Friday 22 March 2013

Back Beat 4

The easiest thing to do is to respond to specific passages of Alice’s two emails.
Thank you again for your answer. I was very relieved and happy to hear your wise words and I am very grateful for you for answering my questions. If you still have time to help me in my journey I would be most grateful but I understand completely if this subject has taken too much of your time.
The problem is not so much our time, although we often delay because we are preoccupied, but the issue of our not being the appropriate person to answer some of the questions we receive, and the Internet not being the appropriate place to solve intensely personal issues—not to mention that some of the issues raised in this and other emails are actually quite difficult.
I know that one of the reasons that I have thoughts that music is somehow sinful and does not lead to God and maybe even leads people to idolatry, is that I am not yet a member of the Orthodox Church. Because of that I have no one to rely on in regard to questions like this. It would really mean a lot to me if I could find some spiritual father who could help me with my spiritual life. But this is a question of me, not of you I suppose.
Spiritual direction, counselling and fatherhood have to happen face-to-face; they can’t happen—for a variety of reasons, including the lack of confidentiality in email—over the Internet. Admittedly it is hard to find a good Orthodox spiritual father at any time, and especially in countries that have only a minority Orthodox population. However, it is impossible to engage in a serious personal discussion by email: in the very nature of things there is a great deal of filtering that goes on so that it is very hard to get a sense of who exactly the stranger is who has approached you by email. This is true not only of Alice but of all our interlocutors who approach Orthodox Monk. We, Orthodox Monk, really do not feel that we are getting a full image of anyone who sends us an email. Perhaps a great saint with gifts of clairvoyance might be able to handle such a ministry but we cannot. Hence we discourage our blog readers from expecting us to guide them. Alice quite rightly and quite sensibly does not expect that from us but we want to say this clearly for the sake of all of our respected blog readers.
As you probably understand, the Internet is full of all sorts of stuff and sites like this list of the passions by St Peter of Damascus, where ‘flute-playing’ is listed as one of the passions. This does not make me feel comfortable in the least.
As we understand it, in pagan times music was used in pagan rituals which verged on debauchery, apart from the fact that they were devil worship. Flute-playing was part of that. So when we see flute-playing in such a list as this we are really encountering an ancient attitude to pagan ritual. It might be similar today to consider what a pious Orthodox reaction might be to heavy metal with satanic lyrics. However, we doubt that playing a Bach partita on the violin is to be considered in the same light.
The only thing I’ve understood is that in Orthodox Church the Tradition and the Holy Canons are not understood in legal terms but more as a guide to Christian life and ascesis.
It’s a little more complicated. While Roman Catholicism developed in a very legalistic way, especially in the work of Thomas Aquinas, and while Tradition is properly defined in the Orthodox Church as the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, we cannot completely relativize the canons. However, we can certainly look at what they were intended to accomplish when they were formulated and consider whether the same conditions obtain today. We personally think that in cases where there is not a serious moral issue—say, abortion—then a case can be made for flexibility in the application of the canons given different circumstances today. Certainly if there is a canon of Hippolytus that one should not baptize a music teacher (we do not know), surely today one would be flexible if someone approached for baptism who was teaching little kids to play the violin so they could play Bach.
I hope I have understood this correctly. I might also answer to this that I might possibly understand this better as a member of the Church.
It is true that some things we understand better having entered the Church.
As for my questions, if you have time I would like to ask you what the difference is between the sentiments and the passions. You wrote about the sentiments, how we Westerners are used to thinking of Christianity as being only about the sentiments. Are emotions and passions the same thing?
We think that this is important. In the West, since the day of Thomas Aquinas especially, one thinks that there is only the intellect and the emotions. In the Orthodox spiritual tradition there is the intellect and the emotions and the heart as the spiritual centre of the person. In the West, if one is not intellectual he is emotional—in the good or neutral sense. In the Orthodox Church when one is spiritual he is not necessarily either intellectual or emotional. This issue crops up in the practice of the Jesus Prayer, since in the Orthodox Church the Fathers speak of bringing the mind into the heart there to practice the Jesus Prayer. In terms of Western received psychology this makes no sense whatsoever and can only be interpreted as an emotional or sentimental practice of the Jesus Prayer with a mental concentration on the region of the heart. But that is not what is meant. What is meant is that the person enters consciously into the heart as into their spiritual centre, not their emotional centre. Now the person who brings the mind into the heart does not cease to have an intellect and emotions, and these are harnessed to the practice of the Jesus Prayer in the spiritual centre of the person.
The connection between the sentiments, or emotions, and the passions is this. The passions are the emotions directed towards vice, not virtue. The goal of the ascetic is to purify his emotions so that his emotions are directed to the virtues not to the vices. For every emotional drive in a person, there is a virtue and there is a vice. Fallen man has his emotions directed to the vices; the goal after baptism is to work to direct our emotions to the virtues. This is called ‘purifying the passions’.
Now when we say that Western music concentrates on the sentiments or emotions, what we mean is that Western music does not appeal to the spiritual part of the person centred in the heart as described briefly above, but to the emotions. In particular, demonic music works on the emotions to direct them to the vices, whereas healthier music works on the emotions to direct them towards virtue, or at least towards a greater serenity or even an Aristotelian tragic catharsis. Spiritual music would work more on the spiritual part of the person, so as to harmonize with raising the mind to God, either through the services of the Church or through the Jesus Prayer, or through prayer in a more general sense.
I quite often have the feeling that good music can teach us a small bit of truth. It is not the Truth but it can at least maybe lead people closer to Truth.
As Fr Seraphim Rose of Platina wrote, music can warm the soul; as St Barsanuphius of Optina wrote, ‘When you have children, teach them music. But of course real music—angelic music, not dances and songs. Music assists the development of spiritual perception. The soul becomes refined. It begins to understand spiritual music as well.’ I also think that Theophan the Recluse also said things similar to this. Of this, however, I am again not fully sure.
