Raymond Rizk: Are we before the Spectacle of a Church Disintegrating?

This article is translated from Majallat al-Nur 57.8 (December, 2019), 401-408. Alongside this article, it is also worth reading Rizk's reflections on the "Council" of Crete, as he had been designated one of Antioch's delegates to the council.

Are we before the Spectacle of a Church Disintegrating?

It is a cry expressing heartbreak leading to the loss of hope, if the Grace of God were not sufficient and  strength made perfect in weakness (1 Corinthians 12:9). This heartbreak comes from the current schisms in our Orthodox Church and the great distance of her behavior from the image her theology wishes to project, of being the Early Church.

After examining the characteristics of the early Christian community and the deviations to which it has been subjected, past and present, we can examine the problems that are tearing our Church apart today and what awaits her in the future.

The Early Community

Christians were called in particular “saints” and “brothers” and their community was called the “brotherhood.” How not, when Christians are equal brothers in the body of Christ, sharing together in the building up of this body, each according to the gifts given to him by the Spirit. The Apostle Paul distinguishes between the brothers he calls episkopos (that is, overseer) and presbyteros (that is, elder) and he relies on them in addition to the diakonos (that is, servant) for taking care of the communities that the apostles founded. Most modern translations of the New Testament use the terms “bishop” and “priest” to indicate the episkopos and presbyteros under the influence of the Church’s modern situations. In reality, the term “priest” is not found in the New Testament except with reference to the priests of the Jews. It is also applied to the Lord Jesus “the chief priest forever” (Hebrews 6:19) and to the collective priesthood of believers in the expressions “the royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9) and “kings and priests” (Revelation 1:6 and 5:10). The apostolic communities gathered around the episkopos or presbyteros who led the service of the Eucharist which the community of the faithful performed along with him, according to its royal priesthood.

The Apostle Paul believes that the responsibility of the “overseer” lies in pastoring “the Church of God” (Acts 20:28) and keeping watch over the unity of the people of God, taking notice of the gifts of the children of God and reminding them “in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2) that in baptism they have obtained "an annointing from the Holy One" (1 John 2:20). As for the faithful, Paul urges them "to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:12) and to bear each other's burdens, forgive each other and, before all else, "
put on love, which is the bond of perfection" (Colossians 3:14).

A Christian does not Exist Alone, but rather Exists with his Brothers

A Christian loses the characteristic of being a Christian if he departs from the communion of the community of brothers. He realizes himself in his connection with the other-- any other—within and outside the community. His love for others leads him to encounter God because “If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us” (1 John 4:12). For this reason, Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) said, “In the Church, we tell each other, ‘I need you in order to be’… Therefore, members of the Church do not use ‘I’, but ‘we’.”[1] We do not say in our prayers ‘Lord have mercy on me’, but rather ‘on us.’ During the prayer of consecration, which is the apex of the Divine Liturgy, the priest says: ‘We offer You this rational worship… and we ask, we pray and we entreat You…’ Then, the people present who are participating in offering the ‘Sacrifice of Praise’ confirm this prayer with their resounding amen.[2]

The Mystery of the Eucharist

When the faithful receive from the hand of the bishop or from the priest delegated by him the precious Body and Blood of the Lord, this mystery represents the mystery of the Church’s unity par excellence. There is no real unity among Christians apart from that which ensures Christ’s presence in each one of them, transforming them into true brothers because the Lord “was honored to be their brother”[3] and makes from them His Church. Within this understanding, the bishop is the elder brother, “first among equals” in the family of the Lord’s brothers. Unfortunately, however, this Eucharistic understanding is not generally experienced in our ecclesiastical communities. Most of the time, we find in them understandings that divide them into two groups, clergy and laity, and we hear in them talk of the “authority” of the clergy and the “rights” of the laity. There is also a lot of talk of obedience, primacies and prerogatives.

The Bishop: Beginnings and Deviations

When the Apostle Paul described the characteristics and responsibility of the bishop, he was aware that this responsibility would be subjected to deviations, since he says to the bishops, “ Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock… For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:28-30). This prophecy came true time and again in the Church’s history, not only because of the heresy of some bishops, but also on account of those who put themselves above the people of God and treated them with the authoritarianism of this world, determining their fate without referring to them.

All authority in the Church is in order to grow love in the community and to serve its unity. Otherwise, it turns into authoritarianism. All obedience is obedience to Christ and thus to the faithful brothers, including the bishop. Obedience is always reciprocal: I obey you because I love you and I know that you are ready to obey me in the Lord. There is no authority and no obedience in the Church apart from an atmosphere of love, dialogue, mutual listening and loving attentiveness. Our fathers teach us that the purpose of authority and obedience in the Church is nothing other than holiness, the holiness of those who wield authority and the holiness of those who obey. Whenever holiness weakens, authority inclines toward authoritarianism and obedience to enslavement, and “the salt is corrupted.”

Some ecclesiastical texts that were composed in the early centuries[4] describe gatherings of the early Christian community as family gatherings. One of them presides and the equal brothers participate with him. It seems that this situation started to change after the first persecutions, since a greater focus on the bishop in ecclesiastical services is noticed then. There is no doubt that this better helped to defend the faith, but it created “a certain inflation in the sacramental hierarchy and a disruption of the ecclesiastical balance.”[5] Then, unconsciously at first, certain fissures started to appear, not at the level of theological vision but in lived reality and the Church started to become more centralized around the clergy and infused with legal concepts.

