| With St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) we have the first homily per se on the Transfiguration of Christ: Homilia 56 in Matthaeum . This is the first extensive treatment of the Transfiguration since Origen, and it is one which will greatly influence the homiletic tradition, and through it of course the whole liturgical and theological tradition of subsequent generations. (Chrysostom is the greatest exegete of Scripture in Patristic tradition, the homilist par excellence— he gives us about three thousand homilies on Holy Scripture—note vision seen by a disciple of St. Paul whispering in his ear). Origen’s commentary on Matthew certainly influenced Chrysostom’s homily on Transfiguration; but as in other notable writers, such as Maximus for example, one observes the influence of Origen more in the form of a starting point, which of course Origen was in many ways. Hence we find many subtle but significant shifts of emphasis in Chrysostom’s treatment. (For further details on Origen’s contribution, see my thesis, “The Transfiguration of Christ in Greek Patristic Literature: From Irenaeus of Lyon to Gregory Palamas” Oxford D.Phil. thesis, 1991, pp. 50-72). But for the purposes of this paper, let me just say that the most important difference between Origen’s and Chrysostom’s treatment of the Transfiguration is that Origen places little or no emphasis on the Transfiguration light, owing, of course, to the strong Platonic influence on Origen’s thought. References to the Transfiguration can also be found in other of Chrysostom’s works which also shed light (no pun intended) on Chrysostom’s understanding of the nature and significance of the revelation of Tabor. I should like to point out that Chrysostom’s treatment of the Transfiguration is extremely rich and varied, embracing a wide variety of themes (for further details, see again my thesis, ibid., pp. 99-119) which cannot be treated here in the time that we have at our disposal, at this historic first meeting of the OUPBS, so for the purposes of this seminar, I have chosen to focus on the question of the nature and significance of the Light of Tabor in St. John, also called “the golden mouthed.” |
| An Eastern Orthodox Moral Case for Property Rights SOURCE: Acton Institute by Rev. Gregory Jensen As a pastor, I’ve been struck by the hostility, or at least suspicion, that some Orthodox Christians reveal in their discussions of private property. While there are no doubt many reasons for this disconnect, I think a central factor is a lack of appreciation for the role that private property can, and does, play in fostering human flourishing. It is through the wise and prudent use of our property that we are able to give ourselves over in love to the next generation and so give them the possiblity of likewise transcending a purely material way of life through an act of self-donation. Economists Terry Anderson and Laura Huggins, in Property Rights: A Practical Guide to Freedom and Prosperity (Hoover Institution, 2009), are right when they remind us that while not a panacea, “property rights to oneself (human capital), one’s investments (physical capital), or one’s ideas (intellectual capital), secure claims to assets” and so “give people the ability to make their own decisions, reaping the benefits of good choices and bearing the costs of bad ones.” In part, I think the hesitancy among some Orthodox Christians to embrace a robust understanding and application of property rights reflects an uncritical reading of the patristic witness. I have in mind here specifically the homilies of St. John Chrysostom in which the saint is often critical of how some abuse their wealth. But as recent scholarship has demonstrated, his argument is more subtle than we might at first think. As with other Church fathers, Chrysostom is not a proponent of abolishing private property but of its morally right use. A Byzantine mosaic of John Chrysostom from the Hagia Sophia We see this especially in his teaching on almsgiving where he distinguishes between “beggars” ( ptchoi ) and what today we call the working poor ( pentes ). For the latter, the Church’s intervention aims at helping the working poor obtain a degree of economic independence so that they too can meet their own personal familial obligations. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Antioch, Patriarchate of JOHN A. MCGUCKIN Antioch has a glorious Christian past. It was here that one of the most vibrant Christian communities in the apostolic age sprang up, and here that the first tentative workings out of the relation between Jewish and Gentile disciples of Jesus took place. The Apostle Peter was based here as a leader of the church community before he moved towards his martyrdom at Rome, and many scholars believe that it was in this church also that the Gospel of Matthew received its final editing and arrangement in the Greek text. It was one of the main cities of the international Christian world, third-ranking city of the Roman Empire (after Rome and Alexandria), site of great achievements and momentous struggles, with several martyrdoms during the time of the Roman persecutions, that made it feature high in the calendar of the saints. But the advances of Islam from the 7th century onwards left Antioch’s Christian civilization in a state of slow suffocation. It was also vulnerable to sociopolitical changes because of the way its ecclesiastical territories (those churches that looked to Antioch for guidance and which followed its traditions) were so widely scattered and into such impassable mountain territory, which made communication so hard to sustain but so easily disrupted. Several of Antioch’s greatest theologians have left their mark on the church’s universal patristic tradition: writers such as Mar Theodore the Interpreter (of Mopsuestia), St. John Chrysostom, Mar John of Antioch, Theodoret of Cyr, and numerous ascetics and saints such as Sadhona, or Isaac of Niniveh. The cultural and theological sphere of influence exercised by the Syrian Church in its time of glory was much greater than the (very large) extent of its ancient territories. The Syrian ritual gave the substructure to the Byzantine liturgical rite, for example. It was also the Syrians who perfected the art of setting poetic synopses of Scripture to sung melodies. The church’s greatest poets such as Ephrem and Romanos the Melodist were Syrians who taught this theological style to Byzantium and prepared the way for the glories of medieval Orthodox liturgical chant. The Syrian Church, especially in its Golden |