While this should be understood in light of what is said just above, it should be recognized that in its main outlines 19th Century Russian religious music was actually Western classical romantic music.
Perhaps I am not totally wrong in thinking that this means ‘good music’, which nowadays (maybe not at the time of Fathers?) can also be instrumental music or songs not specifically composed for liturgical use in the Church. The exhortation of St Basil to young men concerning Greek literature comes to mind as it says ‘There is also good music that David, the Sacred Psalmist, used.’ Tradition also reports that Pythagoras, by changing the melodic scale of the flautist that was leading a merry-making, changed the mood of a drunk crowd so that they became ashamed and went back home. (Quotations not exact but in my own words since I don't have the source here at the moment)
This should make sense in light of what is said above. It doesn’t surprise us that changing the melodic scale of the flute would change the mood of the drunken crowd. That is what we would expect.
I’m the most grateful for you for letting me write these words to you. I don't remember whether I told you before but I suffer from panic attacks and from depression and I see a therapist for that condition. I know that one of the reasons behind all these doubts is that condition. That and a promise I once made to God, during one of my first panic attacks, that if this terrible feeling goes away, I will do for God anything He wants me to do. For this I am at the same time both afraid (for not doing what He wants from me) and not afraid (since I trust that He will lead me if I try to find His meaning for my life).
We are not professionally qualified to address this condition.
I just wanted to say that so that I can be honest. I am not crazy and I hope that you will not worry about me; I just hope that maybe someone like me and with questions like me, will find at least some answers while reading your lovely blog.
...
When I wrote to you about suffering from panic attacks and depression, if it somehow is needed or helpful for your answer, I really don’t mind if you mention it. I just meant that perhaps that is not what your blog is all about if I’ve understood rightly. I had the feeling that your blog is more about issues that are of a more universal type than personal problems such as my health.
This is quite true for the reasons given above.
Still, at the same time I have the feeling that somehow it is because of pride that I won’t give up thinking all the time about music and questions about its dangers in regard to my becoming a member of the Orthodox Church and in regard to my wish to get a bit closer to God. I sometimes feel that if even God Himself were to say to me that no one is going to tell me to stop being a musician and a music teacher, I would not believe Him.
This is something that should be discussed face-to-face with the priest.
This is actually the feeling I get when I pray for God to help me [that no one is going to tell me to stop]. But again, I am not sure about the answers I receive in prayer and for that reason I seek outside assistance on the matter. My prayer answer is a feeling I get that somehow my place in the world is in music. For that I seek to find help from the Church, to find trust and not to get lost in my own thoughts and feelings.
Alice quite sensibly does not want to rely on her own discernment, and God will respect her for that, but as we pointed out the Internet is not the appropriate venue; a face-to-face meeting with a priest is the appropriate venue. For that reason we cannot go into as much detail as a priest might.
We hope that all goes well in your life, Alice. May God bless you.

Back Beat 3

We have had a bit of a correspondence with Alice the violinist from Manhattan, our interlocutor and friend in Back Beat and Back Beat 2. As we have pointed out, Alice is most definitely not Alice and she’s definitely not from Manhattan. We have delayed replying to her because of the delicacy of the issues of personal health that she raises in her emails below. However, we think that we are now in a position to reply to her. Her emails also follow on from our previous posts since they again concern issues in converting to the Orthodox Church. We will again post the emails—edited for grammar, syntax and style—and then reply in the next post.
Subject: From the classical musician who wrote to your blog
From: Alice
Date: 10/10/12
To: Orthodox Monk
Dear Monk,
Thank you again for your answer. I was very relieved and happy to hear your wise words and I am very grateful for you for answering my questions. If you still have time to help me in my journey I would be most grateful but I understand completely if this subject has taken too much of your time.
I know that one of the reasons that I have thoughts that music is somehow sinful and does not lead to God and maybe even leads people to idolatry, is that I am not yet a member of the Orthodox Church. Because of that I have no one to rely on in regard to questions like this. It would really mean a lot to me if I could find some spiritual father who could help me with my spiritual life. But this is a question of me, not of you I suppose.
As you probably understand, the Internet is full of all sorts of stuff and sites like this list of the passions by St Peter of Damascus, where ‘flute-playing’ is listed as one of the passions. This does not make me feel comfortable in the least. There are also other sayings of Saints and Church Fathers against ‘secular’ instrumental music. As I wrote to you before, I think that this is due to the fact that in the time of St Peter of Damascus flute-playing was something quite different from flute-playing in our time. The same probably goes also for other famous sayings of Church Fathers condemning instrumental music. But of course I am not sure of this. I read that some Canon of Hippolytus even forbids the Church to baptize a music teacher(!) but nowadays I think, as you wrote, that music is even thought of as something good (or maybe it’s better to say ‘good music is even thought of as something good ’ where what is good is a matter of spiritual discernment, just as you wrote). I think this is because music has changed, not because Tradition has changed. Tradition has always been the same (‘Music that arouses passions is bad whereas music that calms and soothes us and perhaps draws us nearer to God is good’). The only thing I’ve understood is that in Orthodox Church the Tradition and the Holy Canons are not understood in legal terms but more as a guide to Christian life and ascesis. I hope I have understood this correctly. I might also answer to this that I might possibly understand this better as a member of the Church. But as I said, I don’t know and maybe this is something I would want to study more.
As for my questions, if you have time I would like to ask you what the difference is between the sentiments and the passions. You wrote about the sentiments, how we Westerners are used to thinking of Christianity as being only about the sentiments. Are emotions and passions the same thing?
I quite often have the feeling that good music can teach us a small bit of truth. It is not the Truth but it can at least maybe lead people closer to Truth.
