Volume 29 1996 Number 3
Devoted to Promoting a Knowledge and Understanding of Eastern Christianity
Editor Rev. Thomas F. Sable, S.J. Managing Editor Sr. Joan L. Roccasalvo, C.S.J.
Dr. Thomas Bird (Queens College, NYC) Rev. John W. Lange, S.J.(University of Scranton)
Rev. Bohdan Demczuk (Winnipeg, Canada) Rev. Constantin Simon, S.J.(Rome, Italy)
Rev. John J. Levko, S.J. (University of Scranton) Rev. Robert Slesinski, Ph.D. (Bethlehem, PA)
Edward G. Mathews, Jr.
Please send all manuscripts, review materials, editorial correspondence to:
Rev. Thomas F. Sable, S.J.
Editor, Diakonia
University of Scranton
Scranton, PA 18510-4660Manuscripts should be submitted on PC-compatible diskettes using a common word-processor or ASCII-text format. Material may also be submitted on the Internet to: sable@tiger.uofs.edu. Authors should observe the standards of the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style.
Please send renewals, new subscriptions, changes of address, business
correspondence to:
Sr. Joan L. Roccasalvo, C.S.J.
Managing Editor, Diakonia
University of Scranton
Scranton, PA 18510-4643
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) 0012-195
©1996 by the University of Scranton
Diakonia articles are listed in Religion Index One: Periodicals (ATLA) and back issues are available on microform from University Microfilms, Inc.
Editorial
MARY
AND THE CHURCH
Pope Paul VI gave Mary the title "Mother of the Church" after Vatican Council II. It is important that we affirm as we approach the celebration of the Third Millenium both the personal and the ecclesial significance of the motherhood of Mary. As an individual person she is the mother of Jesus and she becomes mother of us all, mother of the Church. Origen expresses a deep understanding of Mary's role in the personal transformation of each Christian in the process of salvation:
We dare to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of the whole of the Scriptures and that the Gospel of John is the first fruit among the Gospels. We cannot grasp the meaning of this unless we have reclined on the breast of Jesus or received from Jesus Mary as our mother. And to become another John, we must become, like John, another Jesus, the way Jesus showed us. For, among those with a healthy opinion of her, Mary has no other son but Jesus. And when Jesus says to his mother: "Behold your son," (not "Behold this man is also your son"), it is as if he were saying to her: "Behold Jesus whom you have borne." Indeed, he who arrives at perfection "no longer lives, but Christ lives in him (cf. Gal 2:20) and since Christ lives in him, He says to Mary about him: "behold your son," the Christ.1
Mary as represented by the Gospel of John is engaged in the messianic mission of her Son. She is an extension of the Old Testament prophetic imagery of the "Daughter of Zion." The dual nature of her role is shown in the fact that she is the mother of Jesus and the mother of the disciples. She is the final fulfillment of all that the synagogue and Temple stood for in the Old Testament and the perfect archetype of the Church.
In Revelation 12 the light of the Woman (whether it is the Church or Mary) is a light that is received, a splendor that has been given to her by God and by her Son in the mysteries of his transfiguration, salvific death, and resurrection. In the Bible and in liturgical texts the image of the Sun is applied to God and to Christ. And this light is best reflected by the "Daughter Zion" as she stands under the cross or in the tradition of Luke in the midst of the disciples at the Pentecost event.2
Western theologians have traditionally made much of this text of Revelation 12, but the experience of Mary's powerful intercession is not limited to Western Christianity. Solovyov's poetry and parables serve as a modern example of this Eastern Christian synthesis and experience. Icons, poetry, and hymns from the East stress Mary's role as teacher, guide, and model. She befuddles the wisdom of the philosophers and scatters the nets of the skeptics. She speaks even now of those things that she has stored in her heart (Lk 2:51). In the expectation of our personal transformation, she draws us ever closer to the feast of the Lamb, closer to the transforming Light. The eschatological dimension of Mary's role is not lost upon the East. Mary's Dormition is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth your kept your viginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and by your prayers will deliver our souls from death.3 +
1.Origen, In Ioannem, 1,4 (23).
2.St. Augustine, De virg. 6: PL 40,399.
3.Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition.
Professor Matual is Professor of Russian in the Department of Modern Languages at Wright State University. Address: 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, Ohio 45435-0001.
During much of his life, Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), Russia's most celebrated and influential philosopher, was preoccupied with the mysterious and decidedly gnostic feminine principle he called Sophia. In his understanding, Sophia was the embodiment of divine wisdom and the fundamental motive force in human history. But in 1883, a year which proved to be of critical importance to his intellectual development, his thinking began to assume a more traditionally religious coloration. He became increasingly interested in the reunion of the Catholic and the Orthodox churches as an essential prerequisite to the accomplishment of Sophia's historical mission, which he now saw as nothing less than the union of God and man. Not surprisingly, as Solovyov's concept of humanity's end assumed an essentially religious character, he tended to identify Sophia with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom he regarded as both the catalyst of a great ecumenical synthesis and the emblem of the end times.1 To be more specific, he saw in her the "great sign" of Revelation 12:1, i.e. "the woman clothed with the sun." From 1883 to the end of his life he wrote four principal works in which he expressed his views on the role of Mary in the work of ecclesial reunion and in the ultimate triumph of the Church at the end of time. In ascending order of importance these works are 1) Russia and the Universal Church (La Russie et l'Eglise Universelle), his most significant statement on Catholic~Orthodox relations; 2) a translation of "Vergine Bella" ("Beautiful Virgin"), the last canzone of Petrarch's Canzoniere; 3) "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist" ("Kratkaya povest' ob Antikhriste"), a short story he attached to a longer work consisting of three Socratic dialogues on the nature and reality of evil in the world; and 4) a short but theologically and prophetically charged poem entitled "The Sign" ("Znamenie"). This article will examine each of these works as reflections of Solovyov's ideas on Mary-Sophia in both her ecumenical and her eschatological dimensions.
Of the four works mentioned above, Russia and the Universal Church (1889) is indisputably the most Catholic--so much so, in fact, that Solovyov chose to write it in French for publication in Western Europe, knowing that it could never appear in a country as anti-Catholic as his native Russia. Even today its markedly pro-Catholic and at times stridently anti-Orthodox sentiments are apt to surprise the reader, especially the Russian reader. Though still Orthodox himself, Solovyov takes his church to task for its alleged particularism (an especially odious transgression in his estimation), its submission to the secular arm, and its hostility to nearly every aspect of Roman Catholicism. More than that, he goes to great lengths in his defense of the Catholic position on such disputed topics as the Marian privileges (notably the "new" dogma of the Immaculate Conception), the notion of dogmatic development, and the function of the Petrine office. It is the last item-the papacy--that constitutes, in Solovyov's view, the greatest impediment to the corporate reunion of East and West.
Nevertheless, despite this seemingly insurmountable obstacle, he insists that the reconciliation of Rome and Constantinople is the indispensable first step toward the integration of the human family and the ultimate union of man and his creator. The churches must be one if Sophia is to accomplish her historical task. But given the perduring antagonisms between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, especially over the question of authority in the Church, it would seem impossible to find common ground between the two. Solovyov finds a solution to the dilemma in the deep and fervent devotion each church has to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Making explicit the ecclesial aspects of Marian devotion, he cites Revelation 12:1 and the two principal interpretations given to it by the Church Fathers: "There are scriptural texts which Orthodox and Catholic doctors apply now to the Blessed Virgin, now to the Church (for example, the text from Revelation concerning the woman clothed with the sun, crowned with stars, and having the moon under her feet)."2 Though Solovyov expresses no preference for either reading of the text, he evidently regards both as valid. For if the triumph of Christ at the end of time is also the triumph of his Church, it is equally true, in Solovyov's view, that the woman of Revelation is the unifying force in the background of this victory.
The notion of Mary as eschatological figure was by no means new to Solovyov's thinking in 1889. What he vaguely hints at in Russia and the Universal Church he had suggested more forcefully six years earlier when he undertook a translation of Petrarch's "Vergine Bella"3 To be exact, the "translation" he produced is more a paraphrase expressing his hopes for a revitalized Christendom. Reworking the poem after his own fashion and in his own interests, Solovyov eliminates virtually all the personal elements of the original and focuses his attention instead on the image of Mary herself. His version combines the deep Catholic piety of Petrarch with the exalted devotional terminology traceable to the most famous of Orthodox prayers in honor of the Virgin Mary, the akathist hymn. In short, his "correction" of Petrarch points to a synthesis of Catholicism and Orthodoxy centered in the Mother of Christ.4
That Solovyov's paraphrase of "Vergine Bella" is also eschatological in substance and tone is indicated by the peculiar fact that, of all Petrarch's stanzas, a literal translation is given only to the first, which opens with words reminiscent of Revelation 12: 1: "V solntse odetaya, zvezdo-venchannaya,/Solntsem Prevyshnim lyubimaya Deva" ("Dressed in the sun, star-crowned,/Virgin beloved of the Most High Sun"). The image of the woman "clothed with the sun" and especially of the light that shines both in and around her pervades Solovyov's translation. He refers to the woman as "brightly shining among the wise virgins" (a reference, perhaps, to Mary as a Christianized Sophia) and speaks of a fire that "burns eternally and knows no eclipse." In keeping with the apocalyptic hue of the first stanza, he ends the poem with an image not found in the original: the Blessed Virgin is shown as brilliantly illuminated by the "light and the word" shining from above.
One of the last works of Solovyov's life and career is a series of philosophical dialogues called Three Conversations (Tri razgovora, 1899-1900). To it he appended a curious specimen of prose fiction (one of his very few) which he entitled "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist," the third of the four works under examination. As its title indicates, "A Brief Tale" is an account of the final epoch of man's history and the dramatic events of the "end times." With the conciseness of journalistic reportage it relates the great historical upheavals of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, chronicles the rise of the Antichrist, describes the intellectual and religious conditions prevailing in his time, and ends with the appearance of the "great sign" and the second coming of Christ in glory.5 As prophecy, "A Brief Tale" is remarkably accurate in some respects and wildly imaginative in others. Many of its predictions, of course, await the Judgment of history. As a statement of Solovyov's own views on the end times--especially insofar as they concern the final outcome of the ecumenical process and the eschatological significance of the Virgin Mary--it is of exceptional importance to the present study.
At the head of "A Brief Tale" stands an epigraph consisting of the opening four lines of Solovyov's poem "Panmongolism." In translation they read: "Panmongolism! Though the name is strange, /It caresses my ear, /As if it were filled with an omen/Of a great, divine destiny." The exact meaning of these obscure words is soon revealed in the text of the story. The first several pages tell of the unification of all the oriental peoples (hence "panmongolism") under a common head and the conquest and occupation of Europe by the armies of the East. Solovyov thought he saw the beginnings of this panmongolist movement in his own day (in the Boxer Rebellion, for example) and was convinced that it was destined to be a dominant theme in the history of the next hundred years. "A Brief Tale" reflects his conviction: the period of oriental hegemony it depicts does in fact coincide with the twentieth century, lasting through three generations of despotic emperors. But with the dawning of the twenty-first century the peoples of Europe are at last sufficiently strong to unite in armed opposition to their oppressors. On the fields of Russia an all-European army defeats the emperor's forces and drives them out and back to their Asian homeland.
