Не удалось извлечь искомое из базы ((( |
|
|
| No, God does not call everyone to marriage, not even all heterosexuals. Yes, He invites everyone to holiness; preserving sexual intimacy for the blessed state of marriage between a man and a woman is part of that calling, as the Church has taught consistently for two thousand years. Nonetheless, holy people have—and continue to—struggle with temptations of all kinds. Through fasting and other forms of self-denial, nourishment by the Holy Mysteries of the Church, participation in healthy friendships and communities, and sincere confession and repentance when we stumble, all of us– regardless of sexual inclinations—find strength and healing to press forward to the high calling that is ours in Christ Jesus. The nature of one’s particular temptations is irrelevant; the point is to turn away from them and live faithfully. Christian witness on these matters faces serious cultural challenges today. One hears that the growing support for same-sex marriage reflects positive portraits of homosexuals on both the small and the large screen, as well as the experience of knowing friends and family members who are gay. Straight people are apparently marrying at declining rates, while many gay couples enthusiastically seek legal recognition of their unions. Some people seem to be more impressed by the commitment of same-sex partners to one another than by that of the married couples they know. Appeals to the equal rights of individuals to the benefits of marriage, however defined, clinch the argument for many. Until very recently, of course, no culture or world religion recognized same-sex relationships as holy, or even legal, matrimony. From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity the revisionist claims distort the truth about what it means to be man and a woman in God’s image and likeness. They endorse sexual expression apart from the loving, covenanted unity of male-female difference that alone is blessed to bring forth new life. They respond to the desires of individuals in terms of the categories of the corrupt world, not of the struggle of disciplining oneself in order to respond more fully to the divine eros. Though Christian and civil marriage are not identical, Orthodoxy will not embrace society’s official redefinition of the fundamental nature of marriage contrary to what God has established from the origins of the human race. The Church cannot bless same-sex unions as marriages, for that is not what they are. Sacraments restore persons and their relationships according to God’s original intention for us to be like Him; and He created us male and female in His image toward the end of our salvation. |
| “…let us sit and have good cheer, because this son of mine was dead and has come to life again…” No longer is this the younger son , but the son who is alive again . Was the Father’s Embrace Just? At this point, we’re asking ourselves the same questions that the older son is asking himself: is this just? The older brother had been a good son but never had his father thanked him with a feast. It seems the basic rules have been broken. Miroslav Volf, in his brilliant book, Exclusion and Embrace , sums up the older brother’s thoughts poignantly. The one who works deserves more recognition than the one who squanders; celebrating the squander is squandering. The one who obeys where obedience is due deserves more honor than the one who irresponsibility breaks commands; honoring the irresponsible is irresponsible. The one who remains faithful should be treated better than the one who excludes the others; preference for the excluding one is tacit exclusion of the faithful one. When squandering becomes better than working and the breach of relationships better than faithfulness, justice will be perverted and the household will fall apart… (pg. 162) The older brother wants justice, blind justice. The younger son had wished his father dead, excluded himself from the family, and then squandered everything. It is not right that he should be welcomed back as a “son-alive-again.” Maybe it’s OK to welcome him as a hired servant, but not a son. God Gives Us a New Model for Justice Yet this father, an image of our Heavenly Father, shows us that blind justice is not how God operates. Following the rules can often lead to more damage: encouraging self-righteousness – like the Pharisee from last week – or the demonization of others. For God, “relationship” is more important than moral performance. Scripture is full of these sorts of images: God marking Cain for safety even after the murder of his brother; the embrace of Jacob and Esau; God continuing to lead the Hebrews even after they worshiped the golden calf; God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel despite their continued disobedience; or even Jesus, the Anointed King, continually embracing tax-collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, Gentiles, and sinners. |
| Among the various developed themes, the Paterikon insists on the necessity of prayer, of fasting, of spiritual discernment in order to avoid spiritual illusion, of love, of forgiveness, of humility. As in the classical ascetic literature, monastic life is presented as a spiritual warfare with demons, and ascetic life aimed at healing the major passions (gluttony, fornication, cupidity, anger, sadness, depression, vainglory and pride). In order to teach this, the Paterikon tells us many entertaining stories which have many parallels in the Vita Antonii. As in the Ladder of Saint John Climacus — the great Byzantine monastic classic — it presents monastic life as purification of the body and of the soul, deep humility and total obedience, a life of free renunciation and poverty, of severe fasting, sleepless vigil and unceasing prayer (cf. 1 Thess 5:17). In fact, the practice of the Jesus Prayer is attested literally by the Paterikon in the life of Saint Nicholas Sviatocha, thus testifying that the spirituality of Kievan Rus’ was indeed rooted in Byzantine Hesychasm . Some present Russian monasticism as rather simple and uneducated, while they describe Greek monasticism as more intellectual, more erudite. This does not seem to be true. From its beginning, the Kiev Caves Lavra appears to be not only a place of ascetic labours but also a centre of learned monasticism. One can read the most famous homilies of that time, the Discourse on Law and Grace , written by the first native Metropolitan of Kiev, Hilarion, who appears also as the first Russian Hesychast and who later retired in the Lavra. This pearl of early Russian literature, composed as an Encomium in honour of Saint Vladimir, the ‘Apostle’ of the Russian people, having dissipated the darkness of idolatry and enlightened his land with the light of the Gospel, is a rather long homily pondering on the essence of the New Covenant and the Divine economy. It shows such a deep knowledge of Byzantine theology, exegesis and rhetoric that it could not have been written by an illiterate monk. This is even more remarkable considering that Hilarion is regarded not as a Greek, but as the first native metropolitan. |
