Come and See; the Lord is good.
This week is Holy Week (the week celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ). St. Paul's is doing two services a day, Monday through Wednesday. And starting on Thursday they are doing four services a day. See schedule here.
I can tell you from first hand experience that these services are truly amazing-- utterly glorious-- and something that you ought not miss, regardless of your Christian persuasion.
If you can make no other service, be at St. Paul's at 10pm Saturday May 3rd. This is their Easter Vigil... come worship Christ.
An all too-common, insidious fallacy.
I had long believed that St. Athanasius (born c. 298 A.D.) was in a small minority, defending Christian orthodoxy against a church that had, by and large, fallen prey to Arian Christology. I had believed it in part from what I understood to be Athanasius' given moniker "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Athanasius Against the World). I remember hearing stories describing Athanasius valiantly defending Christian doctrine amidst throngs of angry, powerful Arians who would only slowly be reconciled to Athansius' words. But alas! The Holy Spirit brings clarity in many ways-- my Sweetness took issue with me-- she insisted that my notion was bunk. So I read.
What a joy to read Schaff, a Protestant mind you, retelling the events prior to Nicaea-- ellucidating a history revealing not a "lone Athanasius" holding down the fort, but rather an entire council (well over 200 bishops) dedicated to passing on the faith handed down to them from their predeccessors-- alas, my Sweetness was right! The Church had not fallen prey on any large scale to the Arian Heresy.
Below is a good portion of Schaff's account of the events comprising the Arian heresy. I have edited out certain parts merely for the ease of reading in such a format as Blogger. If one finds not the time to read the entire account, I have written small summaries (headings if you will) before key paragraphs. All italics my own; Enjoy.
§2. The Arian Controversy Before Nicaea, 319-325.Arius taught that Christ was a created being; Christ was not eternal-- basically he denied the Trinity as we understand it today.
...Two great streams of theological influence had run their course in the third century: the subordinationist theology of Origen at Alexandria, the Monarchian theology of the West and of Asia which had found a logical expression in Paul of Samosata. Both streams had met in Lucian the martyr, at Antioch, and in Arius, the pupil of Lucian, produced a result which combined elements of both (see below, (2) a). According to some authorities Arius was the aggressor. He challenged some theological statements of Alexander as Sabellian, urging in opposition to them that if the Son were truly a Son He must have had a beginning, and that there had been therefore a time when He did not exist. According to others (Constantine in Eus. Vit. ii. 69) Alexander had demanded of his presbyters an explanation of some passage of Scripture which had led Arius to broach his heresy. At any rate the attitude of Alexander was at first conciliatory. Himself an Origenist, he was willing to give Arius a fair hearing (Sozom. ubi supra). But the latter was impracticable.Arius' idea gains some support. It seems here we have approximately thirteen clergy, and 50-100(?) lay people.
He began to canvass for support, and his doctrine was widely accepted. Among his first partisans were a number of lay people and virgins, five presbyters of Alexandria, six deacons, including Euzoius, afterwards Arian bishop at Antioch (a.d. 361), and the Libyan bishops Secundus of Ptolemais in Pentapolis (see p. 226) and Theonas of Marmarica (see p. 70).Orthodox clergy in Alexandria hold a synod in attempt to nip in the bud this growing Arian Heresy. The synod was not exactly successful. Meanwhile Arius and his right-hand man Eusebius turn to marketing their belief by sending letters to all the important Bishops of the church. Arius is supported by some of them, but not as many as Arius claims: Arius himself claimed nearly all of the Eastern Bishops to be "on his side." But we know this was far from true (see Council at Nicaea). In truth, if all the persons who sided with Arius were added up it seems there would be perhaps 300 to 400 persons max. Compared with the thousands of Christians living at the time, it is difficult to see Athanasius "against the world."