As Fr Seraphim Rose of Platina wrote, music can warm the soul; as St Barsanuphius of Optina wrote, ‘When you have children, teach them music. But of course real music—angelic music, not dances and songs. Music assists the development of spiritual perception. The soul becomes refined. It begins to understand spiritual music as well.’ I also think that Theophan the Recluse also said things similar to this. Of this, however, I am again not fully sure.
Perhaps I am not totally wrong in thinking that this means ‘good music’, which nowadays (maybe not at the time of Fathers?) can also be instrumental music or songs not specifically composed for liturgical use in the Church. The exhortation of St Basil to young men concerning Greek literature comes to mind as it says ‘There is also good music that David, the Sacred Psalmist, used.’ Tradition also reports that Pythagoras, by changing the melodic scale of the flautist that was leading a merry-making, changed the mood of a drunk crowd so that they became ashamed and went back home. (Quotations not exact but in my own words since I don't have the source here at the moment)
This is a very big question in my life and has been for quite a number of years already and, as I wrote before, I have never got an answer that fully satisfied me. This is maybe except for your answers and some quotations I've read from Elder Porphyrios (who said that music is good but spiritual chanting better, if I understood right) and Seraphim Rose and some Optina Elders. That the answers don't satisfy me, I think, can be also due to pride and thinking that I know better than everyone else.
I am the most grateful for you for letting me write these words to you. I don't remember whether I told you before but I suffer from panic attacks and from depression and I see a therapist for that condition. I know that one of the reasons behind all these doubts is that condition. That and a promise I once made to God, during one of my first panic attacks, that if this terrible feeling goes away, I will do for God anything He wants me to do. For this I am at the same time both afraid (for not doing what He wants from me) and not afraid (since I trust that He will lead me if I try to find His meaning for my life).
As for the last paragraph, I don't think was absolutely necessary for your blog and maybe these kind of things would be more suitable for confession than writing in email since I understand that your blog is more of common things than questions concerning spiritual health of people.
I just wanted to say that so that I can be honest. I am not crazy and I hope that you will not worry about me; I just hope that maybe someone like me and with questions like me, will find at least some answers while reading your lovely blog.
Thank you once more and I honestly hope that I have not been of a trouble to you.
Best regards from Manhattan,
Alice
Subject: From the classical musician who wrote to your blog
From: Alice
Date: 12/10/12
To: Orthodox Monk
Dear Monk,
Thank you once more.
Yes, I am a violin player and teacher here in Manhattan. I’ve been playing chamber music all my life and I’ve been a teacher for a number of years.
When I wrote to you about suffering from panic attacks and depression, if it somehow is needed or helpful for your answer, I really don’t mind if you mention it. I just meant that perhaps that is not what your blog is all about if I’ve understood rightly. I had the feeling that your blog is more about issues that are of a more universal type than personal problems such as my health. Of this I am not sure of as well. Of course it would be of greatest help if you can help me with that question as well but as I mentioned it most certainly is not something that I ask from you.
What I was trying to write in that rather messy ending of my email was that it may help you to understand why I am being almost obsessive about this matter of music. I want to write both that I really respect your answers and that I don’t keep on asking the same questions again and again because of distrust or disbelief or, even worse, lack of respect. No, it is because of my problems.
Still, at the same time I have the feeling that somehow it is because of pride that I won’t give up thinking all the time about music and questions about its dangers in regard to my becoming a member of the Orthodox Church and in regard to my wish to get a bit closer to God. I sometimes feel that if even God Himself were to say to me that no one is going to tell me to stop being a musician and a music teacher, I would not believe Him. This is actually the feeling I get when I pray for God to help me [that no one is going to tell me to stop]. But again, I am not sure about the answers I receive in prayer and for that reason I seek outside assistance on the matter. My prayer answer is a feeling I get that somehow my place in the world is in music. For that I seek to find help from the Church, to find trust and not to get lost in my own thoughts and feelings.
That I don’t really trust anyone, I think, is pride and for that I seek help from the Church. Maybe some day I will find at least some trust again. Maybe that is what the ascetical struggle is about.
Again I’m sorry for writing to you such a long and personal message. It is just as I’ve said that I don’t have any spiritual father to write to and the monastery is so far away from Manhattan that it would be hard to get there. That is also because I work as a musician all the time including weekends and I really do not have much time, which is most certainly not good. Maybe some day.
I am the most thankful to you,
Alice

Monday 18 March 2013

Non-closed Communion 2

There are two separate issues in Jonah Wildersfirst email. First is the objective reality of what Jonah describes about inter-communion in a small Orthodox parish with a number of mixed marriages. Second is the fact that as Jonah later remarks, it appears his fear was, for the moment at least, unfounded. Let us dispose of the second issue first.
There is a special kind of temptation that sneaks up on recent converts. It is a temptation that something is happening that is not according to the rules. That is not to say that the rules are unimportant; quite the contrary, the temptation works because the rules are important. In such a case where a recent convert feels that something might not be happening according to the rules they should discuss it with the parish priest, with whom they presumably have a trust relationship since otherwise why did they join that parish? If necessary they should also discuss it with older trusted members of the parish and even with the Bishop. In other words in such a case a person should establish the objective reality of the situation in such a way as to send the temptation running through shining the light of reality on the situation.
Now let us look at the first issue, the objective issue of inter-communion in an Orthodox setting. We would like our readers to reread Some ranting and some questions 2 before continuing since we will be treating this post as a continuation of that one: the underlying issues are closely related.