After more than a half-century of foreign domination Europe is now a confederation of democratic states. Political and economic structures have been radically altered. Gone, too, are the naive scientism and the theoretical materialism of the nineteenth century. In their place stands a vaguely philanthropic and thoroughly secular worldview that serves as a convenient intellectual modus vivendi. Those few who have retained any faith in the supernatural fall into one of two categories: 1) Christians who continue to believe sincerely in divine revelation and who, because of the unremitting assaults against their faith, have been forced to deepen their understanding of what they profess, and 2) those whose interest in religion is limited to spiritualism and other occult practices. It is from this latter group that the ultimate foe of Christianity emerges.
Among his peers, the man destined to become the Antichrist is regarded from the first as an extraordinary man, even a superman. As writer, thinker and activist he soon comes to the attention of a wider audience of admirers, As for his religious views, he claims to believe in God but has no love for him. In fact, the narrator notes, the sole object of his love is himself. He acknowledges Christ as messiah, but treats him as nothing more than his precursor. In time, condescension gives way to envy and then to implacable hatred. It is then that Satan appears to him, calls him "his beloved son" in whom he is "well pleased," pledges to assist him with his power, and breathes his spirit into him. From that moment on he is the Antichrist properly so called though at first he carefully conceals the fact. Under the inspiration of his infernal master he attempts to extend his fame and influence even further by writing a book entitled The Open Way to Universal Peace and Well-Being. It is an instant success. The whole world applauds him and begins to look to him for leadership. He is acclaimed as the true benefactor of humanity, while Christ is demoted to the rank of failed reformer. Swayed by the Antichrist's promises of a happier future, the leaders of Europe make him president of a united continent. Eventually he is declared Emperor of Rome, and his dominion is extended throughout the world, whose peoples eagerly await the blessed fruits of tranquility and prosperity.
Once all the major political and social problems have been solved, the Emperor-Antichrist turns to the question of religion. Though interconfessional relations have of necessity become less tense and more cordial, the ruler of the world wishes to create a harmonious universal religion with himself as its focus. To this end he convokes an ecumenical council in Jerusalem, inviting representative delegations of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches. As a result of the political turmoil of the preceding century, Catholicism has undergone tremendous changes. The pope, now expelled from Rome and living in St Petersburg, is surrounded by a much more modest court and a greatly simplified ceremonial. The Orthodox church has also been chastened by the tumultuous events of recent years. But at the same time it has gained a new strength by reconciling to itself some of the better elements of the various schismatic and sectarian groups that had long opposed it. The Protestants, too, have been forced to adapt to drastically changed circumstances. Having lost their more radical confreres to religious indifference, they have come through the crises of history stronger in their faith and more firmly committed to sacred learning. The leaders of the three groups--the newly elected Pope Peter II, the saintly Elder John representing the Orthodox, and the German theologian Ernst Pauli--arrive in Jerusalem with their delegations, The Emperor-Antichrist, determined to make them acknowledge him as their supreme lord, poses as their friend and patron. To the Catholics he promises the full restoration of the See of Rome with all its privileges. In an appeal to the oriental love of tradition, he offers the Orthodox a museum of Christian archeology and antiquities to be built in the imperial city of Constantinople. The Protestants he attempts to bribe with the promise of a world institute for biblical research. The response of his audience is overwhelmingly favorable. Those who accept his offers leave their assigned seats and move to his side of the hall. Still, despite the success of his stratagem, the Emperor is dismayed to see that the three leaders of the Christian world and their diminished band of disciples remain aloof from his benevolence. When he asks them what he can do to please them, Elder John challenges him to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God incarnate. The very suggestion brings the Emperor to the brink of a hellish rage, which he prudently suppresses for fear of betraying his true identity. But Apollonius, his magician and inseparable companion, causes an enormous dark cloud to overshadow the church in which the council is being held. At this, Elder John, suddenly realizing who the Emperor is, cries out, "Children, the Antichrist." Immediately a stupendous bolt of lightning tears through the black cloud and strikes him dead. When in response Pope Peter II anathematizes the Antichrist, he suffers the same fate. Ernst Pauli and the remaining faithful withdraw to the desert to await the second coming of Christ. By order of the Emperor the bodies of pope and elder are put on public display at the entrance to the church of the Holy Sepulcher. Arrangements are then made for the election of Apollonius as the new pope. The apostate Christians put aside their theological differences and joyfully unite in a new anti-church under his direction. Several days later, under cover of night, Ernst Pauli and some companions come to Jerusalem to reclaim the bodies of the fallen Pope Peter and Elder John. To their amazement they find the bodies incorrupt. When they return to their followers and remove the corpses from their litters, something even more wondrous occurs: the two dead men come back to life. Elder John stands up and addresses the astonished faithful: "You see, children, we have not parted.... It is time to fulfill Christ's last prayer for his disciples, that they all be one as he and the Father are one. For this unity of Christ, therefore, let us honor, children, our beloved brother Peter. Let him at last shepherd the sheep of Christ" (418), Ernst Pauli adds his own acclamation: "Tu es Petrus. Jetzt is es ja gru¨ndlich erwiesen und ausser jedem Zweifel gesetzt. Nun sind wir ja Eins in Christo" ("Thou art Peter. Now it has definitely been proved beyond all doubt. Now we are truly one in Christ") (418). Immediately afterwards, the night darkness is suddenly dispelled by a bright glow, and, as the narrator asserts, "a great sign appeared in the sky: a woman clothed in the sun, the moon beneath her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." The "sign" remains in place for some time and then begins to move slowly toward the south, in the direction of Mount Sinai. The true pope as visible head of the Church restored, solemnly proclaims, "There is our standard! Let us follow it" (419). At this point Father Pansophius' manuscript abruptly ends, cut short by the author's death, But since the narrator has heard the rest of the tale from Pansophius' own lips, he goes on to relate the utter destruction of the Antichrist and his followers, the conversion of the Jews, the coming of Christ, and the beginning of his thousand-year reign.
In "A Brief Tale" the "great sign" is unmistakably a symbol of the Church reunited and triumphant, waiting "in joyful hope" for the coming of her bridegroom. If Solovyov does not explicitly identify the woman clothed in the sun as the Blessed Virgin, there is no doubt of her identity in "The Sign," the last of the four major works under investigation. This poem, written only two years before his death, summarizes his mariological and eschatological views more neatly and succinctly than anything else he ever wrote. Because of its brevity and its importance to this study, the Russian text and a literal prose translation are given below.6
Odno, navek odno! Puskal v usnuvshem khrame
Vo mrake adskii blesk i grom sred' tishiny,--
Pust' palo vse krugom,-odno ne drognet znamya,
I shchit ne dvinetsya s razrushennoi steny.
My v sonnom uzhase k svyatyne pribezhali,
I gar' iu dushnoyu byl polon ves' nash khram,
Oblomki serebra razbrosany lezhali.
I chernyi dym pril'nul k razodrannym kovram.
I tol'ko znak odin netlennogo zaveta
Mezh nebom i zemlei poprezhnemu stoyal,
A s neba tot zhe svet i Devu Nazareta
I zmiya tshchetnyi yad pred Neiu ozaryal.
[One, forever one! Though in the sleeping temple
There is a hellish glow in the darkness, and thunder in the midst of the stillness,--
Though everything round about has fallen, one banner will not waver,
And the shield will not move from the crumbled wall.
In sleepy horror we came running to the sanctuary,
And our temple was all full of stifling fumes,
Chunks of silver lay scattered about,
And black smoke clung to the tattered carpets.
And only the one sign of the imperishable covenant
Stood as before between heaven and earth,
And from heaven the same light illuminated both the Virgin of Nazareth
And the vain poison of the serpent before her.]
The text of the poem is preceded by three epigraphs, all from the Bible, which taken together point to the Mother of Christ as the "Sign" and underscore her critical role in salvation history. The first is a paraphrase of Genesis 3:15, in which the coming of a redeemer is prophesied for the first time. Solovyov's version stresses the great victory to be won over the tempter: "The seed of the woman shall crush the serpent's head." As his second epigraph he chooses a verse from the Magnificat "He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." Since the words are Mary's, it is to be inferred that she is the woman mentioned but unnamed in Genesis 3:15. Furthermore, the "great things" God has done for her make her uniquely qualified as the leader in the perennial struggle between good and evil. The final epigraph is the very passage from Revelation (the first verse of chapter 12) which appears in Russia and the Universal Church and "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist" and which forms the principal theme of Solovyov's translation of Petrarch's "Vergine Bella." Once again we read of the "great sign in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, the moon beneath her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." In these three biblical quotations Solovyov summarizes his understanding of the great drama that begins to unfold on the pages of Genesis and attains its sublime denouement in the final book of the Bible, "The Sign" is his vision of that moment when the woman of Genesis, the Gospel, and Revelation overcomes the darkness of a cataclysmic debacle with the light of her son.
The poem itself begins unclearly ("One, forever one"). The neuter form of the Russian word for "one" (odno) is used despite the absence of a neuter noun to which it can refer. The answer to the question "one what?" is found only at the end of line 3, in the word znamya ("banner"). The delayed reference serves two purposes: 1) it alerts the reader to the importance of the completed phrase, and 2) it connects the phrase with the title of the poem. The single word of the Russian title is znamenie ("sign," "omen"), The two related words znamya and znamenie are in turn linked to the noun znak ("sign") in the first line of the third stanza by their common root zna- ("know," "knowledge"). The vision depicted in the poem is meant, therefore, to be a manifestation of the knowledge and wisdom of God, of a Christianized Sophia bringing history to its predestined climax. But before the final consummation of the historical process, the world--and especially the Church--is plunged in the deepest darkness. This is the theme of the remaining portion of the first stanza--a theme that is also prominently featured in "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist." In the second hemistich of line 1 we learn, for example, that the site of the great sign is a temple. It will be recalled that the pseudo-ecumenical council at which the Antichrist presides in "A Brief Tale" is also held in a temple. In "The Sign" the word "temple" is modified by a past participle which literally means "having fallen asleep." Indirectly, this detail also suggests "A Brief Tale" with its description of a tepid, ill-defined, non-dogmatic Christianity on the eve of the Antichrist's appearance. The mention of darkness in line 2 is paralleled by the black cloud hovering over the temple in "A Brief Tale." Likewise, the word "hellish" (in the phrase "hellish glow") is the very adjective applied to the emotional tempest in the heart of the Antichrist when he is challenged to confess Christ as Lord. The glow itself and the "thunder in the midst of the stillness" find their counterparts in the penalties inflicted on Elder John and Pope Peter II.
