| The importance of fasting and its observance today: Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council Source: DECR Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, adopted by the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambésy on October 10-17, 2015. Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru/ Published in compliance with the decision of the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, Chambésy, January 21-28, 2016. 1. Fast is God’s commandment (Gen 2:16-17). According to St Basil the Great, fasting is as old as humanity itself; it was prescribed in Paradise (On Fasting, 1,3). It is a great spiritual endeavour and the foremost expression of the Orthodox ascetic ideal. The Orthodox Church, in strict conformity with the precepts of the holy apostles, the rules of the Councils and the patristic tradition as a whole, has always proclaimed a great significance of fasting for people’s spiritual life and salvation. The annual cycle of liturgical celebrations fully reflects the patristic teaching on fasting, as well as the teaching on the necessity of constant unrelaxing watchfulness and on how to succeed in spiritual endeavours. The Triodion praises fasting as bringing the light of grace , as the invincible arms , the beginning of spiritual warfare , the perfect path of virtues , the nourishment for the soul , the source of wisdom , the life imperishable and imitation the angelic life , the mother of all blessings and virtues , and as the image of the life to come . 2. As an ancient institution, fasting was mentioned already in the Old Testament (Deut 9:18; Is 58:4-10; Joel 2:15; Jonah 3:5-7) and affirmed in the New Testament. The Lord Himself fasted for forty days before entering upon His public ministry (Lk 4:1-2) and gave to people instructions on how to practice fasting (Mt 6:16-18). Fasting as a means of abstinence, repentance and spiritual growth is presented in the New Testament (Mk 1:6; Acts 13:3; 14:23; Rom 14:21). Since the apostolic times, the Church has being proclaiming a profound importance of fasting, having established Wednesday and Friday as fast days (Didache, 8,1) and the fast before Easter (St Irenaeus of Lyons in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5, 24). |
| The Lord predicted the persecution of Christians in the world: ‘They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake…’ (Lk. 21:12). In my report on the Persecution and Discrimination of Christians in Today’s World: Causes, Scale, Prognoses for the Future’ made at the above-mentioned conference on November 30, 2011, in Moscow, I cited many facts of the persecution of Christians. Therefore in this survey of the situation in the world I would like to make today, I will dwell mostly on the facts that have taken place since that time. A matter of the greatest concern is the recent increase in anti-Christian actions in the two countries in which Christians comprise at least 10% of the population, namely, in Egypt and Syria. According to the 2007 data, there were 107 million people in Egypt, most of them being Arabs – 91,9%. Almost all of them (90% of the population) confess Islam. Christians live mostly in Cairo, Alexandria and other major cities. They comprise about 10% of the population. After the events of January-February 2011, a clear tendency has developed to make the sharia the only legal system in that country. It should be taken into account that those who demand the introduction of the sharia today are usually adherents of radical views whereby Christians are equated with pagans and should be converted therefore to Islam. I believe the sharia should be applied to Muslims alone; it by no means should be applied to Christians. It is my conviction that both Christians and Muslims should have the same rights and guarantees granted by the state. Throughout 2011, Christians in Egypt continued to be objects of attacks. In my report I have cited many examples of this. The authorities of that country, instead of protecting Christians, have sometimes themselves become sources of violence towards them. On October 9, the Copts organized a demonstration in the Egyptian capital, but armed forces under the command of the Egyptian Military Council broke it up and as a result over 20 Christians were killed and over 200 injured. Christians were literarily crushed by military vehicles. |