In the classical understanding of the Orthodox Church, one becomes Orthodox by baptism, as discussed in Some ranting … 2. Of course the Orthodox Church chrismates immediately after baptism so that the mystery that corresponds to the laying on of hands by the Apostles for the reception of the Holy Spirit is performed right after baptism. The Orthodox believer, even the infant, is a full member of the Orthodox Church at this stage. The next stage, performed immediately after baptism and chrismation even for infants, is for the newly received member of the Orthodox Church to be communicated with the Body and Blood of Christ. It is the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ that perfects the joining of the newly received member of the Orthodox Church to Christ. As Christ himself says:
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. (John 6, 51–59, KJV)
In the classical self-understanding of the Orthodox Church, communion is received after baptism and chrismation. It is never received before. Moreover, the Apostle Paul writes the following:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it,] and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it,] in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink [this] cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Corinthians 11, 23–30, KJV)
So on the one hand the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ joins us to Christ and to the other members of the Orthodox Church; on the other hand it is extremely dangerous for someone to receive the Body and Blood of Christ who is not a member of the Orthodox Church, or even a member of the Orthodox Church but unworthy. This is not merely a matter of ‘obeying the rules’ but clearly a matter of the danger of ‘eating and drinking damnation’ with the possible result that the person become ‘weak and sickly’ or even die. There’s a downside risk to the person doing this. However, it should be pointed out that confession before each communion is not a dogmatic requirement. What is a dogmatic requirement is that there should not be serious unforgiven sin before communion.
Now Jonah describes a situation of a struggling parish in a country where the Orthodox are in a small minority, and where many of the parishioners are married to non-Orthodox and where the children of such marriages might not even be raised Orthodox. It so happens that Jonah’s country is very secularized with a very small minority of practising Christians of any denomination.
Now some very liberal priests and even Bishops of the Orthodox Church are willing to give communion to non-members of the Orthodox Church. This is completely separate from the issue we discussed in Some ranting … 2 concerning how non-Orthodox Christians are to be received into the Orthodox Church. In other words it might be quite easy to become Orthodox in these circumstances but the person approaching for Orthodox communion might not want to become Orthodox. But since they are Christian they are communicated anyway. We have not studied the reasoning of these priests and Bishops but we suspect that what is involved is an extreme form of the ‘Branch Theory’. They believe, we think, that the non-Orthodox Christian is equally Christian with the Orthodox and is fully entitled to receive Orthodox communion. These people seem to believe that divisions among Christians are a matter of unimportant ecclesiastical politics which can be dispensed with in the interests of higher spiritual practice.
The Roman Catholic position is a little better thought out. The Roman Catholic Church permits members of the Roman Catholic Church to receive Orthodox Communion if a Roman Catholic church and communion are unavailable (we don’t think that there has to be a serious situation such as a danger of death). This is consistent with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. However, the Roman Curia didn’t bother to get permission from the Orthodox Church for this practice before promulgating it, so we have a situation in majority Orthodox countries where Roman Catholics approach the Orthodox chalice with a good Roman Catholic conscience only to be turned away because they are not permitted by the Orthodox Church to receive communion.
Of course the Roman Catholic Church reciprocates, happily communicating Orthodox, something the Orthodox Church considers a serious sin. We know of a case where a member of the Roman Catholic Church was living in Saudi Arabia and attending a ‘secret’ Roman Catholic church—the Saudi authorities knew about it but turned a blind eye to the presence of a practising Roman Catholic priest on their soil. However this person later thought of becoming Orthodox. He told us that he discussed with the local Roman Catholic priest the idea that the company that was sponsoring the ‘secret’ Roman Catholic church—along with the ‘secret’ Protestant church and pastor—could arrange for a ‘secret’ Orthodox church and ‘secret’ Orthodox priest to complete the set of ‘secret’ Christian churches. The Roman Catholic priest, who was happily communicating members of the Greek Orthodox Church, was none too happy with the idea.
Moreover, in more Protestant ecumenical circles there is a tendency to want to use inter-communion as a means of ecumenism, as a means of establishing closer ecclesiastical relations among Christian denominations, rather than to see it as the prize to be attained once the ecumenical movement reaches its goal of the full union of all Christians. Moreover, for obscure reasons, the ‘Holy Grail’ of inter-communion for some of these ecumenists is inter-communion with the Orthodox. We occasionally hear of episodes where a non-Orthodox sneaks up to the Orthodox chalice knowing full well that they are not allowed hoping that the presiding priest or even Bishop will communicate them anyway so as to avoid an embarrassing scene. Sometimes they do.
The Orthodox Church has never accepted that non-members of the Orthodox Church can receive communion in the Orthodox Church. There is no sense that this is an elastic norm that can in certain cases be relaxed by economy.
Now clearly the parish situation that Jonah is describing is even more complicated because of the issue of mixed marriages. However, the fact remains that the Orthodox Church has never sanctioned the communion of non-Orthodox.
Let us look at what Jonah writes:
… If heterodox are admitted to communion is this something we should just accept as being in line with God’s will as revealed to the bishop and priest?
In our opinion, no.
Or should this matter be taken up with the priest and bishop and synod if necessary?
Knowing something about Jonah’s ecclesiastical situation we would recommend discussing it with the Bishop when and if there is a serious issue.
Or would it be better to leave things alone and find another parish which does not have this ‘custom’?
In our opinion, yes. If they are set on doing inter-communion, the best thing is to go elsewhere, although admittedly there may be practical problems in a setting in which the Orthodox are a small minority.
Is it spiritually damaging to partake of communion when we suspect that there may be heterodox partaking of it although we lack certainty?
In our opinion, no. At the point that it becomes objectively clear that the practice is happening, then we think that a member of the parish would have to inquire into what is going on and, if the practice is systematic and intentional, to go elsewhere. If of course there is some confusion and a mistake has been made, that is quite different.
In summary, then, my questions/concerns are:
1a. If we think communion is being given to heterodox in our parish, is this permissible by economy and if so do we have a duty to understand what this economy comprises?
In our opinion no for inter-communion by economy but yes for a duty to understand what this economy is all about. See above.