A letter was addressed to Arius and his friends by Alexander, and signed by the clergy of Alexandria, but without result. A synod was now called (infr. p. 70,Socr. i. 6) of the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and Arius a d his allies deposed. Even this did not check the movement. In Egypt two presbyters and for deacons of the Mareotis, one of the former being Pistus, a later Arian bishop of Alexandria, declared for Arius; while abroad he was in correspondence with influential bishops who cordially promised their support. Conspicuous among the latter was a man of whom we shall hear much in the earlier treatises of this volume, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, who had recently, against the older custom of the Church (p. 103, note 6), but in accordance with what has ever since been general in the case of important sees, been translated to the imperial city of Nicomedia. High in the favour, perhaps related to the family, of Constantine, possessed of theological training and practical ability, this remarkable man was for nearly a quarter of a century the head and centre of the Arian cause. (For his character and history, see the excellent article in D.C.B. ii. 360-367.) He had been a fellow-pupil of Arius in the school of Lucian, and fully shared his opinions (his letter to Paulinus of Tyre, Thdt. H. E. i. 6). The letter addressed to him by Arius (ib. 5) is one of our most important Arian monuments. Arius claims the sympathy of Eusebius of Caesarea and other leading bishops, in fact of all the East excepting Macarius of Jerusalem and two others, `heretical and untutored persons.' Eusebius responded with zeal to the appeal of his `fellow-Lucianist.' While Alexander was indefatigable in writing to warn the bishops everywhere against Arius (who had now left Alexandria to seek foreign support, first in Palestine, then at Nicomedia), and in particular addressed a long letter to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium (Thdt. H. E. i. 4), Eusebius called a council at Nicomedia, which issued letters in favour of Arius to many bishops, and urged Alexander himself to receive him to communion.The Council of Nicaea is called.
We see that the Arian "party" was all of 17 Bishops present at Nicaea.
Early in 324 a new actor came upon the scene. Hosius, bishop of Cordova and confessor (he is referred to, not by name, Vit. Const. ii. 63, 73, cf. iii. 7, o panu bowmenoj; by name, Socr. i. 7), arrived with a letter from the Emperor himself, intreating both parties to make peace, and treating the matter as one of trivial moment. The letter may have been written upon information furnished by Eusebius (D.C.B.s.v.); but the anxiety of the Emperor for the peace of his new dominions is its keynote. On the arrival of Hosius a council (p. 140) was held, which produced little effect as far as the main question was concerned: but the claims of Colluthus were absolutely disallowed, and his ordination of one Ischyras (infr. ) to the presbyterate pronounced null and void. Hosius apparently carried back with him a strong report in favour of Alexander; at any rate the Emperor is credited (Gelas. Cyz. ii., Hard. Conc. i. 451-458) with a vehement letter of rebuke to Arius, possibly at this juncture. Such was the state of affairs which led to the imperial resolve, probably at the suggestion of Hosius, to summon a council of bishops from the whole world to decide the doctrinal question, as well as the relatively lesser matters in controversy.
The council lasted from the end of May till Aug. 25 (see D.C.A., 1389). With the many picturesque stories told of its incidents we have nothing to do (Stanley's Eastern Church, Socr. i. 10-12, Soz. i. 17, 18, Rufin. H.E. i. 3-5); but it may be well to note the division of parties. (1) Of thoroughgoing partisans of Arius, Secundus and Theonas alone scorned all compromise. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Bishop of Nicaea itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, also belonged to the inner circle of Arians by conviction (Socr. i. 8; Soz. i. 21 makes up the same number, but wrongly). The three last-named were pupils of Lucian (Philost. ii. 15). Some twelve others (the chief names are Athanasius of Anazarbus and Narcissus of Neronias, in Cilicia; Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre, Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, in Syria and Palestine; Menophantus of Ephesus; for a fuller discussion see Gwatk. p. 31, n. 3) completed the strength of the Arian party proper.We see the numbers of those who strongly disagree with Arius to be near 30!