These inclinations grew when the Church became the church of the empire and was forced into a number of “compromises”. The following two texts clearly indicate the change that occurred in the position of the bishop, in his consciousness of himself, and his image in the eyes of the faithful.

We read in the Didascalia, “If a poor man or woman should come… and there be no place for them to sit, do thou, O bishop, with all thy heart provide a place for them, even if thou have to sit upon the ground.”[6] A similar passage in the Apostolic Constitutions says, “If a poor person comes… and does not have a place to sit, let the deacon do all he is able to find a place for him.”[7]

So we see, in the course of less than half a century, the bishop being removed from personal concern for the poor and his delegation of this responsibility to the deacon. The bishop is no longer the first brother among equal brothers who gives an example by serving the needy, but rather becomes one who does not “come down” from his throne to help the poor. The Apostolic Constitutions were composed after the empire’s conversion to Christianity, and the bishops had grown accustomed to rubbing shoulders with patricians and grandees. It came to be customary to call the bishop “master” despite the explicit request by Christ Himself that no one on earth be called master because “your one Master is Christ and you are all brothers…” (Matthew 23:8).

Other canonical texts[8] show how the bishops gradually reduced the role of prophets, teachers, readers and other forms of ecclesiastical service or delegated priests (who took the place of elders) or deacons to undertake some of them. We see that service in the Church is no longer the result of a divine gift that the bishop and the community notice in one of its members, but rather accepting a designation by the bishop alone.

Likewise the Apostolic Constitutions say to the bishops: “You are to the laity prophets, rulers, governors, and kings; the mediators between God and His faithful people, who receive and declare His word, well acquainted with the Scriptures. You are the voice of God, and witnesses of His will.”[9] It also tells the laity that the bishop is “next after God, your earthly god who has a right to be honored by you… let him preside over you as one honored with the authority of God.”[10] The bishop is very clearly no longer the “elder brother”, but the king and master, who exclusively holds all gifts in his hands and the hands of the clerical class who depend on him, which is likened to the Levitical priesthood[11] in the Old Testament.

In the Apostolic Constitutions there is another recommendation to the bishop which says, “Be of one mind, O you bishops, one with another, and be at peace with one another; sympathize with one another, love the brethren… that there may be no schisms among you.”[12] It seems that this recommendation has rarely been honored, given the wrangling and quarrels among bishops that have been commonplace in the Church’s history.

As for the laity, although they continue to be called in the Apostolic Constitutions “the chosen Church of God… the holy and sacred Church of God, enrolled in heaven, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, a bride adorned for the Lord God,”[13] the Constitutions empty these expressions of their meaning and in practice leave nothing to the laity apart from obedience. They ask them to not “do anything without the bishop”[14] and to provide his livelihood, “and the livelihood of those clergymen with him.”[15]

It is clear that “the corruption of the salt” began in the second part of the third century and that the church of the “empire” lost its semblance to the Early Church. The Early Church was not of this world, but the church of the empire slid deep into this world. This slide was accompanied by the reception of a large number of new converts without sufficient preparation, which led to a weakening of the community’s spiritual life. It was left to its best elements, the founders of monasticism, to preserve the original way of life. We find in the Apostolic Constitutions a certain amount of contradiction and confusion since it sometimes preserved old standards and at other times adapts them to the changing situation.

The Holy Fathers

Many holy bishops, monks and pious laypeople rose up against the laxity of Christian communities and called for a return to the principles of the Gospel and various stages of the Church’s history. We call them the Holy Fathers. The Orthodox are generally happy to parrot their sayings, but without imitating their life. Their sayings are many, but two of them will suffice us.

Saint Basil the Great wrote in a letter to a bishop, “It is right for us bishops to cease and for the churches to live in mutual concord, since we see how our silly and petty conflicts harm the people of God.”[16] The Blessed Augustine says to his lay flocks, “It scares me what I represent for you, but I am put at ease by that in which I share with you. For you, I am the bishop. But with you, I am a mere Christian. The title ‘bishop’ indicates a responsibility that one bears. But the name ‘Christian’ is the name of the grace granted to us all. We bishops are your servants and your companions at the same time… We are your leaders and those led by you at the same time. We stand at your forefront only if we contribute to your wellbeing. If the bishop does not behave in this way, then he will not remain a bishop in reality, but rather bears the name improperly.”[17]

Contemporary Fathers

The age of the fathers has not ended and some of them still rise up against deviations, like the growing state of clericalism, the unilateralism and authoritarian behavior of bishops, and the Church’s use of the ways of the world in her activities. Daniel Ciobotea (currently Patriarch of Romania) wrote, “The structure of the Church must only be a structure of participation and service, since her chief purpose is not establishing a regime in the legal sense of the term or even unity of an administrative sort, but rather creating harmony in brotherly love and consequently a participatory unity based on reciprocal self-sacrifice according to the model of the reciprocal self-sacrifice of the hypostases of the Trinity.”[18] He says of obedience, “We must be careful to remain obedient, on the condition of bringing back the ecclesiastical sense of obedience, since it seems that there are deviations in the prevailing understanding of it. The purpose of obedience in the Church is never to preserve the system by eliminating brotherly love or the personality of the ‘little ones.’ Obedience is not elevating the one who commands and abasing the one who obeys, but rather for the life of both parties to become self-sacrifice through liberating, reciprocal service and joint responsibility for the edification of the Church.”[19] In truth, Christian obedience is always reciprocal, as one of the Desert Fathers said, “Obedience in return for obedience: for He who obeys God, God obeys.”[20] Anba Pimen drew attention to the fact that “he who leads must always be a model and not a legislator.”[21] Does the sight of what many of the leaders of our churches are doing constitute a model?

