consecration takes place in order to indicate that they stand before the sacrament in a spirit of veneration and worship. In this way, neither the Sacred Canons are infringed, nor is the pious disposition of the faithful overlooked or criticized.
Certainly we understand that this solution may cause the reaction of those who are used to kneeling to the ground on Sundays. This matter, however, has to do with pastoral and liturgical discipline, because people should be taught rightly why the Sacred Canons prohibit kneeling in church on Sundays. This is the duty of the clergy, who are required to undertake the responsibility to teach the faithful what is right and to use the liturgical sermon to educate their parishioners. There is no reason to allow the infiltration into the Divine Liturgy of personal and sentimental elements which change its character. Also, there is no need to try to find on every occasion pretexts or explanations of deviations which are not approved by the Church. The Divine Liturgy is not a personal affair. The Church lays down the order and she has specified that paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which stresses the Resurrection and which has been from the beginning associated with Sunday. We do not need to prove the paschal character of the Divine Liturgy which is connected with the Resurrection and the Last Things (eschatology). Besides, the Church prohibited the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on days of fasting and this, of course, has been today restricted to the period of the Great Lent, but the primary sense still remains intact: the Eucharist is an eschatological event and cannot be anything else but a celebratory occasion, full of joy and radiance.[28]
------------------
[1] See his Typikon, Thessalonica, 1994, p. 42.
[2] Ralles-Potles, Syntagma, vol. 4, p. 286.
[3] Translator’s note: See the Πηδάλιον Ἀγαπίου Ἱερομονάχου καὶ Νικοδήμου Μοναχοῦ (3η ἔκδοσις, Ζάκυνθος, 1864), ἐκδ. Ἀστήρ, Ἀθῆναι 1970, σ. 82. The English translation of the above, i.e. The Rudder of Agapius and Nikodemus, translated by D. Cummings, published by The Orthodox Christian Education Society, Chicago Illinois, 1957, p.110 gives the number 64 for this Canon, because, as it states it is so number in the majority of editions. However, the more recent editions of the Sacred Canons (Ἱεροὶ Κανόνες) of H. Alivizatos (1949) and Bl. Feidas (1997) give the number 55 to this Canon.
[4] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, p. 237.
[5] Εἰρηναίου, Ἀποσπάσματα ἐξ ἀπολεσθέντων ἔργων, ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 5, 1955, p. 174, 15-17.
[6] ΒΕΠΕΣ, vol. 4, 1955, p. 128.
[7] The Rudder, p. 196.
[8] The Rudder, pp. 394-5.
[9] The Rudder, pp. 754-5.
[10] The Rudder, p. 965.
[11] The Rudder, p. 855.
[12] The Rudder, p. 855.
[13] The Introit of the Small Entrance of the Divine Liturgy.
[14] The 3rd Antiphon of the Divine Liturgy.
[15] I Cor. 14:25.
[16] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ἐν ταῖς Κυριακαῖς, Τύποις Φοίνικος, Ἀθῆναι 1948.
[17] Ἡ Γονυκλισία ... ενθ. αν. σ. 8. Πρβλ. Αlekej Dmitrievskij, Opisanie Liturgitseskich Rukopisej, I, Τυπικά, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), p. 812.
[18] Εκκλησία, τευχ. 33-34, 1948.
[19] Εκκλησία 25-26 σ. 198.
[20] p. 5.
[21] Εκκλησία 33-34, 1938.
[22] Περίοδος Πεντηκοσταρίου, Το Εκκλησιαστικόν Έτος 2, έν Αθήναις 1973, σσ. 94-95.
[23] Ekklesia, issues 33-34, 1948, p. 280.
[24] Pedalion, p. 151.
[25] Ioannes Foundoulis, Liturgics, pp. 239-240.
[26] The Rudder, p. 965.
[27] Ibid.
[28] On this see further the article of The Most Reverend Metropolitan John of Pergamon in the journal Synaxis, 51 (1994) 88-89. See also, Archimandrite Kyrillos Kostopoulos, Sacred Tradition Regarding Kneeling: A Theological Reference to the Jewish Sabbath and to the Lord’s Day, Athens 2000.
Source: Translated by Protopresbyter George Dion Dragas and edited by John Sanidopoulos
America's God Is Dying
Stanley Hauerwas
July 20, 2010
ABC Religion and Ethics
America is the first great experiment in Protestant social formation. Protestantism in Europe always assumed and depended on the cultural habits that had been created by Catholic Christianity. America is the first place Protestantism did not have to define itself over against a previous Catholic culture. So America is the exemplification of constructive Protestant social thought.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer thus got it right when he characterized American Protestantism as "Protestantism without Reformation."
That is why it has been possible for Americans to synthesize three seemingly antithetical traditions: evangelical Protestantism, republican political ideology and commonsense moral reasoning. For Americans, faith in God is indistinguishable from loyalty to their country.
American Protestants do not have to believe in God because they believe in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce an interesting atheist in America. The god most Americans say they believe in is just not interesting enough to deny. Thus the only kind of atheism that counts in America is to call into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Consequently, America did not need to have an established church because it was assumed that the church was virtually established by the everyday habits of public life.
