Homily of the Ecumenical Patriarch before Benedict (Fr. Z's Commentary)

What Does The Prayer Really Say? ^ | 12/1/2006 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[Pyro7480]

During the Divine Liturgy for the Feast of St. Andrew the Ecumenical Patriarch gave a homily that got my attention. Remember how important the Divine Liturgy is for the identity of the Orthodox.

Frankly, I think liturgy is a serious issue for ecumenical dialogue with the East. Think about this. They look at the stupid things the Latins have done and are doing to the sacred liturgy, about how those desiring traditional liturgy from lay people to priests, are marginalized and berated. They see the leaders of a group of "traditionalists" are ecommunicated. And they are going to get closer to Rome? Would they hope that their traditions would be respected were they to give greater submission to the authority of Peter which the Pope of Rome exercises?

Here is the text of the Patriarch’s homily (my emphasis and comments).

With the grace of God, Your Holiness, we have been blessed to enter the joy of the Kingdom, to "see the true light and receive the heavenly Spirit." Every celebration of the Divine Liturgy is a powerful and inspiring con-celebration of heaven and of history. [BOOM. This concise phrase also expresses what the Latin Church thinks. This is an encounter with the transcendent. An encounter which transforms the human experience.] Every Divine Liturgy is both an anamnesis of the past and an anticipation of the Kingdom. [Holy Mass makes the historical event present in a sacramental way, which is no less "real" than the reality we sense and touch, etc.] We are convinced that during this Divine Liturgy, we have once again been transferred spiritually in three directions: toward the kingdom of heaven where the angels celebrate; toward the celebration of the liturgy through the centuries; and toward the heavenly kingdom to come. [Perfect. Beautifully put.]

This overwhelming continuity with heaven as well as with history means that the Orthodox [And Latin!] liturgy is the mystical experience and profound conviction that "Christ was, is, and ever shall be in our midst!" For in Christ, there is a deep connection between past, present, and future. In this way, the liturgy is more than merely the recollection of Christ’s words and acts. It is the realization of the very presence of Christ Himself, who has promised to be wherever two or three are gathered in His name.

At the same time, we recognize that the rule of prayer is the rule of faith (lex orandi lex credendi), [When I heard this phrase, in Latin, from the lips of the Ecumenical Patriarch I almost did a spit-take on my monitor! In my opinion, the Patriarch is letting us know one of their serious points of concern about their Western brothers. What are we doing with our liturgy? If you Latins are celebrating your Mass in the way we see you celebrating, what on earth do you believe? Do you believe what we believe?] that the doctrines of the Person of Christ and of the Holy Trinity have left an indelible mark on the liturgy, which comprises one of the undefined doctrines, "revealed to us in mystery," of which St. Basil the Great so eloquently spoke. This is why, in liturgy, we are reminded of the need to reach unity in faith as well as in prayer. Therefore, we kneel in humility [This is amazingly ironic. The Orthodox don’t kneel as much as Latins do, in one sense, as when we enter our churches. No… wait… in a lot of places you never see Latins kneel at all anymore, do you? Especially during Mass?] and repentance before the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious Name we bear and yet at the same time whose seamless garment we have divided. We confess in sorrow that we are not yet able to celebrate the holy sacraments in unity. And we pray that the day may come when this sacramental unity will be realized in its fullness.

And yet, Your Holiness and beloved brother in Christ, this con-celebration of heaven and earth, of history and time, brings us closer to each other today through the blessing of the presence, together with all the saints, of the predecessors of our Modesty, namely St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. [Good reminder.] We are honored to venerate the relics of these two spiritual giants after the solemn restoration of their sacred relics in this holy church two years ago when they were graciously returned to us by the venerable Pope John Paul II. Just as, at that time, during our Thronal Feast, we welcomed and placed their saintly relics on the Patriarchal Throne, chanting "Behold your throne!", so today we gather in their living presence and eternal memory as we celebrate the Liturgy named in honor of St. John Chrysostom.

Thus our worship coincides with the same joyous worship in heaven and throughout history. Indeed, as St. John Chrysostom himself affirms: "Those in heaven and those on earth form a single festival, a shared thanksgiving, one choir" (PG 56.97). Heaven and earth offer one prayer, one feast, one doxology. The Divine Liturgy is at once the heavenly kingdom and our home, "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21.1), the ground and center where all things find their true meaning. The Liturgy teaches us to broaden our horizon and vision, to speak the language of love and communion, but also to learn that we must be with one another in spite of our differences and even divisions. In its spacious embrace, it includes the whole world, the communion of saints, and all of God’s creation. The entire universe becomes "a cosmic liturgy", to recall the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor. This kind of Liturgy can never grow old or outdated. [Again, I ask, what must they think about what we are doing in our churches? what we are doing to those who want the traditional forms?]

The only appropriate response to this showering of divine benefits and compassionate mercy is gratitude (eucharistia). Indeed, thanksgiving and glory are the only fitting response of human beings to their Creator. For to Him belong all glory, honor, and worship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue – in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers – the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

This gorgeous homily gives us serious food for thought. You would have to be pretty darn hard of heart not to rethink any cold resistance you might have to anyone who have entirely legitimate aspirations for traditional expressions of the Church’s ongoing grateful worship of Almighty God.