If the first stanza both begins and ends with a note of victory in the face of universal desolation, the same cannot be said for the second. The dominant tone is now entirely negative. Furthermore, the second stanza is the only one of the three written in the first person plural. It is "we," the members of the Body of Christ, who come running to "our temple" (line 6), horrified at the sight of the destruction it has suffered while we were asleep. The phrase "v sonnom uzhase" ("in sleepy horror") recalls the "sleeping temple" in line 1. At the same time, the word "horror" provides still another connection with "A Brief Tale," where the word is used twice to characterize the condition of the faithful Christians when they realize at last that the Emperor is in fact the Antichrist,7 Similarly, the "black smoke" in line 8, like the "black cloud" in "A Brief Tale," symbolizes the powers of hell and their temporary victory over the true Church.
Though the third and final stanza is meant to vanquish the gloom of the first two, it does so only within the somber context they have established. The Church is still in disarray; there has been no dramatic change for the better. There is only the "one sign of the imperishable covenant." Precisely what that sign is remains for the moment unstated--just as the referent of the number-adjective "one" in the first line of the poem is revealed only in the third. In line 10 we learn that the "one sign," whatever it might be, has been present all along, joining "heaven and earth," God and man Though the first two lines (and even the last two) do not identify the "sign" unambiguously, the three epigraphs have already done so. It can only be the "woman clothed in the sun." In his paraphrase of Petrarch, Solovyov addresses the Blessed Virgin as "the changeless mantle of all the persecuted" and "the rainbow reconciling heaven with earth." In "The Sign" she stands "as before" (poprezhnemu) between "heaven and earth." Even now, however, we do not see her routing the foe and rescuing the Church; rather, she appears in a luminous tableau vivant: a light from heaven (Solovyov calls it "the same light") illuminates (ozaryal) Mary, the serpent, and the serpent's "vain poison." The "same light" is, of course, the light of Christ, the "sun," as it were, in which the woman is clothed. This is precisely the same image we find in "Vergine Bella," which concludes with the lines: "Dol'nyi nash mir oseni luchezarnym pokrovom, /Svyshe ty osenennaya, /Vsya ozarennaya/Svetom i slovom!" ("Overshadow our world below with your radiant mantle,/You are overshadowed from above,/All illuminated/By the light and the word!") The Russian root zar-, which has to do with light and illumination, provides an additional correspondence between "Vergine Bella" and "The Sign" and connects both to "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist." In "Vergine Bella" it is found twice in the lines cited above. First it appears in the adjective luchezarnym ("radiant") and later in the past participle ozarennaya ("illuminated"). In "The Sign" it is part of a verb in the past tense. It is also the very last word of the poem, and this fact serves to heighten its significance even more. In "A Brief Tale" the same verb in a reflexive form and with a passive meaning precedes the vision of the "great sign": "No temnota nochnaya vdrug ozarilas' yarkim bleskom" ("But the night darkness was suddenly illuminated by a bright glow,") (p. 419).
The final image, that of the serpent and its "vain poison," is explained by Solovyov himself in a preface to the third edition of his collected poems. Speaking explicitly of the woman in Revelation 12: 1, he predicts: "She is to manifest truth and give birth to the word. And behold, the ancient serpent [i.e., of Genesis 3:15] is summoning the last of his strength against her and is about to drown her in poisonous streams of specious lies and plausible deceptions."8 The serpent is therefore Satan, and its poison is the falsehoods that have led humanity astray. But in qualifying its poison as "vain," Solovyov quietly affirms the inevitability of the serpent's defeat. Despite its many wiles it cannot prevail against the woman and her seed.
Toward the end of his life Solovyov wrote a brief essay entitled "Concerning the Final Events" ("Po povodu poslednikh sobytii"). In it he expresses the opinion, held also by his father, the famed historian Sergei Solovyov, that "mankind is a sick old man" and that history is slowly but inexorably drawing to a close. He contends that "the historical drama has been played," and that there remains "one more epilogue. . . which, however, as in Ibsen, may stretch out into five acts." Yet, he adds, "their contents in essence are known ahead of time."9 If the final outcome is already known, it is because, as he argues in Russia and the Universal Church and especially in "Vergine Bella," "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist," and "The Sign," the teleology of history is inextricably bound to the woman of Revelation, the woman clothed with the sun. She who began as Sophia in Solovyov's more explicitly gnostic writings is fully revealed as the Blessed Virgin Mary in his more ecumenical and "orthodox" period. It is to her that he looked for the accomplishment of history's ultimate goal--the eventual reconciliation and reunion of creator and creation.+
Jack Simon Phillips teaches theology at College of Saint Mary in Omaha, Nebraska and is a Melkite Catholic of Lebanese ancestry. He has studied and travelled widely in the Middle East, and served on the staff of the Lahav Research Project Archaeological excavations at Tell Halif with the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. Address: 1901 S. 72 Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124.
When considering the songs of "joy" in the Bible, we must consider the significance of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the location of the Temple, was the dwelling place of God and the source of life, blessing, and security. Jerusalem as an image or metaphor means the faithfulness of God and the promise for the coming "Day of the Lord" or "Kingdom of God", or in other words, the "New Creation." We read in Isaiah 66: "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem." Metaphorically and historically, Jerusalem is the mother of all Christians as the place of the resurrection of Jesus. For Melkite Catholics, as for all Arab Christians and the churches of the Holy Land, she is our geographical mother. All Christians are the adopted children of Jerusalem; but for those of us with ethnic and ecclesiastical roots in the Holy Land, Jerusalem is our birth mother. Because of this blood relationship, I believe the Church of Jerusalem has a special perspective and ministry
The Bible is the story of God's activity in the whole of life; in seasons of plenty and famine, triumphs and failures, and continues in our contemporary lives. On last Christmas Eve, the Jerusalem Post (International Edition) reported a debate in the Israeli Knesset. While arguing over the future of Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres stated "Mine is a Jewish truth...We did not rule over another people, and we shall not." Opposition conservative MK Shaul Gutman replied "What kind of Judaism is that? Where did you invent that Judaism?" Peres replied- "I'm trying to tell the Torah sage, Mr. Gutman, that not everything King David did, on the ground, or the roofs [a reference to the story of his adulterous and bloody affair with Bathsheba], is acceptable to a Jew or is something I like." MK Yosef Ba-Gad stood and shouted: "It is a disgrace that you say that. You should be ashamed of yourself." Other religious members of the Knesset attacked him for "saying such grave things about the sweet psalmist, David, King of Israel." Peres, appearing to enjoy himself, replied: "In the name of Bathsheba, I apologize to King David."
It would be no more reasonable for us to expect the biblical writers to present a completely righteous David than it would be for us to claim that we are righteous, or for one to claim that the Israeli government is (or the Palestinian Authority, the other "Jerusalem"). In the writing, editing, and transmission of the text, there were many opportunities to clean up the reputations of the biblical characters. In contrast to other literatures from the ancient Near East which make heroes into gods, the biblical writers were careful to preserve and present fallible and sometimes disappointing people.
If we actually read the Bible instead of holding on to our illusions, or worse, believing what someone else tells us it says, we find our examples of faith not always to be such good examples. Many of these people do disturbing things. In addition to David, who arranged for the murder of his neighbor's husband; a woman for whom he lusted as a voyeur, with whom he committed adultery, and added to his harem (II Sam 11), we have other examples. For instance, while visiting Egypt, Abraham sold his wife for cattle to Pharaoh for sexual purposes, claiming she was his sister (Gen 12). Elisha the prophet facilitated and presided over the mauling by bears of small children who had made fun of his "bald head" (II Kings 2). Even the disciples of Jesus are quite fallible. After repeated teachings from Jesus, they fail to grasp the meaning of discipleship and abandon Jesus in each of the Gospels. They only return to him after he himself pursues and appears to them and must convince them of his identify by way of miracles. These same disciples we read in Acts and the Epistles, continue to dispute among themselves the meaning of Christian discipleship. It is difficult to find someone to imitate in the Bible, except for God! "Be holy, for the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. 19); "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10); "Apart from me, you can do nothing" (John 15).
This is affirmed liturgically in Judaism by the Shema, or basic creedal statement "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." This is more than an assertion that only one God exists. It is also a profession of God's holiness and uniqueness-"one" implies no one and nothing is like God. He is singular and unique in His holiness. We affirm this in our Byzantine Liturgy every Sunday when we sing: "One is Holy, One is Lord; Jesus Christ, in the glory of God the Father."
The point is this: the characters of the Bible were not perfect and sometimes not even very decent people; but it is in flawed and sinful human life that God is active. The characters of the Bible are examples of faith only insofar as they respond to God and they show the activity and love of God in human affairs. This is the meaning of "joy" in the Bible God finds us when we are lost, heals us when we are sick, confronts and forgives us when we sin-which is most of the time!
This joy made flesh is expressed most clearly in the Psalms, which were originally the prayers and hymns of ancient Israel and have been the basis for Jewish and Christian worship throughout the centuries. The Book of Psalms was the prayerbook for Jesus and the primary liturgical text for the New Testament church. It is here that we find the most complete expression of the scope of the emotion, life, and faith of the people of God. Through Matins, Vespers, and the Divine Liturgy, the entire Psalter is used and forms the foundation of Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic worship. In the Psalms the Church speaks to God, and God speaks to the Church.
The most common Hebrew words translated as "joy" in the Psalms imply a liturgical setting. Hebrew nouns have roots which are verbs, and each word for "joy" has a sense of celebration and proclamation. Ru'a means to "make a loud noise;" ranan means "to sing;" samah means "to rejoice." One gets the impression that joy is not silent in the Bible, and this joy was proclaimed in the worship of ancient Israel. On Sundays we sing: "Let our mouths be filled with your praise, O Lord."
The majority of the Psalms were composed for liturgical use before and after the Babylonian exile (c 587-539 BC). Traditional biblical criticism has divided them into categories (since they appear to have been assembled randomly) which reflect specific liturgical functions such as Royal Psalms, Laments, Entrance Psalms, and so forth. Some Psalms present life as whole, stable, predictable and blessed and God as loving and near at hand; and others present life as painful, disappointing, and chaotic, and God as absent., yet still a source of hope. These orientations reflect the condition of the Jerusalem community - in security, under siege, or in exile. The Psalms are the songs of Zion.
The condition of Jerusalem reflects the community's attitude toward creation and life itself. The Psalms express, in a variety of ways, the joy of creation and being alive; the threat of chaos and the fear of death and destruction; and the experience of re-creation-being born anew and anticipation of the new creation or resurrection. In Psalm 46, the stability of Jerusalem and that of all creation is celebrated. God is praised for the threefold blessings of creation, protection of Jerusalem, and establishing peace to the ends of the earth. The water images here mean both death and life; the "depths" and the "raging waters" recall the formless chaos of Genesis 1, and the "river" means life. Although there is no river in or near Jerusalem, this image presents the source of all life issuing forth from the Holy City and associates it with the garden of Eden (see Gen. 2; Ez. 47; Rev. 22).
