[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 3rd Luminous Mystery: Proclamation of the Kingdom (Patristic Rosary)

WDTPRS ^ | 10/8/2006 | Fr John Zuhlsdorf

[markomalley]

We continue our Patristic Rosary Project today with the:

3rd Luminous Mystery: Proclamation of the Kingdom

There are many moments in the Gospels we could use to illustrate this Mystery so we must make a choice.

Consider what the Lord says in Mark 1:15, after John has been arrested when Christ is in Galilee: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."  In a sense, many of the things Christ says after this extend and exemplify the "good news", the "proclamation of the Kingdom".  

Since I am dealing these days with many apples, their eating and general enjoyment, my mind is drawn to something that St. Jerome (+420) wrote:

The sweetness of the apple makes up for the bitterness of the root.  The hope of gain makes pleasant the perils of the sea.  The expectation of health mitigates the nauseousness of medicine.  One who desires the kernel breaks the nut.  So one who desires the joy of a holy conscience swallows down the bitterness of penance.  [Commentary on the Gospels]

These are not the Glorious Mysteries.  Christ is preaching Good News which, at this point, is the Kingdom is at hand.  He will say to skeptics and onlookers in different times and ways that if the blind see and lame walk and miracles are being worked by Him, then the Kingdom of God is upon them.  In a way, His own sacred Person is the Kingdom of God in small.  Entrance into the Kingdom of God and into Christ requires the bitter before the sweet, suffering before joy, penance before peace.  The Cross precedes the glory.  But is it not true that even in the anticipation, the preparation, the purification and perseverance the glory is already present?  Didn’t Christ wear a crown already while on the Cross?  This Mystery reminds us that the Kingdom, although already (but not yet) at hand, requires us to repent as contituent element of the enjoyment of the Good News.  What a gift we have in the sacrament of penance.

To that end, one of the most amazing and conforting dimensions of Christ’s proclamation of the Kingdom, the announcement that we are slaves to sin no more and, instead, we are to be adopted children of the Father, is the gift of the sacraments and, in particular, the sacrament of penance, wherein repentence and the Good News of forgiveness converge.

When Christ healed the paralytic in Mark 2, He forgave his sins.  St. Ambrose, the great bishop of Milan (+397) offers this:

In their ministry of the forgiveness of sin, pastors do not exercise the right of some independent power.  For not in their own name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit do they they forgive sins.  They ask, the Godhead forgives.  The service is enabled by men, but the gift comes from the Power on high.  [The Holy Spirit 3.18.137]

And were there ever greater words about the Kingdom spoken than those Christ uttered before His Ascension?  He breathed on the Apostles and gave them His own power to forgive His in His stead.  So, the priest, acting in the person of Christ, forgives sins.   St. Augustine (+430) explains something important:

He exhibits Himself as occupying a middle position when He says, He me, and I you.  "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." By breathing on them He signified that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit, not of the Father alone, but likewise His own.  "Who soever sins," He continues, "ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain, they are retained." The Church’s love, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, discharges the sins of all who are partakers with itself, but retains the sins of those who have no participation therein.  Therefore it is, that after saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He straightway added this regarding the remission and retention of sins."  [tr. Io. eu.]

Christ is truly the "middle position", the one Mediator between God and man.  The priest, so closely associated with Christ by the power the Holy Orders, is another middle man with Christ’s own power to forgive sins.  The sinner must be with the Church to be forigven.  So must also the priest.  So important is this sacrament that the priest himself must have more than just the sacrament, the "power" to forgive, he must also have the mandate from the Church.  This is all according to the will of God, who desired that the gates of heaven be opened, the bonds of sins broken and the Good News be proclaimed by a Mediator.  And the words "I absolve you from your sins" are Good News.

The key to forgiveness, on the part of God and the priest and the penitent, is love.  Love must be part of the mix, not just fear (though fear really helps!).  About the woman "who loved much" and obtained from Christ forgiveness of her sins in Luke 7, we hear from Ambrose:

A kiss is a mark of love…. He truly kisses Christ’s feet who, in reading the Gospel, recognizes the acts of the Lord Jesus and admires them with holy affection.  With a reverent kiss, he caresses the footprints of the Lord as He walks.  We kiss Christ, therefore, in the kiss of Communion: "Let him who reads understand." (Mt 24:15)  The Church does not cease to kiss Christ’s feet and demands not one but many kisses in the Song of Songs. (1.2)  Since like blessed Mary she listens to His every saying, she receives His every Word when the Gospel or the Prophets are read, and she keeps all these words in her heart.  (Luke 2:51).  The Church alone has kisses, like a bride.  A kiss is a pledge of nuptials and the privilege of wedlock.  [ep. 62]