The Painful Reality

Looking at our current ecclesiastical reality objectively makes us consider the words of our fathers as though they come from another world. Father Nikolai Afanasiev expressed this painful reality when he said, “History introduced massive alterations into ecclesiastical life and invented forms that differ radically from earlier forms, sowing strange concepts.” He added, “We must struggle today to be rid of the forms to which we have grown accustomed and return to the ancient forms that appear strange to us.”[22]

 

This discourse is not unique. Many of the people of God in our days are aware of the danger of where we have arrived and the necessity of returning to the Church’s living tradition, this tradition that has been drowned out by human traditions and historical missteps into a whole set of prohibitions cast in a language that does not speak to people. We have made human traditions, certain canons and typica—the interpretation of which has been left to people’s whim—into holy degrees that generally take the place of the decrees of the Gospel and the Apostles. Our Church practically lives in the past and fears every new thing and change, even if it requires returning to the sources. Many times it has become a museum whose treasures have been covered by a great amount of dust.

What can be said at the sight of the schisms of our churches and the disputes of their bishops over the “rights” of sees or persons? The attachment of certain of our churches to their racial affiliation surpasses their affiliation to Christ. Are we really experiencing such blatant heresies and no one seems concerned?! Metropolitan Georges (Khodr) once cried out, “This group that eats the Lord’s body eats away at itself with hatred.” How right he was! What is there to do, then, when this “salt” is corrupted?!

The Holy Spirit and the Council

We cannot do anything by ourselves. Only the Holy Spirit can prevent the salt from being corrupted and bring back its original flavor. He alone gives life to the Son’s Church, if the people of God refrain from imprisoning Him in the chains of their egotism. This people must desire it, because the Holy Spirit is always ready. Our problem is that we do not rely on Him who brings all newness, but rather on our longstanding habits. Our point of reference is the system of “masters” that our sins have brought us to!

No parish, diocese or independent church remains the Church of Christ if it rejects the newness of the Spirit, closes in on itself, takes pride in its achievements, and thinks that it is able to continue to be this Church despite ignoring others. Although every bishop and every Eucharistic community is rooted in a specific place, they are in communion with all the other Eucharistic communities and bishops at the regional and global level. This communion appears in the synod which includes the bishops of a specific geographic region inasmuch as they represent their Eucharistic communities. It appears at the global level in the ecumenical council. Each synod must have a “first among equals” (primus inter pares) and not a “first without equals” (primus sine paribus), as a newly-coined heresy claims.[23]

Contemporary Heresies

This and similar heresies, especially that which pertains to racial affiliation, led to a break in Eucharistic communion between two churches in 1996—for the first time in modern Orthodox history, not for dogmatic reasons, but on account of an administrative dispute over prerogatives and geographic boundaries in Estonia. This was not resolved before another break in communion occurred in 2010, decided by the See of Antioch with regard to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. This was also for an administrative reason related to geographic boundaries. It is noteworthy that this break in communion was limited to clergy, as though they represent a separate body from the rest of the faithful! Despite several efforts, until now this problem has not been resolved and it seems that the Orthodox world has forgotten it or ignores it. Finally, the Church of Russia has broken Eucharistic communion with the Church of Constantinople, also on account of an administrative dispute about Ukraine. This break has been extended to the Church of Greece and the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which have recognized the entity established by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine. It is feared that the break will extend to other “Greek” churches if they follow Constantinople’s example.

I have no intention of delving into the reasons for these schisms and the responsibilities of all the churches in them. They are a mix of canonical propriety, disputes about “prerogatives”[24] of the heads of the churches and political reasons. If they indicate anything, they indicate how absorbed our churches are in the mindset of the world, where one imposes economic sanctions on anyone who disagrees. As for us, unfortunately, we impose a prohibition from the Heavenly Provision, as though we own it!

It is a sad situation to be Orthodox today! It is unfortunate to observe that the affairs of the Church are generally not conducted according to the mind of Christ, but rather are completely removed from the love that is supposed to be the only “weapon” available to those who believe in Him. Basil the Great wished that one of the bishops would “cast off the idea that he does not need to be in communion with another one. Because no one who lives in love or strives to keep the Law of Christ can break communion with his brothers.”[25] He wrote in another letter, sent to Athanasius the Great, “You must be attentive that no schism occur between the churches… out of fear that the Orthodox people divide into various parties and follow the leaders in their schisms. We must make every effort for peace to prevail before all else.”[26] Is anyone listening?!

Questions

We have the right to wonder whether the leaders of some of our churches take seriously the “Law of Christ,” of which Saint Basil speaks, or whether they consider their own interests and centers of power to be more important. Do they really believe that the Eucharist itself forms their church and the church of their brothers in faith before they break communion?