God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea;
though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult.
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. (v. 1-4)
The "creation faith" of the ancient Hebrews is the basis for joy throughout the Bible. I believe that this creation joy can be difficult for modern western Christians because it asserts that the physical world, with all of its problems and disappointments, is in fact a blessing from God. The universe and the human person as physical realities glorify God and are real. The experience of blessing is bodily, fertile, sensual and concrete. Contrary to much of contemporary Christian thought, this faith asserts that salvation concerns the whole of creation and the whole of the human person; it is not restricted to matters of immaterial soul, spirit, forms, essences. and ideas which have been overemphasized in western theology.
A case in point is found in the popular 23rd Psalm: "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters; He restores my soul" (Revised Standard Version). How are we to understand "soul" in this case? The Hebrew word isnefesh which means life, person, living thing; literally "that which draws breath." We have a tendency to think of "soul" as a reality separate from the body. This cannot, however, be the case here because how can one lie down in the grass, drink cool water, and eat a feast in the presence of the enemy without a body? I think a more consistent translation would be "He restores my life." The psalmist is singing about a physical and present salvation. The New American translation renders this word as "strength."
Nowhere in the Psalter is the creation joy of ancient Israel more clearly expressed than in Psalm 104, which we sing for Vespers. The creation of the universe is recounted and its sustenance by God's hand celebrated, and this Psalm corresponds closely with the creation account in Genesis 1, which is itself a liturgical text. Here all creation is continually blessed and cared for by God, and stands together under God's love which is experienced by way of food, wonder, and fertility:
You set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.... You cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man ... I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
Throughout the Bible, this is how God is known. Blessings are never strictly spiritual, but also earthly; not only future but present. In our liturgy, we celebrate this creation faith-we believe that out of love God not only creates and sustains His world, but has become this creation in the person of Jesus, who is Himself our food. This is how the "Kingdom of God is like a wedding feast..." (Matt. 22). Our worship is sensually and symbolically rich because we believe that the Creator is revealed and experienced in creation itself.
In the same sense that Jerusalem is the icon of prosperity and the goodness of creation, despair is expressed in terms of separation and exile. The Psalms of lament or disorientation are songs of death and chaos. These Psalms make us uneasy, for they seem to imply unfaithfulness on our part. Many Christians believe that anger and depression are simply symptoms of a lack of faith to be remedied by intensified and radical belief.
Rather than a sign of pathology I believe these Psalms provide a needed balance to creation joy. In Vespers the joy of Ps. 104 is followed by psalms of lament and petition, Ps. 141, 142, and 130-"out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord." When we sing these Psalms we acknowledge that we must live in reality, painful though it is, and that this is where God is also found. Prayer has integrity when it is honest. Nothing can be hidden from God, and our true emotions and thoughts, not false piety, must be offered and voiced. In this respect, we find some starkly honest prayers in the Psalms and on the Cross: "My God, my God~ why have you forsaken me?"
In some respects, however, these laments are also songs of joy. The ability and willingness to express these feelings indicates a belief that God is near and hears cries of suffering. These psalms typically end on a very positive note, thus making these laments into songs of hope. This is not a loud, exuberant joy, but a quiet waiting for renewal and rescue. In this respect. the words of Jesus on the Cross can be understood as both anguished and hopeful. Even though the Gospel writers only record the beginning of Psalm 22 on the lips of Jesus (Mt. 27; Mk. 15), this Psalm would not be so fragmented in Jewish usage. The latter part of the Psalm must be kept in view: "From you comes my praise in the great congregation; ... The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the Lord!"
Another well known lament is Psalm 137 which expresses despair and chaos in terms of exile:
By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion...
To be separated from Jerusalem is to be separated from God's presence. Here again we find a strong connection between singing and joy:
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
This Psalm ends on a surprisingly bitter note:
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
This horrible image is made worse when we understand the Hebrew word for "little one," which is 'ulal. The root of this word means "to nurse" or "give suck," which suggests that these "little ones" are nursing babies. This image stands in dramatic contrast to Isaiah 66, mentioned at the outset: "Rejoice with Jerusalem ... that you may suck and be satisfied with her consoling breasts."
The ending of Ps. 137 is often omitted in popular and liturgical usage, for obvious reasons. This Psalm is frequently used in many Christian churches, but often in a truncated form. This is also the case in many Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic parishes. The Typicon (worship guidelines), however, directs us to sing this Psalm in its entirety for the three Sundays prior to Great Lent. It follows the Polyeleos or "many mercies," which is a hymn based on Psalms 135 and 136: "Praise the name of the Lord, O servants of the Lord. Alleluia. Blessed be the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endures forever." Ps. 137 balances this joyful tone with a lenten lament.
As I mentioned above, not everything we read in the Bible is exemplary of faith in God, and the ending of Ps. 137 certainly is not. We may think that this desire to see little children killed is a sentiment reflecting the brutalities of the ancient Near East, as some commentaries suggest; but there are obviously those among us who believe that killing Israeli or Palestinian children is acceptable or unavoidable for reasons of "security" or "autonomy." Although many people try to use the Bible to legitimize violence, I do not believe this is possible. We as Christians believe that the Word of God is ultimately not a text to be interpreted, but the creative Word living among us.
I recently visited in Galilee with Fr. Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Melkite peace activist. Among other things, we discussed the use of the Bible by both Christians and Jews to justify killing, hatred, and oppression. He told me that we cannot get stuck in the Bible as the static word of God, but must encounter the Word of God as a living reality. We must proclaim to the world that "God does not kill! God never killed in the concentration camps and never killed in the refugee camps."
To express our anger and violent tendencies to God is honest and appropriate, but in light of the Gospel this must be taken as a confession of sin. The world we live in is desperately in need of healing. We are called by God to break out of the cycle of violence, not to perpetuate it. Violence belongs to the chaos that threatens creation, and Psalms of lament pray that chaos would be vanquished, and the New Creation will dawn:
...May the Lord bless you from Zion, all the days of your life
That you may share Jerusalem's joy and live to see your children's children.
Peace upon Israel! (Ps. 128)
The Psalms of New Creation celebrate both the blessings of the present; and the future when the Lord "will extend prosperity to her like a river..." (Is. 66). In Christian faith this joy anticipates the "new heaven" and "new earth," the "new Jerusalem" which is the final image of the New Testament (Rev. 21). In this new creation, the thirsty will drink without price from the river of life which flows from the "throne of God and of the Lamb."
This sacrificial lamb is Jesus, and joy must be understood in this light. We read in John 15 that Jesus, immediately before his crucifixion, told his disciples to "...love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jesus loved and loves sacrificially in giving up his life for the life of the world. As the body of Christ! we must love in this way. "These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full."
During my first term of study and work in Israel in 1980, I would sometimes spend my days off in Jerusalem. On one occasion, I watched a street in the Old City being torn up for utility repairs. The worker were excavating and discarding stones from about one meter down, which my colleague identified as Roman period paving stones dating roughly to the time of Jesus. Ironically, this was taking place at an intersection with the Way of the Cross, crowded with pilgrims reenacting the crucifixion.
At that moment, we were standing in more than one Jerusalem-an ancient city of archaeology, and a "holy place" of popular piety and packaged tours. We stood in yet another Jerusalem-the Arab Christian Jerusalem. This community, whose very existence is threatened by military occupation, poverty, and land confiscation, is a people in exile in their own home. Arab Christians live at once in Jerusalem and Babylon. These Christians refer to themselves as "living stones."
Those of us who know these living stones and are these living stones cannot forget the lamenting Jerusalem, which is all of her children who long for peace-Muslim, Jew, and Christian. If we are to "hold Jerusalem above our highest joy," we must proclaim the presence and creative love of God in a world of harsh political and social realities. The Holy City is the image of God's love for His creation, but we cannot know or proclaim this joy without remembering exiles everywhere-those in poverty, hunger, bondage, and abuse. It is only in committing our lives to the New Jerusalem that our "joy will be full."+
Fr. Francis Cosgrove, S.J. is chaplain of the N.Y.C. Transit Authority and works in Maronite parishes in the New York City area. Address: 980 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10028
When the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches was formulating the title for their Twelfth Congress,1 "Christian Priesthood East and West: Towards a Convergence?" it was realized at the time that the phrase "East and West" involved a certain ambiguity. But since the purpose of the meeting was sufficiently clear to the membership, it was let stand. In other contexts, we may consider different norms for distinguishing East from West:2 churches within the geographical boundaries of the Persian or the Roman empires; divisions of the Roman empire itself; the historical facts of schism; the more theological point of view that regards Chalcedon as a watershed, so that the Assyrian church, for instance, identifies itself as the "Apostolic Church of the East."
From these perspectives, one might perceive ambiguity not only in the theme of the congress but in the title of the Society itself, professing as it does to deal with the "law of the Eastern Churches." But practical considerations prevail over semantic constructs. The efforts of the Society are directed toward those areas where there is actual disunity.3 And in referring to the churches which Roman Catholic canon law officially defines as "Eastern," they must consider the conventional terminology.
There was a concrete example and visible token of East and West in the group photograph taken during the congress. The picture included figures wearing turbans and other characteristic head gear of eastern churches. But prominent in the back row is a ten-gallon hat! This representative from Texas might be considered as the first fruits of the outreach which the Society had in mind when it decided to hold the congress in North America.
The writer had occasion to become personally acquainted with the wearer of this hat. His interest in attending the congress was not academic, though he is no stranger to the academic scene. (He is presently engaged in graduate studies in law enforcement, a situation reminiscent of the medieval description of "doctor utriusque juris"!) Rather, it was out of concern for the unity of Christians; and from his conviction that there is essentially only one church, the one into which we are all baptized, notwith- standing the cultural diversity of East and West, or the disunity which we are seeking to dissipate. During the course of the congress, we made several trips together into town to visit both Catholic and Protestant churches of the Boston area. A Bible Belt background was no obstacle to a devout appreciation of diverse sensibilities and devotional practices of the various Christian denominations.
The subject matter of the congress, Christian Priesthood, naturally elicited questions concerning the ordination of women from individuals who had not attended the sessions. Such questions reveal both the presuppositions of the inquirer, and the preoccupations of the Society. The very title of the organization is indicative of some common grounds in ecclesiology, and a theological perspective that cannot be limited by "sola scriptura." Outsiders, on the other hand, come from all kinds of positions. For some, the church(es) have no "law" to begin with. Or at any rate, their sacramental theology doesn't admit orders, the only priesthood being that of the baptized. For others, the very status of priest is mere nominalism, the real issue being justice in the sharing of leadership in any organization.4 Actually, the membership of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches includes representatives from a wide spectrum of traditions, including the reformed churches.5 But it would be fair to say that their view of priesthood was not that of an equal-opportunity employer recruiting individuals to staff the Temple of Pure Reason.
On the positive side, the common ground for these discussions is indicated by the title of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches, otherwise known as the Gesellschaft fu¨r das Recht der Ostkirchen. And these "Ostkirchen", as we have seen, are understood by this organization as "Orthodox and Eastern Catholics."