Also, apply what the Patriarch said about your parish and your manner of participation. 

[kawaii]

Most are a result of 1917...

[kawaii]

SCOBA isn't a jurisdiction its a group of Bishops (Not unlike the Catholic council of Bishops). Also there is no Patriarch of America (despite OCA chest pounding).

The major reason for the multiple jurisdictions is the soviet attack on the church. The EP isn't helping this by granting anyone who asks autocephally under the EP.

[Kolokotronis]

"The major reason for the multiple jurisdictions is the soviet attack on the church."

That's almost right. The reason we have multiple jurisdictions was the Russian Revolution. Before that, for all practical purposes, Orthodoxy in America was under the Russian Church, no matter what one's ethnicity was.

"The EP isn't helping this by granting anyone who asks autocephally under the EP."


But exactly the opposite has happened here in the States. When SCOBA under Iakovos moved in the direction of an American Church and autocephally, he was "retired" by the EP and that was the end of that. The nearest we have come since is with the GOA at the very end of the Spyridon years In all honesty, though, the American Church is not nearly mature enough in its Orthodoxy to be autocephallous. I do think we should be united in one church, but not autocephallous, maybe not even autonomous.

[ELS]

So, are you saying that He isn't worthy of respect until His second coming?

[kosta50]

The situation in Ukriaine is like your SSPX. The SCOBA includes all but ROCOR. OCA is an independent Church whose autocephaly is recognized only by Moscow. They are, like the Chruch of Japan, at least self-governing (autonomous). ROCOR is on its way out as the re-union with ROC will be acocmplished in 2007. That has already been decided. They all have their historical reason. SCOBA is an accociation of Orthodox Churches. The EP has no jurisdiction over the Serbs. So the Serbs, Bulgarians or Romanians in America and Canada are not "subjectes" to EP, unles they choose to attent and belong to Greek Archdiocese of America, which is under EP, or to OCA or ROCOR, or any other jurisdiction for that matter. Orthodox Chruches are indpeendent and autocephalous. No one is encroaching on each other's territory. There is also the Church of Antioch, which is jurisdictionally entitled to Middle Eastern-Orthodox.

We could say that Melkite and Maronite Churches are in "violation" of the Vatican jurisdiction which is not the case. They are sui juris Churches within the Roman Catholic fold.

[ELS]

But that's not what the NT says about bending of every knee. It specifically refers to His second coming.

Yes, it says that every knee shall bend at His second coming. But, it doesn't say that every knee won't bend before His second coming. Other than saying that every knee shall bend at the name of Jesus (His name occurs in the Catholic Mass several times), the NT doesn't say that one shouldn't kneel or genuflect in His presence.

When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in a monstrance, the traditional rubric is to kneel in the aisle before entering the pew. When the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle, the custom is to genuflect before entering the aisle.

As I mentioned before, kneeling and genuflection are signs of respect as well as acts of humility (for example, one's defenses are down when one is kneeling).

[ELS]

Oops, "before entering the aisle" should read "before entering the pew"

[kosta50]

Second Council of Lyons says otherwise (I think that's the one - that was off the top of my head)re the Filioque

Lyons II was not a true ecumenical council. What the Greek party did there (the Greek heirarchs have tried and succeceeded at all sorts of stupid things in Orthodox history, such as monthelism, iconcolastic heresy, caving in at Lyons II and at Florence, embracing Calvin, "New Calendar" and proclaiming re-union with the Anglicans; thank God the Greek yayiyas and lower clergy never lost their Orthodox heart and saved the Faith from insane EPs).

We Orthodox recognzie the first seven Ecumenical Councils. Thise after the official split of the Church can not possibly be ecumenical. Read the 6th and 7th Council proceedings and read the Latin statement of their faith

THE LETTER OF AGATHO AND OF THE ROMAN SYNOD OF 125 BISHOPS WHICH WAS TO SERVE AS AN INSTRUCTION TO THE LEGATES SENT TO ATTEND THE SIXTH SYNOD.

We believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in his only-begotten Son, who was begotten of him before all worlds; very God of Very God, Light of Light, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, that is of the same substance as the Father; by him were all things made which are in heaven and which are in earth; and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; the Trinity in unity and Unity in trinity; a unity so far as essence is concerned, but a trinity of persons or subsistences; and so we confess God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; not three gods, but one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: not a subsistency of three names, but one substance of three subsistences; and of these persons one is the essence, or substance or nature, that is to say one is the godhead, one the eternity, one the power, one the kingdom, one the glory, one the adoration, one the essential will and operation of the same Holy and inseparable Trinity, which hath created all things, hath made disposition of them, and still contains them.

At no time did the Latin Church use filioque at any of the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium. Pope Leo III resisted Frankish demands that he add filioque into the Creed, even though he personally did not find filioque theolgoically objectionable.

[kosta50]

But, it doesn't say that every knee won't bend before His second coming

No, but the Church did at the First Ecumenical Council, and only on Sundays, precisely because everyone was making up their own rules.