(2) On the other hand a clearly formulated doctrinal position in contrast to Arianism was taken up by a minority only, although this minority carried the day. Alexander of Alexandria of course was the rallying point of this wing, but the choice of the formula proceeded from other minds.So far we see, Arius: 17; Athanasius: 30. We now see, what I find to be the most inspirational and ironic fact of the Council: Schaff calls them the "conservatives." These conservatives for all intents and purposes were men of God who knew little, if anything of the Arian Heresy-- certainly the majority of them were ignorant of Arianism's real threat to orthodoxy. These were men of God, "who wished for nothing more than that they might hand on to those who came after them the faith they had received at baptism, and had learned from their predecessors." What amazing truth, and glorious words! So Simple, yet so profound their faith!
The test formula of Nicaea was the work of two concurrent influences, that of the anti-Origenists of the East, especially Marcellus of Ancyra, Eustathius of Antioch, supported by Macarius of `Aelia,' Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Asclepas of Gaza, and that of the Western bishops, especially Hosius of Cordova. The latter fact explains the energetic intervention of Constantine at the critical moment on behalf of the test (see below, and Ep. Eus. p. 75); the word was commended to the Fathers by Constantine, but Constantine was `prompted' by Hosius (Harnack, Dogmg. ii. 226); outoj thn Nikaia pioton ecqeto (infr. p. 285, ). Alexander (the Origenist) had been prepared for this by Hosius beforehand (Soc. iii. 7; Philost. i. 7; cf. Zahn Marcell. p. 23, and Harnack's important note, p.229). Least of all was Athanasius the author of the omoousion; his whole attitude toward the famous test (infr. p. 303) is that of loyal acceptance and assimilation rather than of native inward affinity. `He was moulded by the Nicene Creed, did not mould it himself' (Loofs, p. 134). The theological keynote of the council was struck by a small minority; Eustathius, Marcellus, perhaps Macarius, and the Westerns, above all Hosius; the numbers were doubtless contributed by the Egyptian bishops who had condemned Arius in 321. The signatures, which seem partly incorrect, preserve a list of about 20. The party then which rallied round Alexander in formal opposition to the Arians may be put down at over thirty. `The men who best understood Arianism were most decided on the necessity of its formal condemnation.' (Gwatkin.)
To this compact and determined group the result of the council was due, and in their struggle they owed much-how much it is hard to determine-to the energy and eloquence of the deacon Athanasius, who had accompanied his bishop to the council as an indispensable companion (infr. p. 103; Soz. i. 17 fin.). (3) Between the convinced Arians and their reasoned opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, 200 and more, nearly all from Syria and Asia Minor, who wished for nothing more than that they might hand on to those who came after them the faith they had received at baptism, and had learned from their predecessors. These were the `conservatives' or middle party, composed of all those who, for whatever reason, while untainted with Arianism, yet either failed to feel its urgent danger to the Church, or else to hold steadily in view the necessity of an adequate test if it was to be banished. Simple shepherds like Spyridion of Cyprus; men of the world who were more interested in their libelli than in the magnitude of the doctrinal issue; theologians, a. numerous class, `who on the basis of half-understood Origenist ideas were prepared to recognise in Christ only the Mediator appointed (no doubt before all ages) between God and the World' (Zahn Marc. p. 30); men who in the best of faith yet failed from lack of intellectual clearsightedness to grasp the question for themselves; a few, possibly, who were inclined to think that Arius was hardly used and might be right after all; such were the main elements which made up the mass of the council, and upon whose indefiniteness, sympathy, or unwillingness to impose any effective test, the Arian party based their hopes at any rate of toleration. Spokesman and leader of the middle party was the most learned Churchman of the age, Eusebius of Caesarea. A devoted admirer of Origen, but independent of the school of Lucian, he had, during the early stages of the controversy, thrown his weight on the side of toleration for Arius. He had himself used compromising language, and in his letter to the Caesarean Church (infra, p. 76 sq.) does so again. But equally strong language can be cited from him on the other side, and belonging as he does properly to the pre-Nicene age, it is highly invidious to make the most of his Arianising passages, and, ignoring or explaining away those on the other side, and depreciating his splendid and lasting services to Christian learning, to class him summarily with his namesake of Nicotnedia. (See Prolegg. to vol. 1 of this series, and above all the article in D.C.B.) The fact however remains, that Eusebius gave something more than moral support to the Arians. He was `neither a great man nor a clear thinker' (Gwatkin); his own theology was hazy and involved; as an Origenist, his main dread was of Monarchianism, and his policy in the council was to stave off at least such a condemnation of Arianism as should open the door to `confounding the Persons.' Eusebius apparently represents, therefore, the `left wing,' or the last mentioned, of the `conservative' elements in the council (supra, and Gwatkin, p. 38); but his learning, age, position, and the ascendency of Origenist Theology in the East, marked him out as the leader of the whole.Glory be to God, that out of the some 250 Bishops present at the Great Council of Nicaea, only 17 supported Arius' claim, and only 2 were adamant enough to withold signing.