1b. If communion for heterodox cannot be given ‘by economy’ should we raise this with the parish council, priest, bishop in that order?
In our opinion, yes. See above.
1c. Is this really none of our business as parishioners and if we are properly prepared, through confession prayer and fasting, should we receive the Eucharist with joy and thanks and not concern ourselves with anything else?
In our opinion, it is our business. See above.
2. If we have received communion at the same time as heterodox does this invalidate the sacrament and/or require us to undertake some form of penance even though we did so unknowingly?
In our opinion, no. The mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ can not be invalidated in this sense. It remains the Body and Blood of Christ. But see what St Paul says above about receiving unworthily. If someone who is not Orthodox receives communion without our knowledge, that has nothing to do with us. But if we know and consent then there is an issue with our own conscience.
I sincerely hope that my questions are, and continue to remain, hypothetical. I apologize in advance if it appears that I am judging others or jumping to conclusions. It's not a ‘them’ and ‘us’ situation. Though myself unworthy I am never the less concerned for the spiritual welfare of all in our parish, Orthodox and heterodox.
We did not have the sense that there was any judgement.
Pretty quiet on your blog...
Well, we’ve managed to wake up.
I can't find any evidence of inter-communion in my parish so I've stopped worrying about it.
We were not surprised. It seemed likely to us that this was the temptation spoken of earlier.
Of more concern is legislation to be introduced about same-sex marriage which will have an impact on education and further undermine family values. Trying to raise this in the parish has only been divisive with some concerned that we’re being ‘obsessive’.
In our opinion, this is a serious matter of Orthodox morality. However, there is another temptation, that of joining with hard-right Christian Protestants motivated by a spirit of pride and hatred to engage in unseemly political agitation. As we remarked in Some ranting … 2, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and Love; it is not a spirit of pride, anger and hatred—or even of unseemly political agitation in the streets.
So not much I can do about this (Orthodox count for very few votes in relation to the population of my country) except pray that God will have mercy on us.
May God help you, your parish and your country.

Non-closed Communion 1

We promised someone whose email we received some time ago to discuss it on the blog, with our correspondent’s permission of course. It strikes us that the topic raised in his email forms a natural sequel to our previous two posts concerning Jennifer Wilders. Our correspondent has no connection to Jennifer Wilders but the issues he raises are so related to the topics that Jennifer is raising—of the sort that Jennifer will encounter in her own country if she becomes Orthodox—that we have made our correspondent Jonah Wilders, Jennifer’s brother. He isn’t. Jennifer and Jonah have never heard of each other. They live in different countries. Again, we will present the email in the first post and then discuss it in the second post.
Subject: non-closed communion
From: jonah.wilders@nomail.com
Date: 13/11/12
To: orthodox.monk.blog@gmail.com
Dear Orthodox Monk,
In my country Orthodox parishes are often quite small. The church I regularly attend averages about 30 people every Sunday. The general level of piety varies quite a bit. Some people attend church regularly, keep a prayer rule, attend confession, keep the fasts and gives alms when they can; some don’t.
Confession is not required before communion. Many married couples are in ‘mixed’ marriages where one partner may be Orthodox and the other heterodox. Children in these marriages may not necessarily be brought up Orthodox. Hence a significant proportion of our congregation may from time to time be heterodox. There is quite a bit of support for the ecumenical movement. I mention all this to put what follows in context.
It seems likely that at some point in the future closed communion will be relaxed, if this has not happened already. By this I mean that ‘special cases’ could be made, not that anyone would be free to take communion regardless of faith. Now there might be pastoral reasons why this would occur (via economy). I have only been Orthodox for two years or so (I’m no expert) but my understanding is that the Orthodox Church requires all communicants to be members of the Orthodox church (why convert otherwise?). If heterodox are admitted to communion is this something we should just accept as being in line with God’s will as revealed to the bishop and priest? Or should this matter be taken up with the priest and bishop and synod if necessary? Or would it be better to leave things alone and find another parish which does not have this ‘custom’? Is it spiritually damaging to partake of communion when we suspect that there may be heterodox partaking of it although we lack certainty?
In summary, then, my questions/concerns are:
1a. If we think communion is being given to heterodox in our parish, is this permissible by economy and if so do we have a duty to understand what this economy comprises?
1b. If communion for heterodox cannot be given ‘by economy’ should we raise this with the parish council, priest, bishop in that order?
1c. Is this really none of our business as parishioners and if we are properly prepared, through confession prayer and fasting, should we receive the Eucharist with joy and thanks and not concern ourselves with anything else?
2. If we have received communion at the same time as heterodox does this invalidate the sacrament and/or require us to undertake some form of penance even though we did so unknowingly?
I sincerely hope that my questions are, and continue to remain, hypothetical. I apologize in advance if it appears that I am judging others or jumping to conclusions. It's not a ‘them’ and ‘us’ situation. Though myself unworthy I am never the less concerned for the spiritual welfare of all in our parish, Orthodox and heterodox.
Many thanks.
Best Wishes
Jonah
Subject: Re: non-closed communion
From: jonah.wilders@nomail.com
Date: 12/02/13
To: Orthodox Monk
Dear Orthodox Monk,
Pretty quiet on your blog...
I can't find any evidence of inter-communion in my parish so I've stopped worrying about it. Of more concern is legislation to be introduced about same-sex marriage which will have an impact on education and further undermine family values. Trying to raise this in the parish has only been divisive with some concerned that we’re being ‘obsessive’. So not much I can do about this (Orthodox count for very few votes in relation to the population of my country) except pray that God will have mercy on us.