| John Anthony McGuckin Communion of Saints MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL For Orthodoxy this signifies the ongoing participation (methexis, or koinonia – communion) in God by all of God’s holy elect. those still living on earth, those passed to the Lord, and the holy angels who also form part of the heavenly church. The letters to the churches of Corinth and Ephesians are addressed to the “saints” ( Eph. 1.1 ; 2Cor. 1.11 ) surrounded by a “great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12.1). Aside from Scripture, the earliest attestations to a cult of the saints is the early cult of martyrs. Ignatius of Antioch asserts that true discipleship lies in the witness, the martyria, of a confessing death. The 3rd-century Life of Polycarp testifies to 2nd-century Eucharistic meals at the graveside of martyrs, and encourages the honoring of the saints by following their example. origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century emphasizes the singularly united life of the whole body of Christ, in which those in heaven continue in the struggle of faith through their sustaining love and intercession for the living. When St. John Chrysostom preached in the late 4th century, the cult of the saints was well established. In his sermons martyrdom is a powerful act of love; martyrs “speak” their faith through deeds and speak freely to God, their human lives encouraging imitation (Chrysostom 2006. 29–33). The martyr and saint has thus become an exemplar of virtue, a spiritual model. Chrysostom highlights the transition from martyrdom to asceticism as persecution gave way to peace and to an increasingly institutionalized Christianity. In part inspired by Athanasius’ Life of Antony, asceticism through bodily virginity, separation from the world, and a life of prayer was increasingly idealized. Ironically, often the greatest advocates of asceticism were active members of urban and ecclesial life. St. Basil the Great’s social programs inaugurated their own attendant form of monasticism, in which serving others was considered integral to an ascetic life. Contemporary studies of holy men and women emphasize their role as agents of change who ignored social divisions in order to serve the needs of all, rich and poor alike (Hackel 1983). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Deaconess MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL An ordained female member of the priestly order, at the level of diaconate. The office reached its zenith in the early Byzantine period, though it has never been altogether abandoned. Phoebe, commemorated as “equal to the apostles,” is referred to by Paul as a deacon (diakonos, Rom. 16.1 ) and is the prototype of the later office of the deaconess. The church also commemorates as deacons Tabitha (or Dorcas, Acts 9.36), Lydia (Acts 16.14), Mary, Persis, Tryphosa and Tryphena, Priscilla and Junia ( Rom. 16.3–15 ), the daughters of Philip (Acts 21.9), Euodia and Syntyche ( Phil. 4.2–3 ), all of whom were fellow-workers with Paul and laborers in the gospel; 1 Timothy 3.8–11 presents the requirements for diaconal service. An array of early theologians such as Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 3, 6, 53.3–4), Ori- gen (Commentary on Romans 10.17), John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 1 Timothy), Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, all interpret 1 Timothy 3.11 as referring to female deacons. The 4th-7th centuries are rich in archeological, epi- graphical, and literary references in which diakonos with a feminine article and diakonissa are used interchangeably. There is no evidence of significantly different functions between male and female deacons in the earliest church, a time when the diaconate itself was rapidly evolving. By the 3rd century the liturgical function of ordained women mirrored the culturally normative public/private segregation of roles and functions. Early deaconesses assisted in the baptism and anointing of adult (naked) women, and engaged in catechetical, pastoral, social, and evangelistic work among women. Like the male deacon, they were liaison officers for the bishop, specifically with a ministry to the women among whom it would have been inappropriate for a man to venture. The rise of infant baptism reduced their baptismal role but they continued to supervise the liturgical roles of women, to lead them in liturgical prayer, to chant in the church, participate in liturgical processions, and like the other priestly orders, the deaconesses all received the Eucharist at the altar with their fellow clergy. The deaconess did not lead worship in the same manner as male deacons reciting the Ektenies. However, in absence of male clergy, monastic deaconesses read the gospel and scriptures among women, and evidently poured water and wine into the chalice (Madigan and Osiek 2005: 6–7). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Miracles VERA SHEVZOV Orthodox thinkers from Late Antiquity to modern times have understood miracles as actions or events that manifest or point to the presence of God. Orthodox Christians have associated miracles not only with individual experiences, but also with experiences of entire communities and even nations. Miracles are associated with healings, historical events, visions, dreams, and foresight, and with such phenomena as inexplicable displays of myrrh or tears on icons. Throughout history, Orthodox pastors and spiritual guides have drawn on accounts of miracles for pedagogical purposes. Such accounts provided lessons concerning vices and virtues along with lessons concerning “right faith.” In addition to the realm of lived Orthodoxy, where accounts of miracles have often resulted in the special veneration of certain icons and the veneration of saints and their relics, miracles have also figured in the Orthodox theological and philosophical considerations of history, science and nature, and anthropology. Reports of miracles have also periodically begged the question of authority in the church (who in the church is it that finds and declares them miraculous?). Although miracles may be integral to its worldview, Orthodox Christianity nevertheless is deeply nuanced in its approach to them. In part, the Orthodox understanding of miracles is rooted in the complex view of miracles reflected in the New Testament. On the one hand, patristic authors such as Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) maintained that Jesus’ miracles played a significant role in the establishment of the Christian faith. Signs, acts of power, and works testified to the power of God manifested in and through Christ. Accordingly, Orthodox writers maintained, miracles accompanied his words in order to confirm his identity for those who were unable to recognize his power and authority through his words alone. In this sense, miracles were a form of divine condescension. Following the death of Jesus, in this view, the apostles performed numerous miracles in Jesus’ name as a way further to cultivate the Christian faith. As Origen wrote in his mid- 3rd century treatise Against Celsus 1.46, had it not been for miracles, people would not have been persuaded to accept the new teachings. On the other hand, patristic authors also pointed to the more negative aspects of miracles in the gospel texts. Particularly objectionable was the pursuit of, and demand for, miracles as a condition for faith ( Mt. 16.4 ; Jn. 6.30–31 ) or as a curious spectacle ( Lk. 23.8 ). Even the Devil tempted Jesus to perform a miracle ( Mt. 4.1–11 ; Lk. 4.1–13 ). Finally, according to Jesus’ testimony, not every “wondrous sign” was from God ( Mt. 24.24–25 ; Acts 8.9–13); they could even be detrimental to believers by distracting or turning them from the path to salvation. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Ukraine, Orthodoxy in the TODD E. FRENCH The Ukraine is host to the rich history of the conversion of the Rus to Orthodoxy, which led to the further spreading of Christianity in Asia. Its capital city, Kiev, has served as the focal point of political maneuvering in the Slavic territories from the conversion of the Rus down through to modern times. It is worth noting that the history of this conversion, commonly associated with Vladimir in 988, overrides numerous alternative conversion stories. Ancient Christian legend tells that St. Andrew the “First-Called” embarked on a mission to convert the Scythians in the year 55. Evidence only becomes clearer in the later medieval period, when one starts to find several clues to Christianity’s influence on the Rus. Although the term “Rus” is used to describe the people of a diocese in Tmutorokan as early as the 860s, the Rus are historically associated with the Kievan centered kingdom. The distance between these two cities being roughly a thousand miles has raised questions about whether the two Rus settlements are both Slavic kingdoms or if the Black Sea Rus were the same as the Goths mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century, as being an important community for missionary enterprise. Few were more influential in the growth of Christianity in the Ukraine than St. Constantine (tonsured Cyril before hisdeath) and his brother St. Methodios. They were chosen to lead a mission to the Slavic kingdom of Moravia in 864. Prior to their departure they devised an alphabet (Glagolitic) into which many texts were translated. Their successors, Clement and Naum of Ohrid, were instrumental in the development of the Cyrillic alphabet, named for their teacher. Kiev, however, was a good distance from Tmutorokan and the story of the Kievan Rus conversion proper begins with two princes, Askold and Dir. A popular version of the story tells how after attempting to seize Constantinople, the princes saw their fleet destroyed through a miracle which they believed to have been called down by the Patriarch St. |
| Title 130 Q. What is the Orthodox position on the indissolubility of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and why? The Orthodox Church views marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman that is established and blessed by God. Marriage therefore is “a bond of a covenant that may not be broken,” according to the words of the sacrament. And yet the Church, for certain grave reasons, permits divorce and remarriage. This seemingly paradoxical position arises out of, on the one hand, respect for biblical teaching and, on the other, compassionate concern for human weakness. The authority for the unbreakable character of marriage is Christ himself. In Mark 10:6-8, Jesus rejects divorce allowed by the Mosaic Law (Dt 24-14) and appeals to God’s order of creation: “God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gn 1:27; 2:24). Then he commands: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk 10:9). The same teaching is found among the radical standards of conduct proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-33). These principles are intended for all those who accept Christ’s saving message and commit themselves to live by the reality of God’s kingdom