But the `conservatism' of the great mass of bishops rejected Arianism more promptly than had been expected by its adherents or patrons.
The real work of the council did not begin at once. The way was blocked by innumerable applications the Christian Emperor from bishops and clergy, mainly for the redress of personal grievances. Commonplace men often fail to see the proportion of things, and to rise to the magnitude of the events in which they play their part. At last Constantine appointed a day for the formal and final reception of all personal complaints, and burnt the `libelli' in the presence of the assembled fathers. He then named a clay by which the bishops were to be ready for a formal decision of the matters in dispute. The way was now open for the leaders to set to work. Quasi-formal meetings were held, Arius and his supporters met the bishops, and the situation began to clear (Soz. i. 17). To their dismay (de Deer. 3) the Arian leaders realised that they could only count on some seventeen supporters out of the entire body of bishops. They would seem to have seriously and honestly underrated the novelty of their own teaching (cf. the letter of Arius in Thdt. i. 5), and to have come to the council with the expectation of victory over the party of Alexander. But they discovered their mistake:- `Sectamur ultro, quos opimusIt seems clear from this account that The Church was never "pro-Arian", nor was the anti-Arian party ever grossly outnumbered, nor ever outnumbered at all. In fact, to summarize, at most it can be argued that perhaps there were large numbers laity swayed to Arianism (in the hundreds perhaps), but as far as the oversight of the church is concerned (Bishops, Deacons, etc.) we saw that even with liberal estimates, the number of pro-Arians was certainly less than 60 clergy (remember, out of 250 Bishops at Nicaea, only 17 were pro-Arian). 60 or so clergy, compared to the thousands of clergy in the church at large, pales in comparison.
Thanks Sweetie.
Easter...almost here
Yes. Because of a difference in calendar use, the Eastern Orthodox are celebrating Easter on May 5th. Their Holy Week starting this Sunday actually.
On May 4th at 9:30 pm St. Paul's will be doing their Easter Vigil service. This is sure to be a glorious and inspirational experience, and I'm inviting anyone interested in attending to join Katherine, myself, Wayne, and some other friends.
I'll give more details soon about possible car-pooling and the like, but I wanted to mention it now, in case you wanted to put a mental note on Saturday May 4th.
Something fun
Last night, and for the first time on FM, my old band Life After Darla was featured on 94.3 FM at about 9:35pm. One of my favorite LAD songs, FADING, was played loud and clear, and I was all smiles listening.
Evidently, the boys have continued submitting packages to radio stations and finally found some acceptance there.
The station is, from what I hear, good listening on a whole, and on Sunday nights they do an "unsigned band" show. If you're ever in that "zone" of the radio dial and enjoy from time to time an eclectic mix of alternative music, then give 94.3 a listen.
AND, if you're ever listening and happen to hear LAD, give them a call and tell them what you think. Who knows, LAD might get a record deal after all!
On "In-fighting."
An issue has been raised.