| Hochgeweihte Oberhirten, hochwürdige Väter, hochverehrte Mönche und Nonnen, liebe Brüder und Schwestern! In dieser lichthellen Nacht erleben wir geistig erneut die Freude, dass die Welt ihren Heiland aufgefunden hat. Wir schauen erneut den Sohn des lebendigen Gottes, der in der Krippe von Bethlehem liegt. Erneut hören wir in unseren Herzen die Engelstimme, lobpreisend den Schöpfer und Erlöser: „Ehre sei Gott in der Höhe und Frieden auf Erden und den Menschen seines Wohlgefallens“ (Lk. 2, 14). In dem wir das Lob der Himmelsheere beachten, begreifen wir, dass die Geburt Christi von außerzeitlicher Bedeutung erfüllt ist und einen direkten Bezug auf das Schicksal jedes Menschen hat. Sogar derjenige, der noch nicht von der Großtat des Heilands weiß, kann nun die Erkenntnis der Wahrheit gewinnen, Kind Gottes werden und das ewige Leben erben. Die Geburt Christi eröffnet uns die Wahrheit von uns selbst und macht möglich, diese Wahrheit zu verstehen und sich anzueignen. Erinnern wir uns, dass der erste Mensch vom Schöpfer als vollkommen geschaffen worden war, „als Bild und Gleichnis Gottes“ (1 Mos. 1, 26). Aber Adam, der das Gebot übertreten hatte, entstellte die Absicht des Schöpfers über sich. Da die Menschheit die lebendige Gemeinschaft mit Gott verloren hatte, versank sie mehr und mehr in den Abgrund der Sünde und des Stolzes. Und dann der Herr, der seine Schöpfung liebt und ihr Rettung wünscht, sendet seinen Eingeborenen Sohn in die Welt, der die Ganzheit der menschlichen Natur wiederhergestellt hat und der neue Adam geworden ist. Christus hat uns das Vorbild des der göttlichen Absicht angemessenen Lebens gegeben. Dieses Vorbild ist ein zuverlässiger Orientierungspunkt, der uns hilft, vom Wege nicht abzuweichen, und die einzige wahrhafte Richtung zu bekommen, die zur Fülle des Lebens führt, sowohl in den Bedingungen des irdischen Seins, als auch in der Ewigkeit. Wir beschreiten diesen Heilsweg, wenn wir den Rufen Gottes folgen. Ein solcher an uns gerichteter Ruf steht im 1. Korintherbrief vom heiligen Apostel Paulus: „Darum so preist Gott an eurem Leibe und in eurem Geiste, welche sind Gottes“ (6, 20). Dies bedeutet, dass wir nicht nur Gott durch Gebete und Gesänge das Lob emporsenden, sondern auch durch gute Werke zugunsten des Nächsten, zugunsten des Volkes und der Kirche. |
| It is also to fulfill the words of the Lord, give alms (Lk. 12:33), that pilgrims from both the laity and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church regularly leave donations on the canonical territory of the Constantinople Patriarchate. This is not considered interference in its affairs, and does not at all provoke angry Synodal protests. It also must be added that Patriarch Kirill’s letter, as it states in the text, was not only the result of his own soul’s urgings and sympathy for a suffering man, but also the fulfillment of his archpastoral duty to his own flock. Many Orthodox people in Russia, the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Moldova, including the author of these lines, were sincerely grieved by the news of Fr. Ephraim’s arrest. The proof of this is the thousands of signatures already found on a petition in support of the archimandrite. With all due tact and Christian nobility, our Patriarch decided to bring our pain to the attention of those who can decide whether or not to release Fr. Ephraim during the investigation. In fact, if the Patriarch of Constantinople would have used Patriarch Kirill’s letter, along with the voices of support from other Local Churches, to actively defend the abbot of Vatopedi Monastery, he would have indeed strengthened his authority in the Orthodox world, and would most likely have led to Fr. Ephraim’s release. Instead, through its strange statement, the Constantinople Patriarchate has primarily given Fr. Ephraim’s opponents an excellent excuse to ignore the voices of the Orthodox world; and secondly, he has compromised himself not only before Mt. Athos and the Russian Church, but before all Orthodox Christians, including Greeks. Yes, not everyone in the Greek world loves the Russian Orthodox Church, but even its fiercest critics, hand on heart, have to admit in this case that if they were to find themselves in Fr. Ephraim’s shoes they would much rather see Moscow’s attitude toward their misfortune than Constantinople’s. The above-mentioned Bishop Amvrossios of the Greek Orthodox Church makes yet another point: “If the Russian Patriarch has inadvertently interfered in the affairs of another Patriarchate, why then aren’t the Churches of Greece, Cyprus, and Bulgaria also cited? Their leaders made similar statements. It would appear that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is essentially contradicting itself and is acting unilaterally.” |