But such is not the understanding of some of the Ostkirchen themselves, a situation indicated by Chorbishop John Faris when he described the use of the term East and West in formulating the theme of the congress as "imprecise." This point was made explicit by Mar Aprem in his presentation of the history and present situation of his own church (Malabar) in Kerala, India. In his tradition, Eastern describes churches "outside the Roman Empire." This usage, of course, excludes the Orthodox Church, Byzantium being itself the Roman Empire. In fact, we might point to the rivalry between the Old Rome and the New Rome as the root of the conflict between Constantinople and the Latin Church.
This point of view is not restricted to the Syriac churches. A Coptic writer, Aziz Atiya, in the preface to his history of the Eastern Churches, states: "From the very start I limited my thesis to the ancient non-Greek family of churches."6 While he accepts the Maronites as an authentic Eastern church, curiously he ex- cludes the Georgian Church: "Though closely associated with Armenia in its earliest Christianity, Georgia chose the Western road from Chalcedon in 451, and became a member of the Greek family of churches." Elsewhere, he criticizes this church for its "Romano-Byzantine Christology."
But if the description "Eastern" lends itself to ambiguity, "orthodox" is far from being a univocal term as used by these churches as their self-description. In a certain sense, it is a truism for any church conscious of its own tradition. Even the Latin church proclaims itself orthodox, in the Roman canon of the Mass, where it commemorates "omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus." Although the term is sometimes used to distinguish certain sister churches, where one is Catholic and the other not in communion with Rome (e.g. the Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox), the meaning attached to this term by these churches themselves is by no means consistent.
As noted above, the congress itself was held on the campus of the Greek Orthodox College of Theology of the Holy Cross. In the case of this institution, there is nothing vague about their self designation. All the churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople express their articles of faith as formulated by the first seven ecumenical councils.7 But it is the Council of Chalcedon which sets apart the self-proclaimed Eastern churches from "the Greek family of churches."
The non-Chalcedonian churches, in their turn, refer to themselves as "orthodox", by which term they understand fidelity to their received traditions. They all incorporated the Nicean Creed into their liturgies. But that did not simplify matters. The understanding of orthodoxy by some of these churches sets them apart not only from the "West," but from one another. The Christological controversies did not stop at Chalcedon. They effectively disrupted the theological center of Edessa, literary capital of Christian Syriac culture; and along with other factors produced a subdivision --- an East and a West Syriac church, something that persists to the present day in the distinction between the Malabar and Malankar churches in South India. In the old literature we see some odium theologicum in expressions like "the holy Nestorius" and "the accursed Nestorius." The isolation of these churches from each other left traces even in the Syriac language. Despite the possession of a common Bible and a corpus of patristic writers, there developed a distinctive script and a different pronunciation of Syriac in the two schools, each of which called itself orthodox.8
As a practical matter, in these overlapping categories of East/West, Catholic /Orthodox, since some of the individual terms are ambiguous, it is difficult to tell out of context just what "Syrian Orthodox" refers to. It can mean either the Antiochean See of the Greek Orthodox, whose Catholic counterpart is the Melkite Church; or it can refer to the "Jacobite" church, whose Catholic counterpart is listed in the Catholic Directory as the Antiochian Syriac Catholic Church, or what is known in India as the Syro-Malankar.
We are accustomed today to celebrate "diversity." At Vatican II this was canonized in the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches: variety within the Church manifests her unity. But the disunity which was the legacy of schism is being overcome by the efforts of such as this Society. The common patrimony of these Syriac churches has been recovered by scholarship; and church leaders in recent years have officially acknowledged that their claim to be orthodox does not imply that their sister churches are heterodox.
The distinctive character of the churches which are Eastern in the sense spoken of by Mar Aprem was brought out in the very first session of the congress. In the keynote address, Dr. Constantine Scouteris of the University of Athens led off with "Some Theological and Canonical Considerations." In anticipation of a later session devoted to the theory of the perpetuity of the effects of ordination, mention was made of the concept of character sacramentalis expounded by Augustine and attributed to "scholasticism." But the statement that it had no basis in the "Fathers" occasioned an intervention of Archbishop Joseph Mounayer of Damascus, who quoted a Syriac hymn of St. Ephrem about the imprint of the sacraments upon the soul.9 The habit of neatly dividing patrology into the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers calls for the recognition of a theological Third World, which these days is becoming a "developing world."10 This quotation from Ephrem was noted by those connected with the Syriac churches, since his hymns are a commonplace in the daily office of them all. During the course of the convention there de- veloped a kind of fraternity among those familiar with Syriac, which enabled them to compare notes at various junctures. One of the benefits derived from attending this convention was the opportunity to speak with authors previously known only in the medium of the printed page, such as Mar Aprem, whose work is at hand on this writer's book shelf.11 In these conversations there was a shared realization of common origins and the unbroken apostolic succession of these churches. And with respect to the churches with which the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches is most concerned, there is, of course, no question of an attitude of holier-than-thou, but quite definitely a consciousness of "more Eastern than thou."+
Father George A. Maloney, S.J. is a noted spiritual writer and a Jesuit priest of the Russian Byzantine Rite. He has published 52 books on prayer and spirituality. He holds a doctorate in Oriental Theology from the Pontifical Oriental Institute. For many years he taught theology at Fordham University. Address: Contemplative Ministries, 850 Coastline Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740
My first contact with the great and ancient Assyrian Church of the Fast was through the request of Cardinal Bea, the head of the Roman Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. He sent me a telegram in the spring of 1963 requesting that I should fly out to San Francisco and meet with Patriarch Mar Shimun XXIII, patriarch of the Apostolic Assyrian Church, who emigrated to U.S.A. in 1961 and was later deposed. The purpose of my visit was to act on behalf of Cardinal Bea to extend an invitation to the Patriarch to send an official "observer" of his Church to the Vatican Council II which had been called by Pope John XXIII in 1962.
It was my first contact with this most ancient and apostolic Church dating back to the first and second centuries, other than what I had studied about it in my doctoral work at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. Patriarch Shimon wondered why the Pope was calling his Church to create a more ecumenical atmosphere of brotherhood among all Christian Churches. He stated that his See was more ancient than that of Rome. He should be calling the Pope and other Patriarchs to him and his Church to seek union with the Assyrian Church.
I was filled with great sadness to discover mountains and mountains of ignorance and hatred, shibboleths of anathemas through the nearly 2,000 years of Christianity that kept these two apostolic Churches in "splendid isolation," to quote the words of the most ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I discovered that Nestorius was not a Nestorian, but was reverenced as a saint and a great theologian by the Assyrian Church. Thus I discovered a most ancient Christology that was drawn from Holy Scripture, especially the Gospels and the writings of St. Paul and the liturgical texts of the ancient liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari.
I feel very humble, but also excited with the fervor of St. Paul, to present this paper to describe the first non-official Consultation on the Roman Catholic-Syriac Churches, especially the Assyrian Church of the East, in dialogue within the Syriac tradition. To me the greatest scandal within the Christian Churches throughout history that has been the single most disruptive and destructive issue has come from the various Churches' attempt to explain the ineffable mystery of God's eternal plan of salvation in and through the Incarnation, which was meant "for us human beings and for our salvation."
Mar Bawai Soro, Assyrian Bishop of Western U.S.A., residing in San Jose, CA has well described this enormous scandal of the Eastern and Western Christian Churches in his address in the First Dialogue between the Syriac Churches and Rome sponsored by the Pro Oriente Foundation and held in Vienna, June 24th to 29th, 1994:
In the West the intervention of Christian Emperors consistently added fuel to the flames of discontent and disunion, frustrating the "oneness" for which our Lord prayed so fervently. In the East, the intervention of pagan Emperors made permanent the division of Christian from Christian, institutionalizing it and dooming the Church to unrelieved subjugation and humiliation. The role of the bishops in allowing this to take place, and even aiding and abetting the process, is perhaps understandable given the then current concepts of corporate society, but from the vantage point of the twentieth century it appears to ordinary people as censurable.1
As we stand at the brink of the end of twenty centuries of Christianity to enter into the beginning of the twenty-first century, God is offering us in so many ways new opportunities to have the courage to wish to repent and be baptized by the Spirit of the crucified and gloriously risen Lord Jesus Christ and work for greater union with all baptized brothers and sisters living in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Science and internal economics of world markets, ecological concerns to save our planet as all nations seek to become stewards of God's beautiful universe instead of slowly seeking to destroy it.and so many other forces are building up to convince ourselves individually as well as all nations and their leaders that we can no longer live isolated from each other.
We see an upheaval happening in the habitual ways we consider ourselves, the world, God, science, politics and economics. It is a revolution that challenges our basic assumptions about who we are, what kind of a world we are living in and would like to live in during the coming ages. Albert Einstein in 1905 published his theory of relativity to show that both space and time are interrelated and form a fourth-dimensional continuum, called "space-time" to show that all reality is relational.
Normal Pittinger, a process theologian, well describes such a dynamic universe: "We live in and we are confronted by a richly inter-connected inter-related, inter-penetrative series of events, just as we ourselves are such a series of events."2
The universal God of all creation is truly, as Paul preached to the Athenians, not far from us, "For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). We Christians are being moved by the Holy Spirit to stop any dialogue among us of various Churches that has been built up along lines of a "monologue" of self-righteous theologians maintaining their theological explanation of the "mystery" of Christ in us as the only formulation that all other Churches must embrace.
The Spirit is urging us to believe that we already share in much unity as we embrace and profess with each other the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. We have one Baptism in the name and power of the indwelling Trinity and we eat the same Bread of Life and drink the Blood of Christ in the same celebration of the Eucharist.
In this paper I would like to report the great hope that was been poured out for renewal in Christ's Body, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as we can see in the first, non-official consultation between the Churches of the Syriac tradition and Western Christianity held in Vienna in 1994 A second consultation took place in February 25-March 3 of 1996 in Vienna but since the papers of this consultation have not been published yet, I shall focus only upon the first consultation of 1994.
Pro Oriente was the sponsoring foundation that made this consultation possible with the topic of "Orthodoxy and Catholicity in the Syriac Tradition." Founded thirty two years ago by Cardinal Koenig to promote numerous unofficial dialogue and consultations between theologians of the Roman Catholic Church and those of the Eastern Churches, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and now in 1994 and 1996 with the Assyrian Church of the East.
Out of these meetings there have come, not only a number of important publications, but also some very practical results. In five consultations held between 1971 and 1988 theologians from the Oriental Orthodox (the pre-Chalcedonian) and Roman Catholic Churches have met. The methodology and the foundational documents, especially the "Vienna Christological Formula" that came out of the first meeting in 1971 and the official declarations made by the Roman pontiffs with the Coptic Orthodox patriarch, Pope Shenouda III and with two successive Syrian Orthodox patriarchs, Moran Mor Ignatios Yacoub III and Moran Mor Ignatios Zakka I. I was, provided the basis for the first and second (and hopefully more in the future) consultations between the Syriac Churches, especially the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Roman Church.