If Orthodox tradition and doctrine regarding the nature of the true church was as clear as they claim it to be, there would be no controversy over who has jurisdiction in America. Moreover, the in-fighting reveals the same sins of pride and lack of love toward one's brother that are manifest in many Protestant factions.It seems that Scripture itself tells of "In-fighting" that did not result in, nor lead to an invalidation of Apostolicity. In Acts 15 we read:
Acts 15Reading the passage in full is highly recommened, for one sees a very close resemblence with the manner in which the Ecumenical Councils were held.
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren.
4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
That aside, my original intention for bringing out Acts 15 was to respond to the first part of the comment,
"If Orthodox tradition and doctrine regarding the nature of the true church was as clear as they claim it to be, there would be no controversy over who has jurisdiction in America."It seems to me that on an issue as important as whether or not Gentile converts must be circumsized for salvation and how the role of Jewish tradition must be, or must be avoided in the life of Gentile converts, that the Apostles (of all people) would have had no controversy amongst themselves as to the answer. But what we read is much different. We read that there was indeed a need for a debate-- indeed a need for the Church's first Council. I would posit from this, and from the squabble between Peter and Paul, found elsewhere in Scripture, that "in-fighting" does not necessarily lead one to conclude that the Church is not operating properly, or that the Church is somehow illequipped, or worse, bogus.
Responding to the second portion,
"Moreover, the in-fighting reveals the same sins of pride and lack of love toward one's brother that are manifest in many Protestant factions"I would argue that, again, "in-fighting," if that's what is happening in the Orthodox discussion of American autonomy, does not lead one to conclude, based on Acts 15 and Peter and Paul's differences, that the source is necessarily "sins of pride" or a "lack of love." It is important to reiterate that these discussions amongst the Orthodox are "in house" debates, literally. I think this changes the tenor of the juxtaposition, since in Protestantism, by contrast, when a new denomination is formed it is usually on account of differences in doctrine or practice thought to be so important, and the differences so great, that communion in the same church is no longer considered tenable. This is simply not the case in American Orthodoxy.
Responding to comments on the April 16th blog
I agree with what Wayne said in his comments concerning the unity of Orthodoxy-- indeed, it was well said.
What makes Orthodoxy unified is that all of these churches share the same faith and are in full communion with each other. Of course there are differences of opinion regarding a number of issues, but to say that this constitutes the same sort of disunity that characterizes Protestantism is simply false and a gross mischaracterization.I merely want to say to Tim, with the fear of oversimplifiying, that, on the subject of unity, to criticize Rome is one thing; to criticize Orthodoxy is entirely another. Tim's comments seem focused on Rome alone, and as such, are quite simply irrelevant to the dicussion of Orthodoxy's unity. (Unless of course the subject is dealing with the Great Schism, or the relation of dogma between Rome and Orthodoxy, etc.)
Rome has fettered itself with many, what I would call, lead-weights, some starting even before 1054 A.D. Some "lead weights": *Adding the Filioque *the Papacy *Dogmatizing certain Aristotelian metaphysics *The Crusades *radical Mariology *Trent *Vatican II
Praise be to God that Orthodoxy has not fell prey to such movements and ideas. However, the point is not to say that Orthodoxy is free from problems, but just to point out that when one fights Orthodoxy by beating up on Rome, one is certainly taking on the weaker opponent.
Some Luther
Martin Luther from Bondage of the Will page 133:
"...the Scriptures are perfectly clear in their teaching, and that by their help such a defence of our position may be made that our adveraries cannot resist; and that what cannot be thus defended is not our business, and is of no concern to Christians." (emphasis mine)I wonder if Luther ever imagined the 100's if not 1000's of denominations that would spring up after these words of his?
Is Luther rolling over in his grave, or is he merely mistaken?
Not everyone's idea of a weekend getaway
But I can think of few places more interesting to visit.
St. Anthony's Monastery in the "dry heat" of the Arizona outback.It's possible that my beloved Katherine, Wayne, and I will be spending this coming weekend there. Lord willing.