| The Russian Orthodox Church was particularly grieved to learn about the recent decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople to allow a second marriage for clerics. This decision constitutes a violation of the sacred canons (Canon 17 of the Holy Apostles, Canon 3 of the Council in Trullo, Canon 1 of the Council of Neocaesarea, Canon 12 of St. Basil the Great), as well as tramples on the pan-Orthodox accord and, in fact, rejects the results of the Council held in Crete in 2016, the recognition of which the Patriarchate of Constantinople actively tries to gain from the rest of the Local Churches. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, in its attempts to assert authoritative powers in the Orthodox Church, which it has never had, is now interfering in the church life in Ukraine. In their statements the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople go so far as to call Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine “uncanonical,” based on the fact that he does not commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Meanwhile, earlier, during the Synaxis of the Local Orthodox Churches in Chambésy in January 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew publicly called Metropolitan Onufry the only canonical Primate of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. On the same occasion the Primate of the Church of Constantinople gave a promise that neither during the Council in Crete nor afterwards he would make any attempts to legalize the schism or to grant autocephaly to anybody on a unilateral basis. We have to state with regret that this promise has now been broken. The unilateral, uncanonical actions of the See of Constantinople in the territory of Ukraine, committed while ignoring completely the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, indicate a direct support for the Ukrainian schism. It constitutes a great temptation among the millions-strong flock of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, considering itself to be the Mother Church for the Ukrainian Church, gives to its daughter a stone instead of bread and a serpent instead of a fish (cf. Lk. 11:11). |
| For all the stated reasons, the Catholic Eastern Church severed its communion with the local Church of Rome, which had fallen away from the truth and from the canons of the catholic Orthodox Church. Just as The Roman bishops had begun with pridefulness, they are also ending with pridefulness. They are intensifying their argument that allegedly the Orthodox Catholic Church fell away from their local Church. But that is wrong and even ridiculous. Truth testifies that the Roman Church fell away from the Orthodox Church. Although for the sake of imaginary rightness papists promote the view that during the time of union with the Catholic Orthodox Church, their patriarch was first and senior among the five patriarchs, this was true only for the sake of Imperial Rome, and not because of some spiritual merit or authority over the other patriarchs. It is wrong that they called their Church " Catholic " , i.e. universal. A part can never be named the whole; the Roman Church before its fall from Orthodoxy, comprised only a fifth part of the one Catholic Church. Especially since it rejected the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils the Roman Church should not be called catholic, as it follows its own incorrect theorizing. To some, the sheer numbers and widespread distribution of adherents to the Latin Church is eye-catching, and therefore those who unreliably understand truth deliberate: should it not be for this reason that the Latin Church be called Ecumenical or Catholic? But this view is extremely erroneous, because nowhere in Holy Scriptures are special spiritual rights ascribed to great numbers and large quantity. The Lord clearly showed that the sign of the true Catholic Church does not consist in great numbers and quantity when he spoke in the Gospels, Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom (Lk. 12:32). There is another example in Holy Scripture which does not favor quantity. Upon the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was divided in the presence of his son, and Holy Scripture presents ten tribes as having fallen away; whereas two, having remained faithful to their duty, had not fallen away. Therefore, the Latin Church in vain tries to prove its correctness by its multitude, quantity, and widespread distribution. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Calendar JOHN A. MCGUCKIN The calendar, in Orthodox usage, signifies the manner in which the yearly cycle of liturgical feasts is arranged in the church. From the very beginnings of the Christian Church there was a marked desire among believers to celebrate liturgically that central moment of salvation history: the monumental events surrounding the Lord’s death and resurrection, the great Paschal Mystery which included his cross and his glory as one. Liturgically separated out, so as to provide pause and meditative space for the faithful to “ponder these things” ( Lk. 2.19 ), the Paschal Mystery itself refuses to be divided up by aspect or human chronology. It is one living reality, not a series of disparate events. So, to that extent, it is impossible to set apart the Lord’s ministry from his sufferings, for they make a seamless weave. It is impossible to separate Great Friday from Pascha Sunday, or to divide out the mystery of Ascension and Pentecost. It is only a time-bounded chronological mindset that sets them in different chronological sequences. In God’s work of salvation it is not Chronos (time sequence) that matters but Kairos (the timeless moment of the opportunity of Grace). Pentecost and Pascha are not just things of the past, they are things of the present moment of God’s glory, and of the church’s future hope – its eschatological reality. The calendar, therefore, is a meditative aid to realize the complexity of the eschatological Kairos which the church senses as profound Mystery of Christ. It is not meant to be a ground plan, objectively real and definitive, as much as a cycle of recurring and elliptical reflections on the central mystery of the Word’s redemption of his people. Liturgically, the calendar revolves around Pascha. The Paschal cycle begins four weeks before Lent opens, with the Sunday of the Prodigal Son (announcing the overarching theme of repentance). Prior to Pascha come the Sundays of Great Lent, each with their own theme and motif, announced in the gospel of the day as well as in certain “saints of repentance” who are commemorated (Mary of Egypt, for example, or John of the Ladder), and also the Entry to Jerusalem. |
| Usually, “universe” did not refer to the whole world as such, but only to those of its parts where there was civilization. The rulers of big kingdoms were called the “kings of the earth,” as for example, King Cyrus of Persia is called in the Bible (Ezra 1:2). So, when the Greaco-Roman civilization was united under the Roman emperors, the Roman Empire began to be called the “world.” It is precisely in this sense that St. Luke used this word speaking about the Nativity of Christ in his Gospel:”In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered” (Lk.2:1). In fact the term “oikoumene” implied not so much a populated space as a cultivated space of ancient civilization. Other cultures had their own “worlds,” and such understanding of the term had lasted for many centuries. For example, sending a copy of the Kormchaia Kniga (the Pilot Book) to Metropolitan Cyril II of All Russia in 1262, Bulgarian ruler Jacob Svetoslav wrote: “Let the Russian world be enlightened by your word.” When in 325, St. Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles, summoned bishops from all over his Empire to Nicaea to discuss general ecclesiastical problems, that gathering got the name of an “Ecumenical Council.” Thus, an institute of all-imperial level came into being, which at the call of the emperors on especially important occasions brought together bishops from all over the vast Roman state to consider such problems under the chairmanship of the most authoritative bishops, who with the time began to be called “heads of the fathers” – Patriarchs. Most frequently the epithet “of the whole world” in the sense of “empire-wide,” “state-wide” was used by Justinian the Great (527-565) in legal texts. The words “world,” “world-wide” referred to the territory of the Empire as a whole are often to be found in his legislative acts. Thus, the Emperor’s novella 109 of 541 offers a detailed explanation of the supreme church institutes – the Ecumenical Councils and Patriarchates in the following way: “Just as the fathers did, we call ‘heretics’ those who are adhering to different heresies… as in fact are all who are not members of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, in which all the most holy Patriarchs of the whole World – of Western Rome, of this royal city, of Alexandria, of Antioch and of Jerusalem – t ogether with all the most reverend bishops subordinate to them, unanimously proclaim the apostolic faith and holy tradition.” So, according to the imperial legislation, the Orthodox faith was proclaimed together by five “Patriarchs of All the World” in unity with the bishops subordinate to them; and it was precisely to witness this unanimity that the emperors used to call together Ecumenical Councils. |