Some habits die hard I see. Certainly there was no mention of sitting in the Church either.

Making up rules as one goes along and ignoring Ecmenical Councils is what caused the corruption and split. The same thing happened in the 16th century when Christianity splintered one more time over what appearted to have been man-made rules.

[kosta50]

So, are you saying that He isn't worthy of respect until His second coming?

Good Lord! Where are you guys pulling this from? The CHURCH prescribed in 321 AD that we will stand when we pray on Sundays. Period.

As far as I know the Catholic Church recognizes the First Ecumenical Council as binding, en toto not only part of it. As far as I know the "no kneeling" on Sundays was never challenged as long the Church was united.

Believe it or not, standing is also a sign of respect. People stand up when the President walks in. We stand up to commanding officers when in the military. When the Pope stands, everyone stands.

It just seems that somehow standing isn't "dignified" enough. Please, this is what the Church ruled, the Emperor signed and the Pope approved. Somehow, all this was changed and re-defined, but not in an ecumenical council for sure. Something is not right here.

We Orthodox follow what the Church says. When in doubt, the Church goes back to the Patristcs and the Scripture to find the answers. We don't make up out own rules. We follow the Scripture, the Apostles and the Councils, as much as we can.

[ELS]

No, but the Church did at the First Ecumenical Council, and only on Sundays, precisely because everyone was making up their own rules.

And you guys think we are juridical?! Don't you have pious customs that developed over time from inspiration that aren't precisely spelled out in council documents or episcopal declarations/pronouncements? As Benedict XVI said in one of his interviews, the Church does not proclaim a bunch of "No"'s, but rather encourages one to say "Yes" to God and experience the freedom that accompanies submitting to God's will (of course, BXVI said it much more eloquently).

The Pharisees followed all the rules (the letter of the law) and Jesus called them whited sepulchers...

[kosta50]

And you guys think we are juridical?! Don't you have pious customs that developed over time from inspiration that aren't precisely spelled out in council documents or episcopal declarations/pronouncements?

Lots, but we do them standing. :)

Bowing and crossing (constantly) are such customs. On the Pentecost we do kneel and during the Great (Holy) Week we prostrate (but not on Sundays).

We have always found a way to accomplish that which was given to us and add our own customs without violating the Tradition.

One such example is the innovation (I believe 5th century) of placing the Body of Christ into the Holy Chalice containing the Precious Blood and for the communicants to receive the Body and the Blood, just as the clergy do.

[The_Reader_David]

Not quite.

North American jurisdictional unity was not broken by the Bolshevik Revolution. The Church here remained united under Russian hierarchs under the terms of St. Tikhon's ukase of 1920 until 1922 when the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius (of sorrowful memory) claimed jurisdiction over the 'Greek diaspora' in the wake of the Second Greco-Turkish War, and established the Greek Archdiocese.

It is unclear how the Synod/Metropolia split would have played out, or even if it would have happened, had the entire Orthodox world continued to recognize North America as united the Russian hierarchy which had evangelized the continent.

[Kolokotronis]

"(the Greek heirarchs have tried and succeceeded at all sorts of stupid things in Orthodox history, such as monthelism, iconcolastic heresy, caving in at Lyons II and at Florence, embracing Calvin, "New Calendar" and proclaiming re-union with the Anglicans; thank God the Greek yayiyas and lower clergy never lost their Orthodox heart and saved the Faith from insane EPs)."

Big SMILE!!!!!!!!!! ('course, my yiayia always maintained that Christ was a Greek boy and no Jew at all; you could tell by his name "Christos" so sometimes we have to be careful of yiayias, especially if they have wooden spoons in their hands!)

[ELS]

I say to-may-to and you say to-mah-to ... ;-)

[Nihil Obstat]

do you know anything about this institute? (I don't)

http://www.canonsregular.com/index.html

[Kolokotronis]

"North American jurisdictional unity was not broken by the Bolshevik Revolution. The Church here remained united under Russian hierarchs under the terms of St. Tikhon's ukase of 1920 until 1922 when the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius (of sorrowful memory) claimed jurisdiction over the 'Greek diaspora' in the wake of the Second Greco-Turkish War, and established the Greek Archdiocese."

Not quite once again. Greek Orthodoxy in this country from 1908 to 1922 was under the Archbishop of Athens. When +Meletios was elected EP, he created the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese here as a Eparchy of Constantinople. Prior to 1908 I think its fair to say that the Greeks were under the Russian Bishops, though Constantinople says otherwise. The Arabs were a sort of separate entity as a mission of the Russian Church until the 1970s, though the period from 1918 to then was a confused on to say the least.

But the reason this could happen was the Russian Revolution and its devatation of the Russian Church.

[The_Reader_David]

Can you document this? I've always understood that all Orthodox in North America were under Russian jurisdiction when St. Tikhon was Archbishop of Alaska and All-North America.

[Kolokotronis]

Aside from the records of my parish, which aren't online, try this link:

http://www.goarch.org/en/archdiocese/

Scroll down about halfway.

An even better bet is this:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7125.asp

[kosta50]

I say to-may-to and you say to-mah-to ... ;-)

Okay. :)