The Council

All matters of dispute must be examined in a council, as happened in the Byzantine period. There is, however, no longer an emperor to call such a council. On the other hand, the experience of the “council” of Crete was ineffective. The Orthodox Church today is at a real impasse. We stand before two competing visions of the concept of the Church: Constantinople emphasizes primacy “without equals” while others emphasize equality between the churches. It is a fruitless debate for those who want to be Christians who believe in unity in diversity. It seems that this quarrel will go on in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and political interests, which the leaders of the churches lack the boldness to resist. The schism will go on as long as God wills, unless the other Orthodox churches decided to intervene and “force” the rivals to agree to a council.

Orthodox Brotherhoods?

The Orthodox Church has experienced analogous tragic situations in the past, where bishops abandoned their responsibilities and left their flocks. One of these occasions occurred in the 16^th century, in a region that is mostly located in modern Ukraine and Belarus. The Church was saved at that time through the activity of brotherhoods that included monks and laypeople who mobilized to defend Orthodoxy and were granted God’s help.

We ask the Holy Spirit to inspire some of our bishops, monks, theologians and laypeople to such activity. They must pray together without splitting into competing rival parties and partake together in the Holy Things (despite the restrictions) in order to create, with God’s help, awareness among the Orthodox that their Church is disintegrating and that the time has come to turn the tables on those who traffic in holy things, just as the time has come for us all to repent and prepare to affirm “the joy that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).  

---

[1] In the keynote address he gave at the recent conference of Orthodox theologians in Romania.

[2] Basil the Great says that the “amen” boomed in his church like the sound of thunder.

[3] Blessed Augustine, Sermon 25

[4] Especially the Didache (early 2^nd century) and the Tradition of the Apostles (ca. 215) and the Didascalia Apostolorum (early third century).

[5] Fr Sergei Bulgakov, one of the great Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century, in his book L'épouse de l'agneau (L’Age d’Homme), 214.

[6] In Section 12.

[7] The Apostolic Constitutions are a collection of Christian regulations composed by a bishop in Northern Syria around the year 380. It relies in some passages on the Didache and the Didascalia Apostolorum.

[8] For example, the Clementine texts, which are pseudepigraphic texts composed in the first part of the third century incorporating texts of a Judeo-Christian character from the end of the second century.

[9] Book II, 25.7

[10] Book II, 26.4

[11] Book II, 25.7

[12] Book II, 44.2

[13] Book II, 26.1

[14] Book II, 26.1

[15] Book II, 24.3

[16] Letter 204.7

[17] Sermon 22

[18] In an article on the mystery of communion and freedom in a world marked by sin and limitedness, 1985.

[19] ibid.

[20] From the Sayings of the Desert Fathers.

[21] From the article by Ciobotea.

[22] L'Église du Saint-Esprit (Cerf, 1974), 247.

[23] The first to write about it was Elpidophoros, Archbishop of the Greek Church in the United States, who is close to the current Ecumenical Patriarch.

[24] No church leader has any prerogative apart from self-sacrifice, love and service.

[25] Letter 65

[26] Letter 69

Met Ephrem (Kyriakos): Man's Struggle

Arabic original here.

Man's Struggle

In his precise characterization of evil, Saint Gregory of Nyssa says that "it never appears nakedly and as it really is, but always wears a splended, beautiful robe. Vice does not become effective unless it is colored with strokes of beauty that stir up desire in man so that he is inevitably tricked. Evil appears to us as a mixture of good and evil at the same time:

Deep down, it contains death as a hidden trap, but its appearance is falsely seductive... People generally deem everything that fascinates and bewitches the senses to be good and they judge things according to their appearances..."

For this reason man always finds himself in a struggle between the devil on one side and God on the other. Sometimes he allies with the former and sometimes the latter. But what communion is there between light and darkness? And what is light, if not the dispelling of darkness?! (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Man can defeat the devil and be victorious over him by the power and activity of the Holy Spirit who has dwelled within him since baptism and by the struggle of repentance and tears, which are a second baptism.

The man of today and of every era suffers from spiritual ignorance. He is ignorant of the fact that he possesses these spiritual weapons and is led along the paths of evil which are easier and the shortest path.

The man of today offers daily worship to Baal and Baal today is the ego. It is as though he worships himself. This is the work of the devil, in the opposite direction from God. God is communion and this communion is a movement from me-- to you-- to God!

The man of today is no longer a spiritual man, but rather fleshly, living in things of the flesh. All sorts of pleasures sharpen the fleshly things within us-- and they are many.

God brings together and the devil divides. God blesses marriage and the devil desacrates it. God came from a virgin and the devil wants us to be children of fornication. God wants us to pray and fast because this kind only comes out through prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:21) and the devil leads us away from every virtue and deters us from prayer, especially on Sunday, the Lord's day, when heaven and earth are joined, when man is united once more with God's body and blood.

The man of today deifies himself through all this culture, technology and sex, while the Apostle Paul warns us: "Flee from the worship of idols" (1 Corinthians 10:14, Galatians 5:2, Colossians 3:5).

For this reason we are called today to break this tight collar around our neck, despite all the seductions around us. We are called to be a temple of the Holy Spirit from the moment we are dipped in the waters of baptism and this pure vessel must contain Christ inside.