Best Wishes
Jonah

Sunday 17 March 2013

Some ranting and some questions 2

Let us begin with the issue on everyone’s mind: why we say ‘we’ instead of ‘I’. Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary says about ‘we, pronoun’ (quotations by the OED giving usage omitted):
2. Used by a single person to denote himself:
a. by a sovereign or ruler. Often defined by the name or title added.
b. by a speaker or writer, in order to secure an impersonal style and tone, or to avoid the obtrusive repetition of ‘I’. (The OED notes about this usage: ‘Regularly so used in editorials and unsigned articles in newspapers and other periodicals, where the writer is understood to be supported in his opinions by the editorial staff collectively.’)
We do not suffer from multiple personality disorder. There is only one of us. Of course we are not a king—unless king of the blog, which is a far cry from King of some country. Of course we are not on the editorial staff of some collective periodical, nor do we speak on behalf of anyone but ourselves. Now we find Jennifer’s email charming; and we prefer to say that ‘we’ find her email charming, speaking as an Orthodox monk, than ‘I’ find her email charming, speaking as a man who one day might meet Jennifer. For us, the ‘I’ is far too personal, being suitable for a blog in which the author discusses how he felt when he got up in the morning, what he ate for breakfast and what he did over the weekend. So it’s ‘we’ on the blog.
Jennifer’s email is quite apt, pointing out a very serious problem within the Orthodox Church. But writing a post explaining the problem and the solution is difficult, very difficult. If it were easy, Jennifer would already have found a solution: one would be already waiting for her somewhere.
Let’s start of with the self-identity of the Church. For the Orthodox Church, the core statement of belief is the Nicene Creed. It is the Nicene Creed that a person must ultimately confess in order to become a catechumen in the Orthodox Church; today the service of the catechumen is usually done just before the actual baptism so one might think it is part of the actual service of baptism. It isn’t. Anciently there could be years between the two services. In the service of the catechumen the person, facing west, renounces the Devil and spits on the Devil, and then turning to the east and facing the icon of Christ formally joins himself to Christ. In infant baptism this is done on the child’s behalf by the godparent. The person then recites the Nicene Creed as their profession of faith; the godparent does so in the case of an infant. Then the priest—saint or sinner; it doesn’t matter for the efficacy of the prayers—reads certain prayers over the person. So if Jennifer or Tess or anyone else wants to become Orthodox, the Nicene Creed is the bottom line on what they have to believe.
Now the classical belief of the Orthodox Church is that it itself is in whole and not in part the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ confessed in the Nicene Creed. The classical belief of the Orthodox Church is not that it is a part of the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ but that it is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Moreover, the Orthodox Church is largely silent theologically on the status of professed Christians outside the Orthodox Church.
This Orthodox belief is the same belief that the Roman Catholic Church has about itself. The Roman Catholic Church believes (Vatican II) that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church also believes that non-Roman Catholic Christians are joined in some fashion to the Roman Catholic Church whether they know it or not. The Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ for all Christians whether they know it or not. This of course makes for a collision with the Orthodox belief: there can’t be two ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches’.
The Anglican view is that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ subsists in various co-equal branches, among which branches are the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Anglican or Episcopal national churches. According to this view (called the ‘Branch Theory’ by its detractors), there is a spiritual unity among these branches so that the sum of them is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, even though they co-exist in visible disunity.
The Calvinist view is that the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ is comprised of all believers who have been ‘born again’ through accepting salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, something given to them by an eternal personal predestination to salvation. Hence, according to the Calvinist view the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ picks and chooses among the members of the various Protestant denominations, selecting those who are born again. It might also pick and choose among Catholics and Orthodox if they too have been ‘born again’ according to Calvinist criteria (not just baptized—some Calvinists even give greater spiritual weight to the ‘born again’ experience over the actual practice of baptism, treating baptism as mere confirmation of the born-again experience). This would explain, among those Calvinists that believe in the Rapture (a belief dating from the 19th Century that entails a two-part Second Coming), why they believe that among all the Christian denominations some persons will be raptured up when Christ comes back the first time and some won’t: the born-again will be raptured up and the non-born-again whether baptized or not won’t. It also explains why the Rapturists are so sure that they themselves will be raptured up: they know they have been ‘born again’.
The various beliefs above are matters in what is called ‘ecclesiology’, the theology of the nature of the Church. It is clear that these various ecclesiological beliefs are incompatible. What to do? More conservative Orthodox theologians gravitate to the traditional view that the Orthodox Church is the ‘One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.’ However, there is a tendency among Orthodox theologians who are more ecumenically minded to gravitate to either the ‘Branch Theory’ or the Roman Catholic understanding of the nature of the Church. But of course this is not something that can be stated out loud. Moreover, it should be understood that the ecumenical movement is really a Protestant movement in its historical origins, so that it would tend either to a ‘Branch Theory’ ecclesiology or even to a Calvinist ecclesiology.
One of the issues underlying the problem Jennifer is addressing is that compared to the Roman Catholic Church, or even the Lutheran Church in its various forms, Orthodoxy is not as centrally organized. There is no central authority that imposes a uniformity of opinion either on theologians or on the various jurisdictions. This results in an openness to outside influences, usually Western Christian influences (we are speaking descriptively and historically here). Hence, we find a multiplicity of theological currents and ecclesiastical practices within the Orthodox Church.
Now the point at which the ecclesiological theories sketched above collide in a practical way is in the reception of Christian converts. Everyone agrees that non-Christians are to be received by baptism. However, the Nicene Creed professes ‘one baptism for the remission of sins’. So we can be baptized only once. But what happens when a Roman Catholic wishes to join the Orthodox Church (or vice versa), or an Anglican wishes to join the Orthodox Church, or a Mormon (where the Mormons have a supplementary book of revelation not accepted by traditional Christians)? In ancient times, Orthodox Christians received non-orthodox believers from other Christian groups either by baptism or by chrismation, or even by confession of faith, the method used depending on the particular group being received. St Basil the Great occupied himself with rules on this.