Just take, for example, the 1833 amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that did away with church establishment, which nonetheless affirmed "the public worship of God, and the instructions in piety, religion, and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people, and the security of republican government."
In his important book America's God, Mark Noll points out that these words were written at the same time that Alexis de Tocqueville had just returned to France from his tour of North America. Tocqueville confirmed the point made in the Massachusetts Constitution by observing, "I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion - for who can read to the bottom of hearts? - but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks."
Protestantism came to America to make America Protestant. It was assumed that was to be done through faith in the reasonableness of the common man and the establishment of a democratic republic. But in the process the church in America became American - or, as Noll puts it, "because the churches had done so much to make America, they could not escape living with what they had made."
As a result Americans continue to maintain a stubborn belief in a god, but the god they believe in turns out to be the American god. To know or worship that god does not require that a church exist because that god is known through the providential establishment of a free people.
This is a presumption shared by the religious right as well as the religious left in America. Both assume that America is the church.
But now we are beginning to see the loss of confidence by Protestants in their ability to sustain themselves in America just to the extent that the inevitable conflict between the church, republicanism and commonsense morality has worked its way through the system of our national life.
America is the great experiment in Protestant social thought, but the society Protestants created now threatens to make Protestantism unintelligible to itself. Put as directly as I can, I believe we may be living at a time when we are watching Protestantism, at least the kind of Protestantism we have in America, come to an end. It is dying of its own success.
Protestantism became identified with the republican presumption in liberty as an end in itself. This presumption was then reinforced by an unassailable belief in the commonsense of the individual. As a result, Protestant churches in America lost the ability to maintain those disciplines that are necessary to sustain a truly free people - people who are capable of being a genuine alternative to the rest of the world.
The great irony is that the almost pathological fervency with which the religious right in America tries to sustain faith as a necessary condition for democracy is the surest formula for insuring that the faith that is sustained is not the Christian faith.
More Americans may go to church than their counterparts in Europe, but the churches to which they go do little to challenge the secular presumptions that form their lives or the lives of the churches to which they go. For the church is assumed to exist to reinforce the presumption that those that go to church have done so freely.
The church's primary function, therefore, is to legitimate and sustain the presumption that America represents what all people would want to be if they had the benefit of American education and money. That is what Americans mean by "freedom." Thus the presumption that if you get to choose between a Sony or Panasonic television you have had a "free choice." The same presumption works for choosing a President. Once you have made your choice you have to learn to live with it. So there is a kind of resignation that freedom requires.
But this is where the entire "freedom" edifice begins to crumble. Just consider this question: "Do you think that people ought to be held accountable for decisions they made when they did not know what they were doing?" Most Americans would say no. They do not believe you should be held accountable because it is assumed that you should only be held accountable when you acted freely, and that means you had to know what you were doing.
This is what I mean when I say, in a rather convoluted way, that most Americans tell themselves the story that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story. That we are, in other words, people of our own making, constituted by a free choice. And that free choice is the only thing we are responsible for.
But the problem with such an account of responsibility is that it makes marriage, among other things, completely unintelligible. How could you ever know what you were doing when you promised life-long monogamous fidelity? That is why the church insists that your vows be witnessed by the church, because the church believes it has the duty to hold you responsible to promises you made when you did not know what you were doing.
This obviously has profound implications for how faith is understood. The idea that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story produces people who can say things such as, "I believe Jesus is Lord - but that's just my personal opinion." This kind of statement obviously suggests a superficial person, but such are the people that many believe are crucial to sustain democracy. For such a people are necessary in order to avoid the conflicts that otherwise might undermine the order, which is confused with peace, necessary to sustain a society that shares no goods in common other than the belief that there are no goods in common.
If I am right about the story that shapes the American self-understanding, I think we are in a position to better understand why 11 September 2001 had such a profound effect on the self-proclaimed "most powerful nation in the world." The fear of death is necessary to insure a level of cooperation between people who otherwise share nothing in common. In other words, they share nothing in common other than the presumption that death is to be avoided at all costs.
That is why in America hospitals have become our cathedrals and physicians are our priests. I'd even argue that America's almost pathological reliance on medicine is but a domestic manifestation of its foreign policy. America is a culture of death because Americans cannot conceive of how life is possible in the face of death. And thus "freedom" comes to stand for the attempt to live as though we will not die.
It is impossible to avoid the fact that American Christianity is far less than it should have been just to the extent that the church has failed to make clear that America's god is not the God that Christians worship.
We are now facing the end of Protestantism. America's god is dying. Hopefully, that will leave the church in America in a position where it has nothing to lose. And when you have nothing to lose, all you have left is the truth. So I am hopeful that God may yet make the church faithful - even in America.
Stanley Hauerwas is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University. In 2001 he was named "America's Best Theologian" by Time magazine.
The Patristic Understanding of the Virgin Birth of Christ
Where God Wills The Order Of Nature Is Overruled
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered" (Lk. 2:6).
Concerning the birth of Christ, the Prophet Isaiah spoke thus:
"Behold she that travailed brought forth, before the travail-pain came on, she escaped it and brought forth a male" (Is. 66:7).