We are called to victory with Christ who appears within us.

These are the effects of baptism in our life: death and constant resurrection with Christ who is victorious and nothing else. We were not created for perdition and our fate has not been left to this, but rather the work and power of the cross has been implanted within us. By it, we shall fight our enemies and burn the devil who tries to burn us.

The man of today must cry out with David: Have mercy on me, O God, according to Your great mercy. Where are you, O God? Why have you excluded us, O God? Grant us victory, O God. But he must do this with a broken and humble heart, so that the darkness will clear away from him, so that the enemy's arrows will br broken, so that man may live by this consolation that comes from above amidst all these hardships and evils, so that a new dawn emerges, so that a bright and shining new day dawns, not of the senses, but Christ the Sun of Justice, who knows no evening. Amen.

Fr Alexander Treiger: The Beginnings of the Graeco-Syro-Arabic Melkite Translation Movement in Antioch

The open access journal Scrinium has just published a very important article by Fr Alexander Treiger detailing the beginnings of a translation movement of Greek into Syriac and Arabic in 10th-11th century Antioch. It can be read and downloaded in full here.

Abstract:

The present article surveys the early stages of the Graeco-Syro-Arabic Melkite translation movement in Antioch, from the first known translation (the Graeco-Syriac version of the Life of St. Symeon the Stylite the Younger, BHG 1689) dating to 827/8 AD to the Antiochene translators Ibrāhīm the protospatharios, Gregory of Dafnūnā, Chariton of Aršāyā, and Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-Masīḥ (the compiler of the Antiochene Menologion), all of them disciples of the martyred patriarch of Antioch Christopher (d.967). It provides new evidence on each of these translators. Significantly, it re-dates Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-Masīḥ to the early eleventh century.

Read the full article here.

Jad Ganem: The Chosen Nation of Orthodoxy

Arabic original here.

The Chosen Nation of Orthodoxy

The reply letter that Patriarch Bartholomew sent to Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem, in which he called on him not to persist in his invitation to hold a synaxis of the primates of the Orthodox Churches in Jordan, contained striking language about the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

At the beginning of the letter, Patriarch Bartholomew harshly rebukes the Patriarch of Jerusalem for having used for the first time in history the English language and not Greek when addressing the Phanar. He implies that this is something like treason against the Greek nation when he wonders whether "he has suddenly stopped feeling of the same blood and sharing with us in the same historic and martyric Race, which of course Divine Providence from of ages entrusted with protecting the sacred Pilgrimage-Sites of the Holy Land through the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher" and whether he has abandoned the policy of his predecessors who fought to prevent "attempts, well-known from History, at infiltration into the Holy Places by powers foreign to our Race."

Of course, no one in the Orthodox world is ignorant of the fact that the Greek world has long considered the patriarchates of the east to be an extension of itself and that it has long sought to dominate them through the imposition of Greek clergy on them and the prohibition of their people from managing the affairs of their churches. These words of Patriarch Bartholomew do not, however, merely confirm what is already known, but indeed constitute an insult to the native children of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, who have long sought to be freed from this domination over the capabilities of their church and who have, over the centuries, been prevented from managing their own affairs themselves.

Moreover, this racist, chauvinist discourse is an insult to all Orthodox in the world whom the patriarch regards as "outside powers" to the Greek nation that must be combated directly to prevent them from having a presence in the Holy Land. He confers a divine character to the Greek domination of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, whose membership is restricted to members of the Greek race that God has chosen and selected from among the Orthodox nations for guarding the holy places!

There is no doubt that the words of Patriarch Bartholomew, who of late has not hesitated to employ racist discourse and to divide the Orthodox world into Greek and foreign, aims to mobilize Greek public opinion against the Patriarch of Jerusalem and to portray him as a traitor to the Greek nation who is trying to weaken its leader, who resides in the Phanar, by daring to call for an Orthodox synaxis, but at the same time it shows that the Patriarch's words to not meet the measure of the teachings of the Gospel, "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all" (Colossians 3:11) and which falls under the heresy of ethnophyletism that was condemned by the Council of Constantinople of 1872.

The strangest thing about this discourse might be that it comes from a patriarch who is fighting the Russian Church because he accuses it of expansionism and imperialism while he himself does not hesitate to do the exact same thing though his effort to consecrate the hegemony of the Greek race over patriarchates that have no members of this chosen race among their native inhabitants, merely on the basis of obsolete historical considerations. Is that which is permissible for the race and nation of the patriarch impermissible to others of different races and nations? Is it not permitted for Arabs, Russians, Serbs, Romanians, Georgians and others to be concerned about the issue of preserving the Orthodox holy places which are still being sold and squandered by their guardians, lest they be considered enemies of the chosen Orthodox nation?!

Jad Ganem: When the Truth Prevails

Arabic original here. The text of Patriarch Bartholomew's letter can be read here.

When the Truth Prevails

The Letter that His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople sent to his fellow patriarch of Jerusalem, in which he asks him to abandon his initiative for calling a synaxis of primates of the Orthodox Churches in Jordan "in order to preserve Eucharistic unity", contains a noteworthy position, since His Holiness wonders, "What is the meaning of a synaxis of the primates of the churches, during which would not be possible a celebration of the Divine Sacrifice because one of them has broken Eucharistic communion with others?"