| I also give thanks to God for my devoted father, who strove with all his being to provide for his family and guide his sons; for my precious Mother, who raised her two boys with a very great love and patience, and whose presence rejoices me on this day; and for my remarkable brother—who is my senior in everything except years and many years ago became my spiritual brother in the Orthodox Faith, and is present with his family. To my late Spiritual Father, Archimandrite Anastassy, who diligently labored in missionary work at the University of California at Santa Cruz, nurturing our Orthodox Christian Student Fellowship, I owe a debt of eternal gratitude. All of our nine members became servants of the Church in different capacities, and many of them are present here today. Like the generous host of a great feast (Lk. 14:16) he offered us magnificent hospitality after the Divine Services, while also feeding us spiritually at his table from his rich pastoral experience, gifted story-telling and extraordinary erudition. Like the “Good Sower” (Matt 13:24) he prepared thought- provoking articles for our education, along with audio recordings of sacred church chant and soul-profiting lectures and sermons. And to the late Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), I owe yet another such debt. His voluminous translations, scholarly books and articles, and his many brilliant and inspiring lectures, were sources of tremendous edification and the subject of many salvific conversations amongst us in our college years and beyond. Such laborers in Christ’s vineyard were our role models. They encouraged us to cultivate “a life of our own in Christ,” that is, an internal spiritual life free from the allurement of deceptive distractions and co-dependence on the fleeting stimuli of this transitory world. They taught us that the Divine Liturgy is not the “Last” but rather the “First,” or more precisely, the “Mystical” Supper, offered “once, for all” (Heb. 10:10) by Christ our God—in, through, and above time, and encompassing all generations. Through the mystery of the Holy Church, we become witnesses of and participants in Christ’s life in our very own generation. In hearing these words, which are “the words of Eternal Life,” (John 6:68) we heard the Lord’s invitation “follow Me” (Matt 4:19) and chose “to follow the Lamb of God wherever He goes.” (cf. Rev. 14:4) |
| While the Pharisees and Sadducees argued with Christ over the nature of marriage, in the case of the Sadducees the discussion seems to focus on the levirate system of procuring heirs through a deceased husband’s brothers (Lk.20:27ff), the Pauline letters indicate that the great missionary grappled with issues relative to marriage in light of what he anticipated to be the imminent second coming of our Lord. Combing the Pauline corpus regarding marriage one is struck by the inconsistency of the missionary’s message. For example, was marriage to be encouraged or discouraged? (1 Cor. 7:25 ff) Should a Christian spouse divorce his or her non-Christian spouse? (1 Cor. 7:12 ff) Does marriage exist solely for the bridling of passions and therefore a check on fallen human love? (1 Cor. 7:1-9) Does marriage exist to restore the proper relationship between a man and a woman whereby submissiveness of the wife to the husband the bearing of children result in her salvation? (1 Tim. 2:15) Or, is the sharing of life between husband and wife a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church? (Eph. 5:21-33). Because St. Paul was a missionary his approach (or approaches) to marriage should not be perceived as a systematic treatment of the subject. As the Apostle to the Gentiles, he was encountering the new and unexpected not as a Jew but as a Jewish Christian newly converted to the crucified and risen Lord. Over the course of centuries the Church continued to face new and unexpected challenges. The canons of our Church attest to this fact especially when it comes to marriage and divorce. Once the symphonia between Church and State was established the integrity and sacredness of monogamous heterosexual marriage would eventually be undermined not from without but from within the confines of the Church. In spite of the many canons seeking to strike a balance between marriage and monasticism and which sought to protect marriage (as well as married clergy) from the monastic or ascetic extremists (Council of Gangra, cir. 341), the balance inevitably tipped toward the latter. A striking example of this imbalance allows for divorce should a spouse choose what is referred to in Matthew Blastares’ “Alphabetical Collection of the Sacred and Divine Canons”(14th c.) as the better life i.e. the monastic life. A divorce was easily granted even in cases where there was no mutual consent.(Letter Gamma, chapter 13) The superiority of monasticism over marriage continues to be a prevailing ethos for many in the Orthodox Church. |
|
|