Saint John of Damascus adds to this saying that:
"After the normal nine-month gestational period, Christ was born at the beginning of the tenth, in accordance with the law of gestation. It was the birth that surpassed the established order of birthgiving, as it was without pain; for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow. And just as at His conception He had kept her who conceived Him virgin, so also at His birth did He maintain her virginity intact, because He alone passed through her and kept her shut.
While the conception was by 'hearing', the birth was by the usual orifice through which children are born, even though there are some who concoct an idle tale of His being born from the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to pass through the gate without breaking its seals. Hence, the Ever-Virgin remained virgin even after giving birth and never had converse with a husband as long as she lived."1
Saint Ambrose in his Synodal Letter 44 writes:
"Why is it hard to believe that Mary gave birth in a way contrary to the law of natural birth and remained a virgin, when contrary to the law of nature the sea looked at Him and fled, and the waters of the Jordan returned to their source (Ps. 113:3). Is it past belief that a virgin gave birth when we read that a rock issued water (Ex. 17:6), and the waves of the sea were made solid as a wall (Ex. 14:22)? Is it past belief that a Man came from a virgin when a rock bubbled forth a flowing stream (Ex. 20:11), iron floated on water (4 Kings 6:6), a Man walked upon the waters (Mt. 14:26)? If the waters bore a Man, could not a virgin give birth to a man? What Man? Him of Whom we read: '...the Lord shall be known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day; and they shall offer sacrifices, and shall vow vows to the Lord, and pay them' (Is. 19:20).
In the Old Testament a Hebrew virgin (Miriam) led an army through the sea (Ex. 15:21); in the New testament a king's daughter (the Virgin Mary) was chosen to be the heavenly entrance to salvation."
In the Resurrection Theotokion of Saturday Vespers (Plagal of the First Mode), we chant:
"Then, the deep was trodden dry-shod by Israel, now, Christ is born seedlessly of the Virgin. The sea, after the passage of Israel, remained untrodden: the blameless one, after the birth of Emmanuel, remained undefiled."
Saint Ambrose also writes in another letter that:
"A virgin carried Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born of Mary's womb, He yet preserved the enclosure of her modesty, and the inviolate seal of her virginity."2
Where God so wills the order of nature is overcome. Is anything too hard for Him Who called heaven, earth and the sea into being by His word alone? Nature and the elements are creations of the Creator. Their laws and properties are immediately subject to their Lord Fashioner. Adam and Eve were given dominion over the fish of the sea, the flying creatures of heaven, and over the reptiles and cattle and all the earth (Gen. 1:26); all were subject to them before the fall. Saint Gregory Palamas comments that when the Logos of God took on human nature, He bestowed on it the fullness of grace and delivered it from the bonds of corruption and death. The consequence of hypostatic union in Christ of the two natures was the deification of the human nature He assumed.3 The regeneration of man in Christ was the restoration of Adam and Eve.
The saints, having put on Christ, have often resumed the authority and dominion that our first parents had. Thus, the Prophet Habakkum instantly traversed vast expanses of land, with no effort, and brought food to Daniel in the lion's den. The Holy Apostles, too, were transported on clouds to be at the Theotokos' repose in Jerusalem, and their bodily weight proved not to hamper their flight, in defiance to gravity. Our Savior and the saints performed those things outside the created laws of physics and medicine. By a word, straightway, long and terminal illnesses vanished, limbs that were palsied became sound, those without orbs received the power of vision, and many were raised from the dead. Some of the saints could go long periods without food, water or changes of clothing as St. Paisios the Great of Egypt or St. Mary Golinduc the Persian. Others, by their mere grace0filled presence, tamed wild and ferocious animals. Thus, why should it be difficult to imagine that the Christ infant could not pass through that virginal orifice through which children are delivered without incurring damage or the slightest discomfort to His Mother, despite His newborn height and weight? Later, in life, He would pass through the midst of the mob unscathed as though bodiless and, after His Resurrection, His body would pass through solid and shut doors to meet and greet His anxious disciples (Jn. 20:19).
Concerning the mystery of the incarnation, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following:
"When God became known to us in the flesh, He neither received the passions of human nature, nor did the Virgin Mary suffer pain, nor was the Holy Spirit diminished in any way, nor was the power of the Most High set aside in any manner, and all this was because all was accomplished by the Holy Spirit. thus the power of the Most High was not abased, and the child was born with no damage whatsoever to the mother's virginity."4
Saint Hesychios (c. 451), a learned priest-monk of Jerusalem, expressed the same truth, writing that:
"The Theotokos was a woman, yet she did not suffer the pangs of childbirth because the field of marriage had not experienced the plow; the virginal vineyard was not tilled."5
Notes:
1. Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, Ch. 14.
2. Letter 59, To the Church at Vercelli.
3. Georgios L. Mantzarides, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, p. 29.
4. "Against Eunomius, Hom. II", PG 45, 492.
5. "Sermon On the Presentation", PG 93, 1469.
Source: The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos by Holy Apostles Convent, pp. 176-179.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