Christ walked all over as He proclaimed the Good News.  His feet could be a matter of reflection for us.  St. Alphonsus de Liguori says in his Stations of the Cross, "Nail my heart to Thy feet."  A baroque flourish, perhaps, but it is another way of kissing, like the penitent Mary Magdalene, the feet of the Lord as she weeps over them on account of her sins and her confidence in His mercy.  Christ dirtied His own feet in proclaiming and washed the feet of the Apostles who walked with Him.  His feet are beautiful: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.’" (Isaiah 52:7)

Each bead of the Rosary can be like a footstep along the path leading to our salvation and the blessed relief of the souls in Purgatory.

[markomalley]

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 1st Joyful Mystery: The Annuniciation (Patristic Rosary)

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 2nd Joyful Mystery: The Visitation (Patristic Rosary)

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 3rd Joyful Mystery: The Nativity (Patristic Rosary)

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 4th Joyful Mystery: The Presentation (Patristic Rosary)

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 5th Joyful Mystery: The Finding in the Temple (Patristic Rosary)

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 1st Luminous Mystery: Baptism of Jesus by John (Patristic Rosary)

[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 2nd Luminous Mystery: The Wedding at Cana (Patristic Rosary)

[markomalley]

ping

[Kolokotronis]

The comment from +Ambrose is thoroughly Orthodox, that from Blessed Augustine thoroughly Western. Is the later the origin of the Latin notion that the priest (as opposed to a bishop) is Alter Christus or did it arise from the lack of an explicit epiklesis in the Latin Mass and/or the “Absolvo te” used in confession?

The Alter Christus idea is one that comes up all the time in discussions of reunion among Orthodox. It’s one more very important difference to be aware of and be ready to deal with in both particular churches.

[maryz]

the Latin notion that the priest (as opposed to a bishop) is Alter Christus

This is a question (or questions) rather than an answer. What is the Eastern view of the relationship between the priesthood and the episcopacy? I know precious little about the Western view, only a few scraps I learned in grammar school or high school (and never had any particular reason to pursue).

We did learn that the episcopacy is the "fullness" of the priesthood/Holy Orders. I'm constrained, however, to add "Whatever that means." Priests are ordained in Holy Orders; there's no further sacrament to make a bishop.

In the Western Church, at least in my experience, the bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation, but a priest can be "delegated" (if that's the word I want) to confer Confirmation. (I don't know whether it can happen that a priest can be delegated to consecrate a bishop.) But I have a dim memory from childhoold of hearing that the Eastern Church (some of it?) typically gives Baptism, the Eucharist and Confirmation to infants at the same time. Does the bishop do all this (assuming what I heard was correct)?

Just curious about the implications of all this.

[Salvation]

amd the Call to Conversion. Many people forget to say the complete title of the mystery.

[Kolokotronis]

“What is the Eastern view of the relationship between the priesthood and the episcopacy?”

The priest is the “celebrant” at the Liturgy and is the bishop’s representative in the parish. The authority to have the Divine Liturgy conducted in a parish is represented by the antemision. The bishop has total authority over the priest.

“But I have a dim memory from childhoold of hearing that the Eastern Church (some of it?) typically gives Baptism, the Eucharist and Confirmation to infants at the same time. Does the bishop do all this (assuming what I heard was correct)?”

If a bishop baptizes a person, the bishop will likely also chrismate that person and give him or her first communion. Ordinarily, all three sacraments are administered at the same time and by a parish priest and in the usual case this is done in infancy.

[maryz]

The priest is the “celebrant” at the Liturgy and is the bishop’s representative in the parish. The authority to have the Divine Liturgy conducted in a parish is represented by the antemision. The bishop has total authority over the priest.

Sounds to me the same as the Western Church, but I don't see that it answers my original question in regard to your "the Latin notion that the priest (as opposed to a bishop) is Alter Christus." For the Eastern Church, is the priest not considered to be alter Christus in the celebration of Divine Worship and in Confession (not sure what the Eastern term would be)?

[Kolokotronis]

“For the Eastern Church, is the priest not considered to be alter Christus in the celebration of Divine Worship and in Confession (not sure what the Eastern term would be)?”