The Vienna Christological Formula of 1971 professed the belief in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Son incarnate, "perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity. His divinity was not separated from his humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye, his humanity is one with his divinity without commixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. We in our common faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, regard his mystery inexhaustible and ineffable and for the human mind never fully comprehensible or expressible."3
In the common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East given at St. Peter's in Rome on November 11, 1994, that recaptured the profession of faith of 1971 between Roman and Oriental Orthodox theologians and the proceedings of the Syriac dialogue in June of 1994, Pope John Paul II and his Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos- Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East stated:
This is the unique faith that we profess in the mystery of Christ. The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on per- sons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.
Whatever our Christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united today in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation.4
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Mardinkha IV conclude their ardent desire for a unity that will be visible and allow for full and entire communion through the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church, so that we can celebrate together the Eucharist, which is the true sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored:
In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic and the Assyrian Church of the East.5
Fourteen members constitute the Pro Oriente Syriac Commission. Representing the Assyrian Church of the East (New Calendar) is Mar Bawai Soro, Bishop of Western U.S.A.. Representing the Assyrian Church of the East (Old Calendar) is Metropolitan Mar Aprem of Trichur. Other members represent the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch; the Malankara Orthodox Church; the Chaldean Church (Catholic); the Maronite Church (Catholic); the Syrian Catholic Church; the Malabar Catholic Church, the Malankara Catholic Church, and lastly the representatives from the Pro Oriente Foundation under the inspiring leadership of Cardinal Franciscus Koenig, founder and protector of the foundation, and President Alfred Stirnemann.
This commission successfully planned and carried out the second consultation that was held Feb. 25-Mar. 3, of this year. Such important topics were proposed concerning the historical development of Christology, dogmatic Christology dealing with such subjects as Unity and Duality in the mystery of Christ, the distinction of the natures from each other in contemplation (theoria) only; Does the Council of Ephesus (431) unite or divide?; Pre- and post-Ephesian Christology in the Church of the East; Liturgy as a source for Christology; Conditions for the Chaldean Union with Rome, etc.
What should fill us with great hope, who long for unity between the Assyrian Church of the East and all the other Churches of Syriac tradition with the Roman Catholic Church is the openness in both of these consultations, one and two of 1994 and 1996 on the part of the participants who for the first time in the mutual historical relationships of these Churches listened in mutual love to the speakers who presented crucial topics concerning the basic stumbling block toward complete "communion," namely, a true Christology, expressed in various formulas from varying, historical traditions.
Representative of such a fresh and loving and humble spirit of cooperation among all the participants is given by Mar Bawai Soro, Assyrian Bishop of U.S.A.: The humility we express is born out of the recognition of our part in the longstanding disunity of Christ's body, and it reflects acknowledgment on our part that we have inflicted as well as received, the wounds which that body bears. No matter how much we may attempt to justify the righteousness of our actions throughout the long history of this conflict, we ultimately conclude that all of us, to one extent or another, share the moral burden of having contributed to the present situation, a situation that is characterized by suspicion and separation among churches that have so much in common. A final analysis of the current ecclesiastical picture should prompt us to confess each one of us, our part in the sin of division, and urge us to reach out for reconciliation. It should bring us to the point of expressing sorrow for the part we have played. For the very fact that divisions exist among our churches indicates the presence of sin, since schisms are bred in lovelessness and pride. But if there is to be forgiveness for any sin, there must first be a humble recognition of one's own frailty, and a contrite spirit to liberate the conscience before God. Only then will we be able to convert the present situation of divisions and schisms into a future process of healing and reunion.6
I would like to end this conference by pointing out two areas of Assyrian Christology and Liturgy which have helped me to enlarge my understanding of what constitutes a true, orthodox Christology and a valid Liturgy. These two areas will open up for future consultation important areas that now remain through mutual ignorance of Roman Catholic and Syriac theologians great obstacles in creating a true Christian unity in diversity.
The first area is to develop a greater awareness of the orthodoxy of the Assyro-Chaldean Church, the Church of the East, by understanding, especially on the part of Roman Catholics, the true teachings of the Church of the East in regard to the two natures and one person in Christ. We need to put ourselves into the context of those early times and must not judge such pioneers like Narsai, the Synods of the Church of the East, of Nestorius, Babai the Great, Elia Bar Senaya of Nisibis, Theodore of Mopseustia and Diodore.
Above all we need to understand the theological and philosophical terminology that such great teachers developed to give some intellectual knowledge of the mystery of the Incarnation. I was helped greatly by the intervention of Archbishop Emmanuel Delly, Patriarchal Vicar of the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate in Baghdad, that he give in the first consultation in 1995. Most of our understanding of nature and person have come through the Greek theologians of both the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools.
When the Syriac Fathers used the word for nature to describe the human and divine natures of Christ, they used the Syriac word kyana. This usually connotes the meaning of nature or essence of a being. In an abstract, universal sense it embraces all the elements of the members of a certain species, called kyana gawanaya. But kyana also can have also a real, concrete and individual sense, called kyana ihidaya or qnoma. Qnoma is not the person, but the concretized kyana, the real, existing nature.
A third term, parsopa, relates to the Greek word, prosopon or person in English. As Archbishop Delly writes: "The parsopa, says Iso'yahb III, is that which distinguishes. Qnoma has no other meaning or quality than the kyana and is individualized by means of the parsopa or by force of the parsopa."7
We can see that the teaching of the Church of the East on Christology is the same as that found in the Church Universal. "Two real kyana united in a single parsopa, in a sublime and indefectable union without confusion or change."8 In fact we can see the possibility not only of an orthodox Christology, but also a richness that comes from the Gospel understanding and the writings of St. Paul to highlight the individuated human nature of Christ, who truly grew in wisdom and knowledge and grace before God and men (Lk 2: 52), but also truly was tempted in all things, but he did not sin (Heb 4: 1) and did truly die an excruciating death on the cross.
This individuated human nature of Christ is different from his divine nature, yet are inseparable but not confused and both form the one divine-human person, Jesus Christ, who is yesterday, today and always the same (Heb 13).
The second area of great interest in the dialogue between Catholics and Assyrian Christians of the Syriac tradition, which I personally find most important to test our ecumenical resolve to accept the various traditions of each other, diversity but in unity of loving openness. This concerns the ecumenical relevance of the East Syrian tradition of its most ancient and most used Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari. Professor Peter Hofrichter asserts: "Catholic and Orthodox Christians should be extremely thankful to the ?Church of the East' for having saved an original and authentic tradition totally displaced and forgotten in all other branches of Christianity."9
From earliest times of the Didache (which dates between 80 and 130 A.D.) which commonly is considered as originating in Syria to the first appearance of the Anaphora of Addai and Man, which originated also in Syria, probably in Edessa in the third or second century, we have an early tradition of liturgical anaphoras without the Institution narrative of the Last Supper as we find in Byzantine Orthodox and Roman anaphoras. The Roman concept of consecration and transubstantiation by and at the moment of the words of the Institution dates back to the twelfth century and even then was disputed by many Western theologians. The Orthodox maintain that the full consecration is effected by the epiclesis or the "calling down" of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts to "make them into the body and blood of Christ."
Can the Eucharistic anaphora most frequently used by the Assyrian Church of the East today be authentic without the Institution narrative? Again Professor Hofrichter maintains:
According to the common conviction of the Old Church as well as of contemporary Catholic theologians the presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements is due to the whole eucharistic celebration and not to any single formula. Therefore also the validity of the celebration cannot depend on one decisive text only. Basil the Great extends this power of consecration to whatever is spoken in the eucharistic liturgy.10
Through greater mutual study of the various eucharistic anaphoras and the mutual acceptance of the validity of such ancient liturgies of the Syriac Churches, we Christians can readily accept various formulations of liturgical prayers and forms of worship that vary in expressions but all of us can put the main emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit within the context of each Churches' forms used in eucharistic worship. Then we will realize that the entire anaphoras, especially those of the ancient Christian Churches of the East, are the context in which the Holy Spirit is invoked both upon the worshiping community and upon the gifts of bread and wine.
If the Pope of Rome is so prayerful and cooperative to dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East as seen in these two consultations in Vienna in 1994 and 1996, the same holds true of the other children of both Churches. Union in diversity through mutual love and respect for each other's traditions will be brought about when it is wanted. One can never force a union of Churches, just as one can never force a child to love its mother, father or its brothers and sisters.
A union must be prepared with much patient work, full of comprehension and charity, according to the possibility of each member of both Churches. In the ultimate analysis it will be the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the only one who can give to the leaders and members of both Churches and all other Christian Churches light and strength to conquer all the differences that have pressed them away from unity in love with each other in the past.
But we should be ever guilty of violating Christ's command "to love one another as I have loved you," if we personally do not strive to come to know our brothers and sisters of all other Christian Churches, especially those of the most ancient, apostolic traditions. Then we will not only give due respect and show esteem for their treasures, but we will be enriched by moving out of any "ghetto" isolation and self-righteousness and humbly see how God is worshiped in so many love-producing ways in doctrinal expressions and insights and liturgies Then we too can join in mutual worship and above all in full communion around the same eucharistic table.
Then we will join with all the angels and saints, but above all with our eternal High-Priest, Jesus Christ, in praying out his prayer in the Last Supper and know that we are already experiencing the fulfillment of his mighty prayer as we love each other in his infinite love for us. I would like to conclude by allowing Jesus to repeat his prayer of unity over all of us here gathered together in love and humility:
Father, I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them and I in them. (Jn 17: 20-26).+
Michael Klimenko is Professor Emeritus at the University of Hawaii, where he taught Russian literature for 26 years. Address: 578-C Hahaione St. Honolulu, Hawaii 96825-1409
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom belongs to the most vivid expression of the spiritual life of all Eastern Orthodox Christians and, beyond, to all the Christendom. In the wider sense, the Liturgy is the manifestation of the Christian life and the whole Weltanschauung of the worshippers. It embraces not only theology and dogma, but also the piety of people as a whole. It directs the morality not only of the individuals, but also of those in the authority. Yet, in spite of the great significance of the Liturgy, there exists in all history only one known commentary on it, written by an Orthodox layman, Nicholas Cabasilas (Kavasilas).1The fact that the author of the Commentary of this magnificent religious Rite was a layman, is a characteristic feature of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, where many theologians were lay people. Lately, the Reverend Casimir Kucharek of the Catholic Byzantine-Slav rite published his own extensive commentary along the historical sketch of the origin and development of the Liturgy from the beginning in the apostolic times, through the ages and to the contemporary status of the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy.2
Nicholas Cabasilas was a great mystic. His Commentary belongs to the best and most distinct works of the mystagogical genre (Gattung) of Byzantine religious literature.3 In the Eucharist, according to Cabasilas, the Christians experience existential (ontological) and moral identity with Christ. Cabasilas is revered by Orthodox and Catholic theologians alike. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Cabasilas' Commentary on the Eucharist Liturgy is unexcelled as a profound and devout tract on the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Council of Trent used the Cabasilas' Commentary during the deliberations on the Mass as a witness to Catholic traditions.4
It is surprising then that the author of the foreword in the English translation of the Cabasilas' Commentary has categorized Cabasilas clearly as anti-Latin. To be sure he admits that in spite of the anti-Latin polemic in chapters 29 and 30, the Commentary is justly held in high esteem not only among the writer's fellow Orthodox, but in the West also.5 It became a permanent tradition among the Orthodox theologians and lay people alike to denounce the Catholics, their alleged wrong teaching and practices. The Catholics simply in virtue of being Catholics must be on a different side from the Orthodox. They cannot be right. It cannot be possible that the Catholics and the Orthodox would hold the same view. We would like here to ask if indeed Cabasilas was anti-Catholic?