There is no doubt that this position of the Patriarch of Constantinople is worth examining for a number of reasons, including:

  -     The correctness of stressing that there is no meaning to any synaxis of the primates of the churches that does not culminate with the participation of all in the Divine Liturgy.

  -     The impermissibility of ending any synaxis of primates of the Orthodox Churches without the partaking of all together in the mystery of the Eucharist because that would constitute the consummation of division, fragmentation and schism.

  -     The importance of preventing ecclesiastical meetings from becoming meetings of a merely civil or deal-making character and of emphasizing the Eucharistic character of conciliarity in the Church.
  
Perhaps the importance of this position today lies in the fact that it affirms, albeit six years later, the Church of Antioch's devotion to Orthodox tradition and the correctness of the ecclesiological position that it took by not participating in the Council of Crete after the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople took the decision to postpone any search for a solution to the disagreement with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem until after the Great and Holy Orthodox Council.

At the time, the Holy Synod of Antioch stressed that "the Great and Holy Orthodox Council cannot be held while there is a break in communion between two apostolic churches given the Eucharistic nature of this council" because "this council, if were held during a break in communion between two apostolic churches, would give the impression that taking part in the conciliar discussions is possible without participation in the Holy Eucharist, which would cause the council to lose its Eucharistic character so that it could take on an administrative character contrary to established conciliar Orthodox tradition."

Perhaps the above will call upon the Patriarchate of Constantinople, its patriarch and those court theologians in their orbit, who promote one thing and then its opposite according to their narrow interests and accuse other churches sometimes of being bought off and sometimes of departing from the Orthodox mindset, to review their positions and refrain from relying on the politics of double standards. If Patriarch Bartholomew's current position is in accordance with tradition, this means that his going forward with holding the Council of Crete while communion was broken between two Apostolic Churches was contrary to tradition. That is, unless he believes that what applies to other churches does not apply to him and his church, whose canonical fumbling proves day after day that it is completely removed from the infallibility that it claims for its patriarch and synod, whose decision is incontrovertible and  continue to contradict the tradition of the universal Church and the teachings of the fathers who shone forth in Constantinople.

Archim. Jack (Khalil): "The Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness"

Arabic original here.

"The Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness"

The four evangelists agree that John the Baptist was the voice crying out prophesied by the Prophet Isaiah (40:3). According to the Apostles Matthew and John, the Baptist himself was the one who announced that Isaiah's prophecy was being fulfilled.

The prophecy appears in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 40, which announces the consolation of Jerusalem. Its context is very important for understanding the message that the Baptist wanted to deliver by declaring that the prophecy was being fulfilled. The Prophet Isaiah had previously informed the King Hezekiah that his people would be taken captive to Babel and enslaved there (39:6-7). After that, he announced God's visitation to Jerusalem and His pardon of its sins (40:2) and His coming there to save it (40:5, 9-10).

He told of the voice crying out in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord (40:3). The Baptist's indicating the fulfillment of this prophecy is in harmony with the main idea of the message that he brought, that he was at the forefront of God who had drawn near to "save His people from their sins." The Baptist's indicating the prophecy about the voice crying out in the desert bears his declaration to Jerusalem and to all the nations over the generations, that God has visited His people and stretched out His hand to point with His finger to show us Jesus, the Lord of Glory, saying "Behold your God" (40:9).

As for the main idea of the prophecy about the voice crying out, it must be pointed out that that the reading of the Masoretic text differs from the translation of the Septuagint, the reading on which the four evangelists relied. According to the Septuagint, the phrase "in the desert" grammatically modifies the word "voice", so the sentence is "a voice crying out in the desert," while in the Masoretic text the phrase belongs to the main clause. That is, "in the desert prepare the path of the Lord."

Whatever the case may be, it is established that what the Prophet Isaiah prophesied about the coming of our God to His people has been fulfilled. Wherever the term "wilderness" may be in the formulation of the phrase, its theological meaning remains undistorted, just as the Prophet Isaiah intended.

What, then, is the meaning of the "wilderness" emphasized by the Prophet Isaiah?

In order to answer this question, we must remember that it was in the desert that the covenant between God and His people was established. It became God's promise to them and they learned to live according to the covenant's law.

The life of the wilderness made its impression on the Jews' spiritual experience. For this reason, the desert transcended its geographical definition to take on a theological meaning. It is the way of life of the covenant between God and His people. It is the emptying in which man finds no help apart from God.

He ate from the provision that God gave him, drinking His water and warming himself from His heat. The experience of the wilderness is summarized in the Holy Bible by liberation from cares, abandonment of all human guarantees, absolute reliance on God and remaining in His presence.

When the Baptist said that he was the voice crying out in the wilderness, he was addressing to us the announcement that the fullness of time had come and that "He who sits above the circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in," (40:22), God the Word, who created everything, had become incarnate and come to dwell among us.

In the wilderness, John cried out to remind us that we attain knowledge of God when we rely on Him alone and nothing else and that we are made holy by His blessings when we are freed from earthly cares and live before Him according to His Gospel.

Archimandrite Jack (Khalil)
Saint John of Damascus Institute of Theology

Fr Touma (Bitar): The Light of Theophany

Arabic original here.

The Light of Theophany

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, amen.