The Roman Catholic Church treats all Christian baptisms (with some exceptions) as valid baptisms. Indeed, according to the Roman Catholic Church a non-Christian can baptize a non-Christian in a valid baptism if intent is there and water is used. In our own experience, we know of a case where as a prank a non-Christian contemptuous of Christians baptized another non-Christian who wished to become Christian using water from a mud puddle. Voila! Newly baptized Christian.
Now, today the more conservative Orthodox prefer to receive converts from other Christian denominations by Orthodox baptism in accordance with a strict interpretation of the canons and in accordance with the view that the Orthodox Church is the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, there being no divine grace in sacraments outside the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Less conservative Orthodox prefer to receive Christian converts to the Orthodox Church by chrismation or even by confession of faith either because the Church supplies what is lacking in the original baptism or because the original baptism is actually valid. The first view supporting chrismation or confession, that the Church supplies what is lacking, while theologically arguable at least has the merit of being consistent with the classical self-identity of the Orthodox Church as the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. The second view supporting chrismation or confession, that the original baptism is valid, indicates that the theologian tends either to the ‘Branch Theory’ or to a Roman Catholic understanding of the Church.
From the discussion above we can now see the background of disputes in the Orthodox Church concerning ecumenism. They have to do with issues of the Orthodox Church’s self-identity. They also have to do with the doctrinal and moral liberalism and relativism found among the largely Protestant ecumenists. In other words, there is an issue both about how the Orthodox Church defines itself and about how the Orthodox Church responds to theologically fashionable currents within the ecumenical movement, most notably homosexuality and related moral issues, although there are also doctrinal issues concerning whether for example one actually believes in the Resurrection—some professed Christians who are ecumenists don’t.
However, it should be understand that issues of doctrinal and moral liberalism arise outside specifically ecumenist settings, so that they are an issue in some Orthodox jurisdictions even beyond the matter of formal ecumenism.
We can also see that connected with these broader issues is the very specific issue of how Jennifer is to be received into the Orthodox Church.
Moreover, because the Orthodox Church emphasizes tradition over reason, where tradition is correctly defined (by Vladimir Lossky) as the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, there is a tendency in the Orthodox Church for heresies or deviations to develop from an overemphasis on the external forms of tradition, most notable in our view being the Old-Calendarist schism in the Greek Church (20th Century) and the Old Believer schism in the Russian Church (17th Century). This would be different from tendencies to over-emphasize human reason, something that characterizes the West. Reactions in the West to the over-emphasis on reason led to the pietist movement in Lutheranism and also to the various Pentecostalist and fundamentalist sects.
So not only are there issues that arise from legitimate questions about how the self-identity of the Orthodox Church is viewed and how issues of doctrinal and moral liberalism or relativism are viewed but there are also issues that arise from an excessive adherence to the external shell of traditional practice in the Orthodox Church.
To clear up a small point in Jennifer’s letter before we go on, Jennifer says that she is considering being baptized again in order to become Orthodox. She does not state whether her first baptism was Orthodox but if so she is already Orthodox—unless she has in the meantime denied Christ or joined another religion—and it is a matter of being taught the beliefs of the Church and getting herself sorted out with the mystery of confession of sins. Of course if Jennifer has denied Christ or joined another religion, then the canons of the Church provide that she be re-chrismated. Denial of Christ is a formal renunciation of Christ; if one has the thought that they might have done this it should be discussed with a priest empowered to hear confessions before any weight is assigned to this possibility. If in fact there has been a formal renunciation of Christ, it is better for the ministering priest to explain why re-chrismation is necessary.
However, if Jennifer was baptized originally with a non-Orthodox baptism, then we are back to the issue of how she is to be received into the Orthodox Church, and here we pick up the thread of her email.
In our view the best thing to do for someone joining the Orthodox Church is to receive a canonical baptism in the Orthodox Church even if they have previously been baptized as a Christian. By ‘canonical baptism’ we mean the full service of baptism, including the service of the catechumen, as found in the priest’s book of prayers. Then the person should concentrate on the inner spiritual transformation that begins with baptism, as lived within a healthy canonical parish. By ‘canonical parish’ we mean a parish whose Bishop is in communion with the various Patriarchs and Hierarchs of the national churches of the Orthodox Church.
It is ultimately the conscious contact with the Holy Spirit received in the heart in Orthodox baptism that forms the Orthodox conscience of the believer and this Orthodox conscience solves all the problems of jurisdiction and belief and hatred that Jennifer refers to. In the particular case of Jennifer’s situation, she might wish to look at the Russian Church Outside of Russia as a possible entry point into Orthodoxy—assuming that the parish is in communion with the Patriarch of Moscow.
Now let us look at particular issues raised by Jennifer’s email.
The first issue is that Jennifer lives in a country where there is only a sprinkling of Orthodox parishes. We don’t know details.
Jennifer remarks on the lack of aggressive missionary work by the Orthodox Church. Speaking humanly, not preaching the Gospel is a weakness of the Orthodox Church. The charge to preach the Gospel ‘to all Creation’ is given by Christ himself. The Orthodox Church is weak on this, and especially on inner preaching—to those who are nominally Orthodox but who really do not believe. However, this preaching whether on the institutional or individual level is quite different from the proselytization that Jennifer refers to (hard core knocking on doors to make converts).
Jennifer writes:
I interpreted this (correct me if I’m wrong) as the Orthodox Church being satisfied with co-existing with other religious movements, acknowledging that other people have other beliefs, and that—even though they may not agree that their beliefs lead to salvation the way the Orthodox Church sees it, they certainly have the capacity to guide people spiritually into living more fulfilled and righteous lives.