On the Eucharist
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"At least some of the early church fathers made it very clear that they believed in a real presence. There are many more such quotes here.
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185
Clement of Rome (30-100 A.D.)
Here is a man who was most likely converted under St. Paul in the Ephesian church. The text below is taken from his letter written to the Corinthian church somewhere between 69 to 100 A.D. Notice the already understood hierarchy in the church (especially the last paragraph).
Chapter XL.-Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.It's hard to add anything to such clarity.These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.174 He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him.175 Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
Chapter XLI.-Continuation of the Same Subject.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see,176 brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.
Chapter XLII.-The Order of Ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."
Kallistos Ware on the unity of the church
"If we take seriously the bond between God and His Church, then we must inevitably think of the Church as one, even as God is one: there is only one Christ, and so there can be only one Body of Christ. Nor is this unity merely ideal and invisible; Orthodox theology refuses to separate the 'invisible' and the 'visible Church', and therefore it refuses to say that the church is invisibly one but visibly divided."By contrast, Philip Schaff:
"It [Orthodox and Roman Catholic teaching] blindly identified the spiritual unity of the church with unity of organization, insisted on outward uniformity at the expense of free development, and confounded the faulty empirical church, or a temporary phase of the development of Christianity, with the ideal and eternal kingdom of Christ, which will not be perfect in its manifestation until the glorious second coming of its Head.This is what they call "when worlds collide."
Finding Favor
Proverbs 18:22 reads:
"He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord."I have found favor in finding Kate. Tonight is just one such example. Allowing me to work on my homework, Kate not only went grocery shopping; she did my laundry, AND helped me make dinner. She is a blessing to me above all other blessings. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!
On a side note, the verse above seems to go hand in hand with the Orthodox view of Marriage (being a sacrament: a means of grace). If one who marries finds favor in God's eyes, then it seems to me that one who marries also receives grace through the marriage. FWIW
?'s that Need answers
I will posit two things as incontrovertable fact.
1. The Lord's Supper (Holy Communion/Eucharist) was administered each and every Lord's Day (on Sunday) since the Apostolic era.It seems to me that if you currently find yourself at a church that either (a) administers the Lord's Supper less than every week, or (b) is a non-liturgical church (in the strict sense), then you need to be asking yourself why.
2. Liturgical worship (including written prayers, and episcopal sermons) was established as the common practice of the church as early as 100-120 A.D. if not earlier.
Ask yourself; Why has my church chosen a new paradigm? Was the practice of the early church as established by the Apostles themselves, or in the case of the liturgies, established by those men who personally knew the Apostles, simply unimportant? Or worse, was the early church's practice wrong? If it was not wrong, nor unimportant, why does your church practice differently?
Do you feel comfortable in a church whose practice in such a seemingly vital area (the sacraments) is at variance with the Apostolic era? If you do feel comfortable, what is the justification for such a difference in practice?
To my mind the answers to these questions ought to incite action.
Eucharist
It's very interesting how new perspectives can modify anew certain inferences from passages of Scripture that had prior been read time and time again with little reflection.
The following passage, taken from John chapter six, for instance, has taken on a whole new meaning in light of my ever growing interest in Orthodox theology. The Orthodox for 2000 years have practiced Holy Communion every Lord's Day (each week, sometimes more). Their practice is the Eucharist, the actual body and blood of Christ, sacrificed and fed to his church. Their practice seems quite in line with these words:
After the Reformation, some 1500 years AFTER the church had established just what Holy Communion was and is, Evangelical and Reformed Protestants alike re-determined the meaning of the Holy Communion. Most Protestant churches today practice at least one or more of the following:
48 I am the bread of life.
49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
* The bread and the wine are not really the blood and body of Christ.Each of these typical Protestant practices represent what I take to be nothing short of a paradigm shift. How is it a paradigm shift? These Protestant practices fly in the face of over 1500 years of church practice and belief.