Absolutely not. The “Alter Christus” idea is completely foreign to Orthodoxy except in an +Ignatius of Antioch sense and then only with regard to a bishop...and I doubt any Orthodox hierarch would think of himself, much less call himself an “Alter Christus”.

In Confession (you got the right term) the priest is simply a witness for the Church and acts as a spiritual father for the penitent. In no way does he assume any role like Christ. There is no “Absolvo Te”, at least not in the Greek confession rubrics. By the way, any person may hold the offikion of confessor, not just priests. There are many holy monks and nuns who have been authorized by their bishop of hear confessions and act as a spiritual father/mother.

[Pyro7480]

There are many holy monks and nuns who have been authorized by their bishop of hear confessions and act as a spiritual father/mother.

So nuns can administer the Sacrament of Confession in the East?

[maryz]

There is no “Absolvo Te”, at least not in the Greek confession rubrics.

What is the Greek use? Is there some prayer or formula that's customary?

So the "Office" of confessor resides in the bishop and he may delegate as he sees fit?

I'm assuming the whole derives from "whose sins you shall forgive," -- I'm just trying to be clear on the development and understanding. (I do appreciate your taking the trouble to explain!)

[Kolokotronis]

“So nuns can administer the Sacrament of Confession in the East?”

Some can, yes. I know two of them down in Greece. One is the abbess of her monastery, and a former MD and the other the #2 in her monastery and a former trial lawyer. I love them both dearly!

[Pyro7480]

I didn’t know that! That’s very interesting. I wonder what Latin Catholic theology makes of that.

[Kolokotronis]

“So the “Office” of confessor resides in the bishop and he may delegate as he sees fit?”

I never thought of it that way, as a “delegation”. The bishop authorizes selected people, mostly priests, to be confessors because they have displayed the necessary qualities to be a spiritual father/mother.

Here is a link to a rather formal rendition of the Greek order of Confession. Scroll to the bottom of the first page. The Slavonic is somewhat different and far more Western, a result of Western influence on the Russian Church under Peter the Great.

http://books.google.com/books?id=b3fT-ck2hVcC&pg=PA10&dq=Orthodox+prayerbook&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0K5JhnMEl5w711lt2Fa08v36Jqbg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Kolokotronis]

“I wonder what Latin Catholic theology makes of that.”

I’m rather hoping you’ll tell me! :)

[markomalley]

The comment from +Ambrose is thoroughly Orthodox, that from Blessed Augustine thoroughly Western. Is the later the origin of the Latin notion that the priest (as opposed to a bishop) is Alter Christus

I am sure what I see that is objectionable about this:

He exhibits Himself as occupying a middle position when He says, He me, and I you. "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." By breathing on them He signified that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit, not of the Father alone, but likewise His own. "Who soever sins," He continues, "ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain, they are retained." The Church’s love, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, discharges the sins of all who are partakers with itself, but retains the sins of those who have no participation therein. Therefore it is, that after saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He straightway added this regarding the remission and retention of sins." [tr. Io. eu.]

Although it is Western...I'm not sure I see how this speaks to anything regarding the priest vs the bishop.

Can you go into why this is objectionable a little bit more?

[Kolokotronis]

“I’m not sure I see how this speaks to anything regarding the priest vs the bishop.”

The passage says nothing about a distinction between a priest and a bishop.I asked if it was the source of the Western notion that a priest is “Alter Christus”.

The position of the bishop, however, is indeed different from that of a simple priest. Some have argued that the theology of +Ignatius of Antioch leads to the conclusion that a bishop is an “Alter Christus”. I personally think that’s nonsense but it is more appealing and probably more soundly grounded than to say the same of the local parish priest.

[markomalley]

The passage says nothing about a distinction between a priest and a bishop.I asked if it was the source of the Western notion that a priest is “Alter Christus”.

I don't know if that is the origin, but somehow I think you might be misrepresenting Western Ecclesiology, as the priest is really the functionary of his bishop and must be in union with that bishop.

Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium clearly states that priests are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power (LG 28).

And as far as the idea of "alter Christus, ipse Christus," consider this other quote from St. Augustine:

8. Let us rejoice, then, and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ. Do ye understand, brethren, and apprehend the grace of God upon us ? Marvel, be glad, we are made Christ. For if He is the head, we are the members : the whole man is He and we. This is what the Apostle Paul saith : " That we be no longer babes, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." But above he had said, " Until we all come together into the unity of faith, and to the knowledge of the Son of God, to the perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ." 3 The fulness of Christ, then, is head and members. Head and members, what is that ? Christ and the Church. We should indeed be arrogating this to ourselves proudly, if He did not Himself deign to promise it, who saith by the same apostle, "But ye are the body of Christ, and members."