Brothers, with the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ a light dawned in the world and the words were fulfilled that "a people sitting in darkness have seen a great light, upon those sitting in the region and the shadow of death light has dawned."

The great light that has dawned with the appearance of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is the light of divine life. If humanity was cowering in the region and the shadow of death, then the light that has dawned upon them is the light of the life that knows no death. In other words, this is the light of God, this is His life. The sun which shines upon us will be extinguished at some point. Everything that is created is liable to be extinguished. But God's light remains forever. This is the uncreated light. God is light. This is how He appeared on Mount Tabor. This light is what each of us seeks. It is what humanity seeks. It is what humanity needs. We need God's light and not anything else.

Perhaps you know that the eyes are the place in the human body where the person is made manifest. So if we want to summarize a person, if we want to say that he is something particular, we depict an eye. When we want to look at a person, to know him, to see what comes from within him, we look at his eyes. Nothing else in the human body constitutes a window onto his being for others and for the world more than the eyes. The eyes are connected to light. Our eyes are of the nature of light, otherwise we would not see light. Likewise, the Lord gave us a heart. The heart, in biblical language, is the inner eye. The Lord gave us the heart-- that is, the inner eye-- so that we may see His light, the uncreated light. Man is not only granted to see created things, but also to see the uncreated.

Of course, discussion of light remains obscure, so that we know that this heart has one basic function-- of course, it has many functions but they center around only one, which is love. The Lord gave man the gift of love: to love. For this reason, if the heart is, at the same time, the eye of existence and that by which we love God and by which we love others, then this means that this light is of the nature of God's love. We can call it "the light of divine love." This is what has dawned. Absolutely nothing can satisfy man, can fulfill man, can actualize man apart from the light of divine love. When we read the hymn that Saint Paul sings to love in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter Thirteen, we can be drunk from divine wine. He says that three things abide: faith, hope and love. Then he says, "But the greatest of these is love." So we seek God's love. We are a vessel and this vessel seeks to be filled with God's love. This is equivalent to saying that we are darkness, we have come from darkness and we have come from nothing. But we seek this light, we seek to be filled with light. God is a luminous being and light has dawned. Since the Son of God became incarnate and since He light flowed out atop Mount Tabor, the world is bathed in uncreated light, this light that no one can see unless he believes in the Lord Jesus, unless his heart has moved toward the Lord Jesus. What is the difference between the person who loves and the person who does not love? The person who does  not love looks at the one who loves-- because he does not have this experience-- and says that he is stupid. One who does not believe in the Lord Jesus thinks that those who believe in the Lord Jesus are a group of madmen, and thank God we have chosen to be madmen for God, to be madmen for divine love, to be madmen for the divine light.

This brings us to what it says in today's Epistle, where the Apostle Paul addresses the Ephesians and says, "to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift." These are divine words. When he says, "to each one of us grace was given," he means that each one of us, we who are here, without exception, has been given grace. Absolutely no one can say that he does not possess grace from Christ. Each one of us has been given grace from above. And this grace has been given according to the measure of Christ's gift. What is meant by "according to the measure of Christ's gift" is that Christ is the one who gives each one of us a measure of grace, a certain sort of grace. This is up to him. Absolutely no one can debate the Lord and say to Him, "Why did you give someone more than someone else?" God gives to whom He wills, in the measure that He wills. But if the Lord God gives each of us a special grace, this is not for him to enjoy however he wants. In the world, if God gives us intelligence and an opportunity to learn, we get a degree, we're granted success in obtaining a good job, we come to have money, we are able to buy a house, we form a family, we put the money in the bank, we buy land... we think that the Lord has given us all this to enjoy as we will and as we please. This is not true. Here he says clearly about grace that the Lord gives each of us grace for two interrelated purposes. Of course, the Lord wants for each of us to be built up in grace and stature. There is a personal dimension to the subject, no doubt about it. But this personal aspect is tied to the collective. Without the group, I absolutely cannot grow in grace and stature. Absolutely no one is an island. No one ever grows alone. Each of us grows within the framework of his relationship to the group. What he has and what God gives him is not his. Rather, he should be regarded as a trustee over what the Lord God gives him, so that he may give what the Lord God gives him to others. Therefore, in another place in his Epistle to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul clearly states that there are people that the Lord has made apostles, others prophets, others evangelists... what is the purpose of this? To perfect the saints, so that the saints may reach perfection, fullness. We are called to fullness, to perfection: "Be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect." So, for the perfection of the saints and the work of service.

We must employ the grace that the Lord has given us in the service of Christ, in the service of communion, in the service of Christ's Church: for the work of service, then, and the building up of Christ's body, the building up of the Church. Absolutely nothing is given to us unless it is for the building up of Christ's Church, for the work of service, for the perfection of the saints. In other words, if any one of us keeps for himself something that the Lord has given him, he does not desire to give it to anyone, he does not want to share it with anyone, this person should be considered an embezzler, a thief. We do not own anything. Everything that the Lord bestows upon us comes to have value within the framework of love, when we seek the perfection of the saints, the work of service, the building up of the body of Christ. If we do not use it within this framework, it has absolutely no value. A man spent his life saving up and he was very miserly. When he died, his inheritors went over what he had amassed and they found that everything he had amassed had rotted and was eaten by worms. It had no value! The value of a loaf of bread is in its being eaten and in a hungry person being fed by it. That being the case, if the loaf has value, it is because it is tied to love. Anything that is not tied to love remains absolutely without value. It is of absolutely no use. On the contrary, on Judgment Day we shall be asked about that with which we have been entrusted because we have been embezzlers. So what the Lord gives us becomes either judgment for us or an instrument of salvation, for the building up of the Church, the building up of the body of Christ, for the work of service. For this reason, we must deal with everything the Lord gives us within this framework. Woe to anyone on Judgment Day who does not treat God's gifts-- whether material, intellectual or spiritual gifts-- within the framework of love of God and love of brothers!