* Communion is practiced either monthly, or quarterly, perhaps annually.
* "Holy Communion" is nothing more than a mere memorial (rememberance) of Christ's death for us.
* Christ is not present in the bread and wine, but "we" are spiritually ushered up into heaven to be in the presence of Christ.
I do not see the justification for making such a paradigm shift. I do not see the support historically, nor, more importantly, do I see support from Scripture. These are tough issues facing me square on. God be merciful.
A word on Theosis
Russ continues:
I would argue that the eastern rite with its doctrines of theosis and infused (not imputed) righteousness, to name just two, greatly compromise this "completeness". The eastern rite is lacking much; it is not complete. Protestantism, for all that it lacks, does not lack these essential things as the eastern churches do.Theosis.
When taken superficially Theosis seems quite malignant, when taken as the Orthodox teach, Theosis is not much different than a Protestant view of Glorification.
The orthodox take very seriously and emphasize with great care the union between the saint and Christ. They argue that just as the Second Person of the Trinity is Hypostatically joined to Flesh, so too, we are joined to God and will partake in Him (II Peter 1:4). This is what they call theosis, or deification.
When one takes a look at the Scriptural support for such an idea, it quickly deflates a lot of the common Protestant responses. Take the words of 2 Peter 1:4
"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."(Most translations render "participate" as "partake").Consider Christ's own words in a prayer to Jehovah as found in John chapter 17:
So it seems that the idea of "partaking" in the Godhead through the gracious act of Christ unifying Himself with us is not foreign to Scripture after all. This unity with God, and partaking in the Divine nature is what the Orthodox teach in Theosis.
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me." (emphasis mine)
Strange to Western ears, yes. Strange to Protestant ears, yes. Strange to Christian ears? I don't think it ought to be.
A Response
Russ writes:
Jeremy, you write rather broadly and boldy that "Orthodoxy ... is crystal clear, and in complete accordance with Scripture." How so?I posited that Orthodoxy is in complete accordance with and indeed is crystal clear on the fundamental doctrines of [Protestant]Theology. My comment was pointed at your statement, "...to trade the Solas for a sense of tradition..." My intent was to argue that one would not be "trading" the Solas away. It seems to me that one could hold onto at least three, if not four, of the five Solas (the five being Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, and Sola Scriptura).
Although Sola Scriptura would have to be conceded, I believe one could still consistently hold to Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Soli Deo Gloria as an Orthodox Christian (Solo Christo aruguably could be held). Orthodox Christians, and Anglicans mind you, will zealously affirm that we are saved on account of God's grace through faith-- that we are not saved by works-- hence we are saved by Divine Grace alone. Moreover, the Orthodox hold that God is the only one to be worshiped and glorified, and that all things are to Him, through Him, and for Him.
You will perhaps claim that I'm being too simplistic, and that I'm missing the deeper conclusions drawn by the Orthodox. I would respond by explaining that indeed one of the strengths of Orthodoxy is its reluctance to get tied up in sticky doctrinal exactitudes, e.g., as one would see in Berkhof's systematic theology or Calvin's Institutes. The Orthodox maintain certain propositions to be true, e.g., "Saved by Grace," without doing a lot of work expatiating the doctrine.
The Orthodox "fence" doctrines while it seems the Protestants positively explain doctrines. I mean by "fence" that they explain just enough that those doctrines inconsistent with or in contradiction with their "fenced" doctrines are exposed. Protestants go much further; they give very detailed, very scholarly presentations of just what the doctrine is and how it is manifested, e.g., The Ordo Salutus, or Predestination. You may see fencing as a weakness; I see it as a strength.
Granted the Orthodox will emphasize certain things over others, and will perhaps word things differently on certain issues, but these facts have not demontrated to my eyes that they are in contradiction to the three, if not four, Solas mentioned above. I have found however, that there are a lot of Orthodox straw men shot down by Protestant authors-- many times by falsely tying Orthodox teaching to Romanist teaching, other times by merely failing to attach the entire Orthodox position.