| Metropolitan Isaiah (Greek Archdiocese) on Recent SCOTUS Decision on Same-sex Marriage Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver Orthodox bishops around the U.S. are sending pastoral instructions to their clergy, monastics, and laity concerning the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all states. We are particularly edified by this epistle from Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, the Greek Archdiocese of America. All Clergy, Monastics, and Laity of the Holy Metropolis of Denver Beloved in the Lord, This morning, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States of America declared, in a five to four decision, that same-sex marriage in our country is now legal in all fifty states. This decision was based on the freedom and equal rights of all citizens. There was no mention of God in any part of the decision. This is one more ramification in the evolving laws of our nation which stresses the paramount rights and freedoms of our citizens. However, we know from our ancient, holy and cultural teachings and traditions that rights and freedoms cannot exist without the necessary responsibilities and accountability which should accompany them. Otherwise, such rights and freedoms would lead to anarchy, the next lower step from democracy. This slippery slope which we as a nation have continued to travel, from the Roe v. Wade decision over forty years ago, has ignored the basic teaching of the science of sociology which states that the very first society in this world is the human family. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court began to attack this primary society by legalizing the deaths of unborn infants, who as children contribute to the concept of the primary family. Although there is the question of morality in putting to death helpless, unborn human infants—almost sixty million by now—we, as Americans, have been conditioned not to feel any guilt or remorse because this genocide is “legal.” Aside from these thoughts which have to do with human behavior, we as members of the Church of the New Covenant, which history records as the Orthodox Christian Church, continue to preserve our Judeo-Christian principles which place Almighty God as the supra-intellectual Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. This is the teaching of the Church that was clearly recognized by the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea in A.D. 325. |
Не удалось извлечь искомое из базы ((( |
|
|
| John Anthony McGuckin World Religions, Orthodoxy and TIMOTHY J. BECKER The Orthodox Church understands itself as the full completion of the covenant with Israel. From the outset, Orthodoxy has claimed continuity with a Jewish past, and so has assumed its monotheism, Scriptures, and critique of idolatry. Yet it has also stood in significant discontinuity with that past heritage, orienting the Jewish dispensation according to Jesus Christ, whom it proclaims as the true goal of the Law and the Prophets, and who exceeds them all (cf. Mt. 12.6; 12.41–2 ). However, most who became Orthodox Christians came from the nations surrounding Israel and, while accepting the Jewish critique of their cults, progressively resisted Jewish culture. This differentiation between cult and ethnic culture saw the emergence of the new and distinctive category of “religion,” in which cult took precedence but no longer necessarily corresponded to a particular culture. Thus, Orthodoxy has encountered the world with a restricted cult but an unrestricted attachment to culture; in this sense every culture can house Orthodoxy, while Orthodoxy can house only one cult, which it offers to all nations as the fulfilment of their own cultures. Nearly all the fathers of the church saw Judaism in a closely relational mode to Christianity. Even those hostile to it were hostile likely because of local tensions rather than systematic theological reasons. The religions of other nations around them, however, were not seen positively. St. Athanasius (296–373) taught that the pagan cults were failures (at a basic logical and moral level) at assessing the innate Image of God properly, which was a live possibility. In a very influential early 4th-century treatise on the pagan cults, he said that rather than worshipping their uncreated Master, humans were swayed by evil to establish created things as God. Evil, which lacks existence, is thus the cause of false gods, which also lack existence (Contra Gentes 1.8). For Athanasius, the religions are not just errors in religious style, they are metaphysically the undoing of the world, the deification of ontologically diminishing forms of existence. Athanasius is also clear that this practice is widespread, implicating, among others, the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, Indians, Arabs, Ethiopians, and Armenians (Contra Gentes 1.23). |