Here we enter into the dynamic of Jennifer’s own conversion or not to Orthodoxy. The norm in Orthodoxy is the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, a loosely defined group of authors over the centuries who among themselves define good Orthodox dogma, thus interpreting the Gospel, which ultimately is itself the criterion of sound belief. What Jennifer is going to have to do—perhaps for the rest of her life—is to study how the Fathers of the Church handled this very issue of non-Orthodox and non-Christian believers who may indeed be pious in the context of their own belief system and from at least a human point of view virtuous. On a more practical level it is something she will have to discuss with the parish priest who catechizes her. On a more theological level we would recommend St. Silouan the Athonite by Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) where both in Archimandrite Sophrony’s extended introduction and in St. Silouan’s own writings this issue is touched upon. We think that Jennifer will appreciate St. Silouan’s attitude.
Jennifer continues:
It has come to my attention that quite a severe schism has been going on for quite some time between the more conservative parts of the Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement (as well as that about the calendars), and one of the largest ‘counter-ecumenical’ movements is the largest Orthodox parish in my country. I am confused. Is it not the teaching of the Orthodox Church that love for another should be extended, whether or not we are of the same opinion, and that forgiveness should be given whether asked for or not? I understand why you might not want to admit their teachings to be the way of salvation, but is there a need to proclaim half the world to be heretics and blasphemers?
St Paul the Apostle remarks to the Corinthians concerning schisms among them that to a certain extent he can believe it because that way it can be seen who is authentic. However, he certainly doesn’t encourage schism. And writing to the Corinthians he says that we should make love our aim. In practical terms, Jennifer should first of all only have to do with canonical non-schismatic jurisdictions in communion with the Patriarchs and Hierarchs of the various national Orthodox churches. She should have nothing to do with schismatic or ‘fly-by-night’ self-erected ‘Orthodox’ churches, of which unfortunately there are a number. However, even if a parish is canonical, Jennifer should be ‘cunning as a snake and innocent as a dove’, sizing up the parish using the criterion of the Gospel: ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ If a parish is characterized by hatred and anger, it is not acting under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit and Jennifer should go elsewhere.
Is there not a fundamental difference here between learning about the ways of the other and adopting them yourself? Enough strength in one’s own belief should make it possible to meet others without fear of losing oneself. I was taken aback when seeing some very harsh comments on the subject and, not having found my place in the Church yet, I fear I will discover the whole Church to be like this. Should I make inquiries here on the political opinions of the priests and of the Bishop of the parish I hope to enter, to make sure we see ‘eye-to-eye’? I had rather hoped I could avoid such a political mix into my stumbling attempts at spiritual advancement. (Wow, that sounded bitter!)
I believe good advice is good advice wherever it comes from (now we are obviously not talking Gospel, but simple humility, aid and comfort of a purely humanitarian nature). This basic view is, I fear, rather well established in me by now (I am 33) so how can I see and believe in the wisdom of priests who seem so full of anger and are so hell-bent on their way as being the right one that they will not even talk to some fellow priest who has chosen another path? I mean, these guys are fellow Christians, granted maybe not of the same kind. But at least they’re not of some weird cult from New Guinea that wants to shrink your head. One could think they could find SOMETHING to talk about over dinner...
The answer to the preceding should now be clear. While the Orthodox Church bears witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it does so under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Truth and Love, and not under the impulsion of other spirits of anger and hatred.
Jennifer continues:
Problem is: am I too open-minded? Have I lived too long in a world of multiple ways of the mind to be welcome and able to stay on the road I want to follow? Does Orthodoxy imply not only that I choose to believe in the path of Orthodoxy but also that I must reject those others who for their own reasons may have chosen another path? Am I on the wrong path in searching Orthodoxy with this mind-set?
We think that Jennifer is going to have to search for sound teachers to catechize her. She is going to have to hear the Gospel presented in its entirety and either accept or reject it. Some of what she now believes she will have to discard; some she will have to purify; some she will have to retain. This is a matter of a year or more.
… The crux is that I fear I will enter the Orthodox Church retaining the feeling that my view of the world is ‘better’ and that I need to convince these people to change, or at least to give them a new perspective. But I came to get a new perspective myself! In the secular world I have the ‘I-know-what-the-problem-here-is-and-I-am-going-to-fix-it’ mentality, and I am currently struggling to get out of that business. Changing that was (is?) one of the steps down the road to change.
While no one is going to make a serious change to Jennifer’s character at the age of 33 without doing her serious psychological damage of a very nasty kind (cults, brainwashing and all that), still as Jennifer well realizes we join the Orthodox Church to change ourselves, not to change the Church. There is a dynamic here between learning humbly and then later serving God in various ways given our own human capacity and character.
… So now we have arrived at the interesting conclusion that the problem is not that of Orthodox priests arguing but of me believing I know better. Ergo, solution will be to grab the first priest I come across and start listening, without concern for his political background.
Not at all, unless Jennifer is intent on self-destruction. ‘Cunning as a snake; innocent as a dove.’ ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’
Great! See—you can even get good advice from a silent computer screen. Now I don’t even have to bother sending the letter. But I will anyway (tomorrow) for three, no four, reasons:
...
3. In diagnosing myself I may be back to my well-known original sin again. (The reasoning is circular—will this ever end? Does this mean I have to doubt every time I think I understand something; otherwise I’m just full of pride?)
We are not so convinced that this is pride. Moreover, as Jennifer will learn when she begins to practise the Jesus Prayer, we are more than the flow or stream of our intellectual ideation. Part of coming into contact with the Holy Spirit in the heart through the practice of the Jesus Prayer is learning to go beyond our thoughts to our heart (which is not our emotions but our spiritual centre). St Diadochos of Photiki discusses this progression (click on the Diadochos label in the right-hand margin).
4. Most importantly—I am very curious to hear why you refer to yourself in plural.
We’re curious why it’s important.
Sorry about the ranting. I will stop now. Do whatever you want with this (as long as you answer question number 4).
Cheers,
Jennifer
Thanks. It’s been a pleasure. Answer with your thoughts. –Orthodox Monk