revealed by Christ. The Orthodox tradition has always fostered the ideal of the permanency of marriage on the basis of Christ’s teaching. For example, the great Church Father, John Chrysostom (fourth century), writes, “Both by the manner of creation and by the manner of [new] lawgiving, Christ showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually and never break off from her.” In his book “Against Remarriage,” Chrysostom goes as far as to counsel widows and widowers themselves not to remarry but to remain faithful to their deceased spouses and honor their memory. However, because of human frailty, not all people can uphold the ideal of the permanency of marriage. And the radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount must ultimately be interpreted in the light of the Gospel, not law. In cases of moral failure, the Gospel requires that we respond to people with compassion and forgiveness, not judgment and condemnation. According to the Gospel of Matthew, divorce can occur for reasons of “unchastity” (porneia, literally “fornication”), probably referring to sexual misconduct (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Similarly, though St. Paul mentions the standard of Christ’s strict teaching about marriage, nevertheless he accommodates his pastoral instructions to human weakness, including the possibility of separation and divorce (1 Cor 7:10-15). |
| 2. The Later Chapters of the Capita 150 A. Introduction With chapter 64 Gregory Palamas turned to the specific problems presented by the doctrinal errors of Barlaam the Calabrian and Gregory Akindynos. The transition is noted in c. 64: να γρ τλλα νν φ. The divisions in this section of the Capita 150 are not always as easily discernible as in the first section. At times, a division is clearly marked off because it represents a single source: the best example is c. 113–121, which were taken entirely from Palamas» Reply on Cyril. At other times, the structure is loose and the relation between chapters is not very evident (e.g., 72–84). For the reader " s convenience, but at the risk of oversimplification, I offer the following schematic overview. Refutation of the Doctrines of Barlaam and Akindynos I. Divine Illumination (64–67) 64. The perfection of the likeness is effected by illumination. 65. Divine illumination is an uncreated reality distinct from the substance of God. 66. The Light of Tabor and the Light of the future age. 67. Adam " s garment of Light in paradise and Paul " s illumination on the Damascus Road. II. Multiplicity of the Divine Energies (68–71) 68. The uncreated energy is indivisibly divided. 69. Divine illuminations and graces can be understood as plural in number. The ‘seven spirits’ mentioned in Is 11.1–2 . These refer to the uncreated, divine energies. III. Basic Doctrines (72–84) The energies and powers of God are pre-eternal and uncreated. Not the divine energy, but its product is a creature. 74. The divine energy, accessible to all, is distinct from the divine substance, and from the hypostasis of the Spirit. Union with God means union with the uncreated energy of the Spirit. Quotations from Maximus, Psalms, Basil. Quotations from Gregory Nazianzen, Pseudo-Dionysius and John Chrysostom. 78. The absolute transcendence of God " s nature and the participability of his energy. 79. The infinite gap between God and man can be bridged only by the practice of virtue. |
| 6. Ministry and Communion I. The Theological Perspective Discussions about ministry and ordination have usually been dominated by a certain problematic inherent in scholastic theology. Some of the characteristics of this theology 440 are worthy to be mentioned, for they form basic components of the theological perspective in which the ministry is usually placed. In the first place, both ministry and ordination are approached as autonomous subjects; they are treated quite apart from Christology or Trinitarian theology. Secondly, Christology itself is treated as an autonomous subject and not as an integral part of both Trinitarian theology and ecclesiology. This gives rise both to Christomonistic tendencies in understanding the person and ministry of Christ, and – what is more significant for us here – to great difficulties in relating the Church’s ministry to that of Christ. Finally, and because of all this, ministry and ordination are not basically approached from the angle of the concrete ecclesial community but of the individual person (his “ontology” or his “function”). The theological perspective in which the Church at the time of the Greek Fathers would place her ministry does not leave any room for approaching it as an autonomous subject. This is to be seen in the way this ministry is to be related to the ministry and person of Christ. Here the following principles, typical of the Greek patristic tradition, may be mentioned briefly: (a) There is no ministry in the Church other than Christ’s ministry. This assertion, which seems to go back to the New Testament Church, 441 is understood by the Fathers so realistically that not only the dilemma of choosing between an opus operantis and an ex opere operato is avoided but also any other question implying a distance between the Church’s and Christ’s ministry becomes irrelevant and misleading. This identification of the Church’s ministry with that of Christ has gone beyond the theology of the Fathers and entered the liturgical life of the ancient Church in a decisive way: in the eucharist, Christ is not only the one who is offered and who receives but also the one who offers. 442 This identification lends itself to “mystical-monophysitic” interpretations, but the fact that it is to be found in theologians such as St John Chrysostom, who shares the Antiochene “down-to-earth” mentality, indicates that it is along lines other than those of monophysitic mysticism that we should try to understand its meaning. 443 |
|
|