| And interestingly enough—despite modern claims to the contrary—this “religious stuff” was not done away with by Jesus and his apostles. To worship in Spirit and Truth is not to worship in a way completely contrary to everything that has preceded us as God’s people. Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah and its worship, but to fulfill it in himself. He is the new Israel and the new Temple. Since old covenant worship was patterned after heavenly worship, what sense does it make to write it off as superstitious? Shouldn’t our desire be to worship on earth as it is done in heaven (so far as it has been revealed to us)? And in heavenly worship, there are processions, angels, images, incense, antiphonal singing and chanting, and all the other elements of ancient, Biblical worship. There was not a complete shift away from liturgical or sacrificial worship to that of entertainment, sermons, and reflection—rather, the worship of the old was fulfilled in the new. What was once only a shadow was now made fully apparent through Jesus Christ. Grabbe also notes: The emphasis on blood sacrifice should not be misconstrued, as abhorrent as the practice may seem to some. It was not ‘empty ritual’ as so often portrayed in prejudiced Christian (usually Protestant) propaganda. On the contrary, the sacrificial ritual was suffused with deep religious symbolism. This symbolism was taken up into later Judaism, after the cessation of the temple cult, and into Christianity. The central Christian metaphor is, after all, the sacrifice of Christ — which has little meaning if the Israelite sacrificial system is not taken into account. —ibid., p. 41 Without understanding how the people of God worshipped at the time of the apostles (and prior), there can be no understanding of how Christians worshipped from that point forward—or why they did so. Instead of completely abolishing the temple worship, it was fulfilled. And the essence of the temple itself is not eliminated, but is rather stretched throughout the entire world—everywhere Christians are gathered in the liturgical sacrifice. |
| In fact, one way of examining the trajectory of the EOC is to view it as a clash of traditions. Restorationism is an anti-traditional tradition in America and the New Covenant Apostolic Church (NCAO) turned EOC was initially simply one more example of that. As such, it exhibited a strong belief in its own authority (allegedly divinely established directly by the Holy Spirit), a brazen confidence in its own mission (to bring real Orthodoxy to America), syncretistic liturgical creations, and an emphasis on a moral purity that would separate itself from the surrounding degenerate culture. When this group encountered actual Orthodox Christians, including clergy, they encountered Christians who did not share the EOC " s restorationist assessment of Orthodoxy " s relationship to the New Testament Church. Orthodox Christians did not hold to a «spiritual» view of apostolic succession, but rather believed the spiritual apostolic succession resided within a succession that was historically verifiable. Orthodox Christians did not believe liturgies could be merely created from an idea in one " s mind, nor that liturgical practices were to be a matter of attempting to recreate what seemed to be the exact practices of a past epoch. Orthodox Christians also already had established diocesan structures and a hierarchy. Orthodox Christians could also fall prey to the same moral struggles the EOC saw besetting American culture. In sum, Orthodox Christianity already had a history and already existed in a manner Orthodox theologians considered a «lived tradition.» Because of this lived tradition, the Antiochian Archdiocese expressed a clear anti-syncretistic approach to liturgies and church discipline. The EOC was forced to de-convert from American restorationism as much as it had to convert to Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox challenged the EOC " s Orthodox Study Bible and forced the EOC to accept both the hierarchical leadership of the Antiochian Archdiocese and the Antiochian liturgical practices. Although in the case of the Joseph Allen affair one might note that non-EOC-converts likewise objected to Metropolitan Philip " s decision, the way in which the former EOC leaders handled the issue was consistent with their restorationist background. In this way, that event was consistent with the deconversion the EOC leaders had to undertake in other ways, with the Ben Lomond crisis perhaps exhibiting the struggle most fully. |
| Bishop Bauerschmidt has exercised that right to refuse. If indeed the denomination " s new policy is adhered to, he should experience no negative repercussions. Nevertheless, the Tennessean has come under fire from gay activists both outside and within the denomination. Some bishops insist on no right for clergy to opt out of performing gay " marriages " and no right for bishops to disallow them in their dioceses. The leader of Anglicans worldwide, including the U.S. Episcopal Church, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, released a statement expressing his " deep concern " over the bishops " decision and urged the bishops to change their minds. Welby wrote that the " decision will cause distress for some and have ramifications for the Anglican Communion as a whole, as well as for its ecumenical and interfaith relationships. " Bishop Edward S. Little II of northern Indiana argued at the denomination " s convention that the changes " alter the received faith of the church. " Bishop William Love of Albany told his brother bishops, " God incarnate ... [was] quite aware of the nature of marriage and could have offered alternatives but did not. " Love continued, " God has told us that is not appropriate to use the gift of sexual intimacy " outside the marriage of one man and one woman. The majority of Episcopalian bishops decided that same-gender sexual intimacy is morally acceptable and should be blessed in faithful covenanted relationships. The former bishop of New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson — the first openly gay Episcopal bishop – said that " gays and lesbians are living out their lives in holy ways. " Robinson commented that the bishops " decision to change the denomination " s canons on marriage " declare[s] how far we have come. " A spokesman for Anglicans, Bishop Rev. Pierre Whalon, assured those concerned that " the change of canons does not change anything. " The numbers of Christian faithful are severely dropping in America, with as many as 7.8 million fewer followers over the past seven years. The largest decline has been within mainline Protestantism, a group of denominations increasingly embracing homosexuality as a moral lifestyle and homosexual " marriage " as blessed by God. |
|
|