We would like to discuss briefly the meaning of the Liturgy, the time in which Cabasilas lived and wrote his Commentary, and then to make a few notes on the Commentary's significance for the modern reader, and examine finally chapters 29 and 30 on the subject of their alleged anti-Catholic tendency. Was Cabasilas really anti-Latin?
Sacrifices were made in the Old Testament. Offerings were brought to the altar and consecrated to God as gift to be sacrificed. In establishing the New Covenant, Jesus Christ himself was sacrificed for the atonement of the world. He instituted the celebration of his consecration and commanded his disciples to remember it. The Apostolic Traditions have preserved the stories how Jesus established the celebration of his consecration. The Apostle Paul, too, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians recounted the institution of this celebration:
...in the night when Lord Jesus was betrayed, he took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said: ?This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me;' In the same way also the cup after supper saying: ?This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Cor. 11: 23- 26).
We quoted from the Epistle rather than from the Gospels because St. Paul's epistles were written earlier than the Gospels. While the Gospels' narratives reflect the established tradition of the infant Church, Paul's writings render a more immediate and direct line of Jesus' command.
Jesus commanded to do what he had done in remembrance of him, i. e. his life, his message, his death and his Resurrection. The disciples, obeying their Lord's command, continued to do what he had done. The English word remembrance does not render the exact meaning of the Greek word anamnesis used by the Evangelist Luke (22: 19) and by St. Paul in the above quoted First Epistle to the Corinthians (11: 24). The Greek anamnesis according to the Comprehensive Lexicon of the Greek Language by John Pickering (1848) means "calling to mind, reminiscence, recall it to memory, or representing of a past event that takes place here and now." We observe then the Lord's command in remembrance, or representing, or actually in reenacting here and now not only the events of the Last Supper that took place in Jerusalem in the Upper Room at the night before the betrayal, but of the whole life of Jesus Christ. We bring our offering of bread and wine to the altar to be consecrated into the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Preparation for offering of our gifts to God and in return receiving the gift of the Divine Body and Blood take place not in any disorderly manner, but in a certain, proper, definite rite, the sacred rite, the sacred action, called the Divine Liturgy.
Consecrated bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus is called Eucharist, i.e., Thanksgiving. We do this in imitation of his life, death and the resurrection. But above all, the offerings of bread and wine are consecrated as thanksgiving (Eucharist) in remembrance of his sacrifice for us.
We celebrate the bloodless sacrifice of Thanksgiving (Eucharist) for Christ's sacrifice for our atonement from sins. The words "do it in remembrance of me" apply not only to the bread and wine, but to the whole Liturgy. Just like the Liturgy reenacts the whole life of Jesus, so it provides a shelter for our lives from birth through death and to eternity. The aim of the Liturgy is the offering of the bloodless sacrifice and then the receiving of the Divine gifts in the Eucharist.
Celebration of the Lord's Supper is one of the oldest celebrations of Jesus' disciples. It was celebrated even before the Christian Church had been established. As the matter of fact a few days after its institution, in the village of Emmaus Jesus broke bread with two disciples as the Gospel of St. Luke reports in chapter 24. The disciples did not recognize Jesus until He himself broke the bread with them (St. Luke 24: 30-31). The Gospels were silent on the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the time between the Resurrection and Pentecost, but it might be assumed as certain that since the Apostles in those days remained together as Jesus at his Ascension had commanded them, they must have obeyed the Lord's command "do it in remembrance" of him. And surely the Lord's Supper was celebrated immediately in the days after Pentecost, long before the Gospel stories were written down. When the Gospels were being written, the celebration of the Lord's Supper was already a long established tradition in the infant Christian Church.
For the first community of Jesus' disciples it was natural to combine the celebration of the Eucharist with a common meal that had a religious meaning and was usually held in the evening. But as the Christian Church was growing, it became for whatever reasons necessary to separate the Eucharist from the meal. Separated from the meal, the Eucharist could be held at other times of the day, preferably in the early morning, before daybreak at the first day of the week, i.e, on Sunday, the day of the Lord's Resurrection. With the growing Church and with the separation of the Eucharist from the meal, the Liturgy itself was divided into two parts. The first part, the Liturgy of the Catechumens, was for those who were not yet baptized, but were preparing themselves for baptism. The catechumens had to learn first of all the message of Christ as recorded in the books of the Gospels, then the proper way of praying, and the dignity of the Christian life, "to lead a life worth of their calling" (Cf. Eph. 4:1). The second part, the Eucharistic Liturgy, was for the faithful at which the catechumens were not allowed to be present.
The two Liturgies were strictly separated. The doors at the Eucharistic Liturgy were kept closed that no one who was not yet baptized could enter. At present the two Liturgies are blended together and are celebrated without a break. They are seen as one Liturgy. Only the celebrant's exclamation: "The doors! The doors!" reminds the worshippers that in the ancient Church this was the point at which the doors were strictly guarded so that no catechumen could be present. After the whole population became Christian there was no longer need for the Liturgy of the Catechumens, so the two Liturgies were merged together. But the need of all Christians to learn the moral and social prescripts of the Christian life remained as before. For many centuries the Liturgy was the only source of instruction in Christian truth and the conduct of life.
The elaborate ritual of the Liturgy has been developed gradually. During the first two Christian centuries despite the large geographical expanse and the great variations of details in prayers and rituals the celebration of the Eucharist was uniform. With the third century, while the general uniformity was maintained, different practices began to creep into every church. Yet the order and content of the celebration remained the same throughout the all realms of the Roman Empire, from Mesopotamia in the East to Spain in the West. The sequence of the components, too, remained uniform. People knew when a reading would follow, when psalms were sung, when was the sermon, and when was Holy Communion. Sudden distortion of the definite order would disturb the worshippers The definite order of the liturgical components was identical in all churches. The general outline of the prayers was similar everywhere. The prayers differed only in details. There was freedom to extemporize prayers. There were no "official" fixed or customarily prescribed prayers and rituals. Words of prayers were not frozen at once as if given in a ready-made form. The casual places of worship in the years of persecution could not have been suitable for the solemn ceremonies, like the entrance and exit of the clergy or the ceremonial reading of the Scripture.
There was no general uniformity of the liturgies. In various cities there was diversity of texts and rituals. Yet there were no divisions, no schisms on account of the varieties and the diversities. The differences were not theological, or dogmatic, but purely ritual and cultural. The best this situation can be described as is unity in diversity. There were no elaborate ceremonies either or liturgical ornaments. Everything was simple and practical. Bread and wine were simply brought in by the worshippers and placed on the table close to the celebrants. Only those who were baptized were admitted to the Eucharist. Attendance at the Liturgy and participation in the Eucharist were prerequisites for baptism. Attendance at the Liturgy was the normal way to leam the Christian message as it was recorded in the Scriptures.
As the matter of fact the text of the present St John Chrysostom Liturgy received its final form only after the iconoclast struggles. The words of the Liturgy were being changed all the time during the first Christian millennium. Some were added, others deleted. But the sense of the Liturgy remained the same -- to offer the bloodless sacrifice on behalf of those who believed in Christ as their Lord and Savior, i.e., on behalf of those who have accepted his sacrifice for the remission of sins.
Eventually, in the third century there began to evolve distinct rites and liturgical forms with local colorings in great centers of Christian activities and development: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. The great centers exercised their influence upon the surrounding provinces. Christians from these centers missionized and evangelized the countryside around them, establishing daughter churches which were dependent on the metropolis. The great centers formed their own jurisdictions with their own rites and liturgies. Jerusalem, after the destruction by the Romans in the year 70 for a long time could not play any role as a center of Christian activity and development. The Holy City thus was not destined to become a great center of Christianity.
In the fourth century the three greatest ancient Christian centers Antioch, Alexandria and Rone emerged as most influential in establishing and diffusing their liturgies within their domains. From the three, Antioch was most the important for the Churches in Asia Minor, including Byzantium (Constantinople) and Armenia. Its liturgy was if not directly copied, then reproduced in all the essential components by the Churches in Asia Minor. When in 381 the See of Constantinople, the new Capital of the Roman Empi;e, was established, it, by its sheer prestige as the See of the Empire's Capital, replaced the prestige and influence of Antioch. When John Chrysostom, the Bishop of Antioch was appointed the Archbishop of Constantinople in 398, he brought the liturgy from Antioch to his new See. In Constantinople the liturgy that began to bear his name consolidated many components of various liturgies from Asia Minor and emerged as the most widespread of all known liturgies in the East. Next to the St. Basil Liturgy, celebrated only on greater Christian holidays and Sundays during the Great Lent and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts celebrated only on the weekdays of the Great Lent, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is now known as the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. Thus the Liturgy that is known as the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy is a creation of the whole of Eastern Christianity, rather than of one man. Many churchmen contributed to the creation of the liturgy before St. John Chrysostom brought it to Constantinople and many continued to contribute components after his death.
We have omitted mentioning here the less known, but nevertheless important liturgies of Coptic and Ethiopian Churches, a few Syrian and the Armenian liturgies. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is now celebrated with various deviations in almost all independent (autocephalous) national Orthodox Churches throughout the world. It celebrated also by those ethnic Orthodox Churches united with Rome (in communion with Rome) known as the Catholics of the Byzantine Rite, or just the Uniates.
Regarding the great significance which the Commentary of Nicholas Cabasilas has for the Orthodox worshippers, we should know more about the author. Not much is known of Nicholas Cabasilas' life. He died in 1371.6 He was thus a contemporary of another much more known, indeed in the Greek Orthodox Church famous, mystic, Gregory Palamas, the theoretician of modern hesychasm. One can say that history was more favorable to Palamas than to Cabasilas. The Greek Orthodox Church proclaimed Palamas "Teacher of the Church." As a monk on the Holy Mount Athos, Palamas headed the monastic movement of hesychasm and led it to triumph. He died as Archbishop of Thessalonica in 1357 and was canonized soon after his death. The mysticism of Nicholas Cabasilas, on the other hand, being anchored in the contemplation on Christ's life, seen at least outwardly, has very little in common with the monastic mysticism of the hesychasts.