So, "to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift." The Lord has given you such-and-such so that you may serve more, so that you may love more, so that you may sacrifice yourself more. When we read what He wrote and what was written through the Apostle Paul, we feel that this person-- who was given great gifts from God-- is as though he were fifty people at work in one person, flying from place to place, from one group of faithful to another, to spread the word, to give life to give the Lord's Holy Spirit, to work for the perfection of the saints, in service and for the building up of the body of Christ. To whom much is given, much is required. The important thing, however, is that none of us should belittle others if their gift is different. Every part of this body is complementary to everything else. For this reason, God gives greater honor to the small parts and to those who have a humble gift: that which is humble in the eyes of people is very important in the eyes of God. In other words, if someone has a vessel that is two meters tall and a meter and a half in diameter, but it is not supported with a stone, it falls and breaks. We all need each other. Absolutely none of us is not in need of others. None of us is self-sufficient. It is very important, however, in our working with each other, for us to motivate others' gifts, to help them show their gift. There are people who think that they don't have any gifts, but if we treat them with kindness, with tenderness, with love, with patience... If we embrace them, if we are committed to them, if we take them in, if we pay attention to them and keep up with them, their gift becomes clear, appears, and grows. Just like seeds which, in order for them to grow, we must put them in soil and tend them until they grow completely, so too we must tend the seeds of God's grace in each one of our brothers by surrounding him with this love, with this commitment, with this care, so that his heart will open, so that he will rejoice, so that the seed of divine grace within him will grow. Then, when it has grown and born fruit, many will be given to eat from it. What is a parsley seed? Nothing! But if we tend it, it gives us not one, but many bunches of parsley. So much as we put in the earth, we reap all the more. How much do we benefit from it? According to doctors, parsley is very important. People are like this. We need to care for them so that these gifts that are dormant within them grow. Then, they rejoice and grow in grace and stature. Through them the Church also grows and flourishes and the saints are perfected, the work of service is performed, and the body of Christ is built up!

Therefore, brothers, we deal with this light among us, we deal with God's graces in this spirit. God's gifts are mine and yours for the perfection of the body of Christ and, in the end, for the glory of God! Absolutely no one owns anything. We must, every day, connect what we have to the love of God, to the love of our brothers. Then life becomes more beautiful. What does it mean for there to be a thousand dollars in my pocket when I'm not using it and a person I know is poor comes to beg because he needs diabetes medicine for his wife, what value is there to what's in my pocket? Many of us spend a little or a lot on things that have no value... How important this money becomes if you connect it to love of God and love of your brothers, to the love of this person! This is something huge! In other words, that which the Lord God has permitted to be given to me becomes an instrument of love, an instrument of connection between people, an instrument of growth in grace and stature, in our relationship with God. This is something really huge! Each one of us has something to offer. No person is devoid of gifts. Someone might give a smile, a cup of water, a question, or he might extend his hand to support someone else... the issue isn't whether someone has a little or a lot. That widow that the Lord saw, who put two worthless mites (in today's currency, they amount to fifty lira) in the offering box in the temple, the Lord said of this woman that she had put in more than everyone who put money in the offering boxes. This is because one is able to make use of a little and a lot for the love of God, for the love of others. When he possesses absolutely nothing, he can serve people much more than those who have money piled up. For example, those people who live in the desert, who are called "ascetics", they own nothing. When Peter and John, the Lord's disciples, went to the temple, they saw a person at the gate called "beautiful" who was lame. He asked them to give him something, so they said to him: we have no money, but what we do have we will give you-- in the name of the Lord Jesus, rise and walk-- and he stood up and walked!

He who owns nothing, who wants nothing, because he knows that everything "comes down" from above, from the Lord, when he asks-- because he puts his total trust in God-- the Lord God gives him what he desires. The Apostle Paul puts the discussion in a nice framework. He says: we are poor, but we make many rich! We own nothing. How is that?! Because we receive what we give from the Father of Lights, who owns the heavens and the earth! The important thing, in any case, is that we know that if the Son of God became incarnate and appeared in the Jordan and the heavenly Father bore witness to Him, saying, "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased," if this is what happened to the Lord Jesus, this is because the Lord Jesus wants each one of us to be a beloved son. Man becomes a beloved son if he learns to participate in God's love and to scatter everything he owns for Christ's Church, for God's beloved, for the poor and the needy: "He has scattered and given to the poor, for His righteousness endures forever." This is the way in which we appear for God, in God's eye. At that point we enter, in spirit and in truth, we enter by grace into God's light and we also become luminous.

Archimandrite Touma (Bitar)
Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Silouan the Athonite
Sunday, January 5, 2020