- Tract 21.8

Did not St John Chrysostom say,

For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks among heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels…For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven?

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests…For it has not been said to them, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants…

…But our priests have received authority to deal, not with bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness— not to pronounce it removed after examination, but actually and absolutely to take it away.

Tretise on the Priesthood III.4-6

I am not trying to say that St John stated or implied "alter Christus ipse Christus" in regards to priests, above. But he did indicate the tremendous dignity of the order and the incredible authority given that order by the Spirit.

The other thing I would suggest along those lines is the letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to the monk Demophilos. It is not really convenient to quote the whole letter, but in the context of this whole letter, I would ask you to read the vision of Carpus described in Section VI, paying particular attention to the words of the Lord Jesus to Carpus: Strike against Me in future, for I am ready, even again, to suffer for the salvation of men; and this is pleasing to Me, provided that other men do not commit sin… In the context of preceding content of that letter and the specifics about which he was rebuking Demophilos, it is fairly apparent to this Western mind the reason why Dionysius chose that particular tale. (See the quote from St Augustine above).

BTW, the Google Book extract you provided Maryz earlier unfortunately did not give the full text of the absolution in the rite described on p 59 (page 60 was not part of the preview). Fortunately, I was able to find it elsewhere:

May our Lord and God Jesus Christ, through the grace and bounties of His love towards mankind, forgive thee, my child, N., all they transgressions. And I, His unworthy priest, through the power given unto me by Him do forgive and absolve thee from all they sins, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

I assume the bolded text was the "Western influence" you were speaking of. (btw, here is a link to the Service book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church)

[maryz]

Thanks!

[Kolokotronis]

“I am not trying to say that St John stated or implied “alter Christus ipse Christus” in regards to priests, above.”

Good! :)

“But he did indicate the tremendous dignity of the order and the incredible authority given that order by the Spirit.”

No one questions that.

“The other thing I would suggest along those lines is the letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to the monk Demophilos.”

Monachos is a great site. You should join. The tale of Carpus is well known in Greece. It speaks of the power of the “Mati of the priest” and how it tempts priests and is contrary to God’s
will. To me it is the very antithesis of any notion that a priest is “Alter Christus”.

“And I, His unworthy priest, through the power given unto me by Him do forgive and absolve thee from all they sins, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

That’s the Westernized Russian form. It is still used in Russian Churches. Here’s a comment on it from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese:

“In the Orthodox Church, the priest is seen as a witness of repentance, not a recipient of secrets, a detective of speci­fic misdeeds. The “eye,” the “ear” of the priest is dissolved in the sacramental mystery. He is not a dispenser, a power­wielding, vindicating agent, an “authority.” Such a concep­tion exteriorizes the function of the confessor and of con­fession which is an act of re-integration of the penitent and priest alike into the Body of Christ. The declaration “I, an unworthy priest, by the power given unto me, absolve you” is unknown in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is of later Latin origin and was adopted in some Russian liturgical books at the time of the domination of Russian Orthodox theology by Latin thought and practice. The idea served to bring confession into disrepute, turning it into a procedure of justification and exculpation in respect of particular pun­ishable offenses. Forgiveness, absolution is the culmination of repentance, in response to sincerely felt compunction. It is not “administered” by the priest, or anybody else. It is a freely given grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit within the Church as the Body of Christ.”

[markomalley]

Kolo, you have got to start including links in your quotes!!!! :)

I looked up the quote you provided so I could see the context of it and found one of the best pieces I think I have ever read regarding contrition. In fact, I hope you don't mind me posting it here for the benefit of other folks.

Having said that, in this outstanding article I still find that the phrase the priest is seen as a witness of repentance, not a … The declaration “I, an unworthy priest, by the power given unto me, absolve you” is unknown in the Eastern Orthodox Church … seems to contradict what St John's statement that I cited earlier, …But our priests have received authority to deal, not with bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness— not to pronounce it removed after examination, but actually and absolutely to take it away. It seems that the position forwarded in the GOARCH site actually contradicts this Church father. Is the English translation defective, or am I reading one of the two incorrectly?