Take an example. The Orthodox teach that we are working out our own salvation by Grace, and that as a result we must do good works. Protestants will usually point the finger and say, "look! Legalism...works righteousness!" But remember, even Protestants must concede that good works are a necessary factor in the life of a Christian, just as James tells us: "Faith without works is dead." The Orthodox position is NOT legalism.
I will not deny however that certain Orthodox teachings are inconsistent with Calvinistic teachings. I grant that the Orthodox do want to hold onto man's free will, and that they emphasize sanctification more than justification, but those things can be argued on their own at another time.
As an aside, I feel it important to point out that I am not trying to attack Protestants, but rather Protestantism and some of its inherent principles. I have not convinced myself of Orthodoxy, nor the invalidity of Protestantism altogether, but I do think there are some vexing questions that need to be accounted for, and I hope that we all can sharpen one another with truth and humility.
Easter
According to Philip Schaff, the "history" of Easter is such.
During the Ante-Nicene period (100-311 A.D.) there were three yearly festivals: Easter, Pentecost, and Epiphany; these form a sort of framework for the entire year. Strictly speaking the church had two primary seasons: Passover, commemorating Christ's suffering, death on the cross and glorious resurrection. The second was Pentecost, commemorating the exaltation of Christ.
The Christian Passover (Easter) naturally grew out of the Jeish Passover, as the Lord's Day grew out of the Sabbath; the paschal lamb being regarded as a prophetic type of Christ, the Lamb of God slain for our sins, and the delieverance from the bondage of Egypt as a type of the redemption from sin. It is certainly the oldest and most important annual festival of the church, and can be traced back to the first century, or at all events to the middle of the second, when it was universally observed...Schaff makes no mention of any controversy as relating to pagan holidays or anything of the sort. He does point out the numerous controversies however with regard to what particular day Easter ought to be celebrated.
Tradition...Throughout the Year, the Orthodox Way
From Chapter 5 of Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church
If anyone wishes to recite or to follow the public services of the Church of England, then (in theory, at any rate) two volumes will be sufficient-- the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer; similarly in the Roman Catholic Church he requires only two books-- the Missal and the Breviary; but in the Orthodox Church, such is the complexity of the services that he will need a small library of some nineteen or twenty substantial tomes...one of the greatest treasures of the Orthodox Church.In these twenty volumes are contained the services for the Christian year-- that annual sequence of feasts and fasts which commemorates the Incarnation and its fulfilment in the Church. The ecclesiastical calendar begins 1 September. Pre-eminent among all festivals is Easter, the feast of feasts, which stands in a class by itself. Next in importance come the Twelve Great Feasts:
The Nativity of the Mother of God (8 Sept)There are also a number of Fasts:
The Exaltation of the life giving Cross (14 September)
The Presentation of the Mother of God in the temple (21 Nov)
The Nativity of Christ (Christmas)
The Baptism of Christ in the Jordan (Epiphany) (6 Jan)
The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple (2 Feb)
The Annunciation of the Mother of God (25 March)
Palm Sunday (one week before Easter)
The Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ (40 Days after Easter)
Pentecost (50 days after Easter)
The Transfiguration (6 August)
The Falling asleep of the Mother of God (15 August)
Lent (seven weeks before Easter)All of these "events" afford the believer with an opportunity to prepare himself, both spiritually and physically for the great events of the Church's Divine History. Much of the above church practice and tradition is ignored by Protestants; I can't help but feel that that ignoring is a detriment to the faith and sanctification of many within Protestantism.
The Fast of the Apostles (eight days after Pentecost..ends June 28)
The Assumption Fast (August 1-14)
The Christmas Fast (40 days, from 15 Nov to 24 Dec)
I have much to say on this matter, but for now I just wanted to post at least part of the Orthodox Calendar (there is some that I left out, including many festivals and other feasts) if only to inform myself, and perhaps others of the great wealth of tradition that I never even knew existed in the church.