When Cabasilas lived and wrote his Commentary, the form and the content of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Metropolia were well established for at least 400 years.
The time of Cabasilas was a tumultuous period in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire. After Michael VIII in 1261 re-established the Empire in all its provinces and had founded the Paleologue dynasty, none of the rulers who followed him were able to match his political skills. It was said that many emperors of the late Byzantine period were better fitted to be professors of theology than autocratic rulers of the troubled Empire. Indeed some of them, while presiding on the Church councils, could skillfully argue the finest nuances of theological problems.
The Empire was convulsed by internal strife-- political, religious and social. Learning was held in high esteem. People had much interest in education. It was time of cultural blossoming but political decay. Philosophical schools thrived. Hellenic culture flourished and gave hope for a future Hellenic renaissance. The last dynasty produced a number of gifted historians who endeavored to explain the tragic events of the time. Michael VIII Paleologue, for instance, wrote his own autobiography. The victory of the hesychasts with their monastic piety put an end to the beginning of the Renaissance.
We can mention here only a few of Cabasilas' contemporaries who left traces in learning. One of the greatest among these was Demetrius Cydones (Kydonios). Cydones was educatd in Milan, but lived in Thessalonica and Constantinople. He was thoroughly acquainted with the philosophy of antiquity and with Latin theological literature. In this he had a great advantage over his contemporaries. He translated Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae into the Greek. Unfortunately until now his translation was not published. He favored reconciliation with Rome. Of great importance for the knowledge of fourteenth century culture is Cydones' correspondence with prominent people of his time. In all 447 letters of his are known.
Another great contemporary of Cabasilas' was Nicephorus Gregoras, who died in 1360. A great scholar of truly universal learning, theologian, philosopher, astronomer, historian, classicist, rhetoretician, and grammarian, he was called the greatest scholar of the last two centuries of Byzantium. Long before Pope Gregory XIII, Nicephoras Gregoras proposed to the Emperor a calendar reform. He may be freely compared with the best representatives of the Western Renaissance. He started as a proponent of hesychasm, but ended as its bitter opponent. After the victory of hesychasm in 1351 Nicephorus Gregoras was exposed to insults and dragged along the streets of Constantinople.7
The pretender on the Imperial throne, John Cantacuzenus (Kantakuzenus) with whom Cabasilas had much to deal also left his name in the literary world. To the learned men of the later period belongs also famous Bessarion (Vissarion) of Nicaea who was an ardent supporter of union with Rome. The last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI included Vissarion among the members of the Council of Florence. Later he became Cardinal of the Roman Church. Zoe (Sophia) Paleologue, niece of the last Emperor (daughter of the Emperor's brother Thomas) was educated in Vissarion's house in Rome. In 1472 she married the Grand Duke of Moscow, Ivan III.
Signs of a renaissance were visible at that period everywhere, especially in higher learning, but the Empire was hard pressed by many external and internal enemies in all its corners. The corruption of the administration and the courts of law had become proverbial. Disunity between the provinces was real. To fight the Serbs, the government invited the help of the Seljuqe Turks. The Western allies (Genoese), who were to help the Empire to fight the Turks, attacked the Byzantine island of Chios. The drama of 1204 was repeated here on a smaller scale. The Empire was forced to seek the help of the Seljuques to defend its possessions against the Genoese.
Cabasilas' time was especially wrought with the dynastic struggle of the two families, Paleologue and Cantacuzenus, for the throne, that brought civil war on the country. The Imperial treasury was so depleted that the government was dependent on private contributions of rich magnates, among whom John Cantaczenus, the shipbuilder, was the prime donor. For this the Emperor Andronicus III made him his major domo (Grand Domestic).8 After the death of Andronicus in 1341, John Cantacuzenus became the regent to the nine-year-old son, John V Paleologue. His regency caused rivalry between the house of Paleologue and that of Cantacuzenus and brought civil war on the country. To dynastic struggles, social problems were added, so that the war of the two families turned into the war of the rich and aristocratic against the masses of poor people, who identified themselves with the party of the Zealots. In addition, foreign powers took prominent part in the internal struggles. The Empire was also troubled by religious and ecclesiastic quarrels that did not help the cause of peace. Besides the perennial problems with Rome, the Byzantine Church itself argued about dogmatic problems of hesychasm and uncreated light.
In fourteenth century Byzantium hesychasm gained new theoretical impetus and prominence under Gregory Palamas' teaching about the uncreated light. Palamas, a monk of the Holy Mount of Athos clearly derived his vision of the uncreated light from Origen.9 Two cultural trends were outlined in these arguments -- mystical hesychasm, represented by the monks of Mount of Athos with their defender Gregory Palamas (hence his followers were called Palamists) and the traditional theology of the worldly clergy, who did not oppose the secular culture.10
The church hierarchy did not look with approbation at these new trends and could have, probably, settled the matter in a peaceful way in its favor, had it not been for a certain Barlaam (Varlaam), who caused stirrings among the hesychasts. Barlaam, a Greek monk who was educated in the West and had lived in Calabria, arrived in Constantinople and, apparently, at once won favor with the church hierarchy. He was appointed hegumenos (abbot) of the Savior monastery in Constantinople.11 Next he began passionately arguing with the hesychasts accusing them of distorting the dogmas of the Church. The main point of the hesychast teaching, in brief, was that by meditating it was possible to see a light, that in their understanding, was the uncreated, i.e., the Divine light, the same light that had shone on Jesus on Mount Tabor. Barlaam argued that corporal eyes cannot see the Divine light. The hesychasts (Palamists) on Mount Athos were stirred up and turned to the hierarchy of the church to settle the disagreement. Not much otherwise is known of Barlaam. He must have soon left for Italy, then France. In Avignon he taught, rather tried to teach, Petrarch Greek.12
The Church hierarchy itself was not a little disturbed by this new teaching of the uncreated light. At the two public disputes held in Hagia Sophia in July and August 1341, (at the first dispute the Emperor Andronicus III presided), the Palamists seemed to emerge victorious. But when the Emperor died a few days after the first dispute, the Patriarch of Constantinople Ioann Calecas, an avowed opponent of Palamas, seized the opportunity to secure the condemnation of Palamas and his teaching of the uncreated light. Palamas was excommunicated and even imprisoned. In the meantime the Regent John Cantacuzenus was ousted from power. Anne, the Princess of Savoy, the wife of the late Emperor became Regent to her juvenile son, John V Paleologue. In response, the deposed Cantacuzenus, too, declared himself Emperor, John VI, and associated himself with the cause of the hesychasts. The struggle for the throne became real. The political struggle involved the religious dispute. The monks from Athos, too, took an active part in it.
The Empire was divided into two hostile camps. The civil war drained the last vestige of strength in the country. John Cantacuzenus found a powerful ally in the Ottoman Turks. He even gave his daughter Theodora in marriage to the Sultan.13 The first establishment of the Ottoman Turks on European soil is connected with John Cantacuzenus. One contemporary historian remarked that Cantacuzenus hated the Romans as much as he loved the barbarians. In one another place the same historian wrote that while a Christian service was being celebrated in the imperial church, the Ottoman Turks, who had been admitted into the capital, were dancing and singing near the palace. To satisfy the financial claims of the Turks, Cantacuzenus even handed over the money sent from Russia by the Great Prince of Moscow, Simeon the Proud, for the restoration of Hagia Sophia at that time in a state of decay.14 Confident of his victory with the help of the Ottoman Turks, Cantacuzenus was crowned Emperor in 1346 in Adrianople by the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
In Constantinople the Empress Anne associated herself with the Seljuqe Turks. But they were not much of help. Instead of attacking Cantacuzenus, they invaded Bulgaria, devastated the provinces in Thracia and plundered the vicinity of Constantinople. She tried now to make peace with the hesychasts. She released Palamas from prison, appointed him Archbishop of Thessalonica, deposed the Patriarch Ioann Calecas and put on the Patriarchal throne Isidore, supporter of the hesychasts. But nothing could help her to retain power. She was forced to give up the struggle. In 1347 Cantacuzenus was recognized as Emperor John VI together with the legitimate Emperor John V Paleologue. To establish the family bond between the two houses Cantacuzenus married his daughter Helena to John V.
The installation of Cantacuzenus on the throne signified the victory of hesychasm, but the end of the religious controversy did not come at once. Until then the official Greek Orthodox Church, and the Zealots alike, rejected the hesychast doctrine and the hierarchy. Even when in 1351 the church council in the Imperial palace Blachernae in the presence of Cantacuzenus solemnly recognized the Orthodoxy of hesychasm and excommunicated its opponents, the controversy continued for some time. Hesychasm was now recognized as the official doctrine of the Greek Orthodox Church. Gregory Palamas, its main proponent, who died in 1357, soon was canonized.15
Political peace, however, did not come yet to the Empire. Venice and Genoa waged war in Byzantine waters over their colonies on the shores of the Black Sea. John V Paleologue realizing that he as co-emperor was ignored by Cantacuzenus began with the support of Venetian money and Serbian and Bulgarian troops to rebel. The quarrel between the two Imperial houses lay in the hands of the superior forces of the Ottoman Turks. At the end of 1352 the forces of John V Paleologue were defeated. Cantacuzenus won the chance to establish his dynasty. In 1353 he proclaimed his son Matthew co-emperor. The Patriarch Callistos, however, refused to crown him. As a result the Patriarch was deposed. John VI Cantacuzenus had a chance to appoint the Patriarch of his choice. From the three candidates submitted to him by the assembly of bishops, among whom was also Nicholas Cabasilas, the Emperor chose Philotheos, the Metropolitan of Philadelphia. Historians wonder why did he not choose Nicholas Cabasilas, who was a devoted adherent of the Cantacuzenus' cause, his adviser and a personal friend. The fact that Nicholas Cabasilas was a layman at that time, could not have played a role in not appointing him to the highest ecclesiastical office in the Empire. There had been many precedents of this kind in the Byzantine Church. The great Patriarch Photios in the ninth century was a prominent case. Up to the middle of the fourteenth century, until the victory of the hesychasts, the Patriarchs were elected or appointed from state officials or from the secular clergy. With the victory of the hesychasts, the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople was exclusively occupied by monks. For a long time it became the property of the representatives of Mount Athos.16
The triumph of the house of Cantacuzenus was short lived. In 1354 John V Paleologue with the help of the Genoese corsairs seized the throne. Cantacuzenus was forced to enter the monastery as monk Joasaph. As a monk he lived 30 years more without renouncing the world. He repeatedly interfered in political affairs. In the monastery he wrote his Historiae, or Memoirs in four books, of his involvement in political struggles. He also authored several polemical treaties defending hesychasm against its opponents.17 It is not known if his close friend and adviser Nicholas Cabasilas followed him into the monastery.
This was the time in which Cabasilas lived. His birth must fall between the years 1300 and 1320. The later date is more acceptable. The publisher of the Commentary on the Eucharistic Liturgy, Jacques Paul Migne called him Metropolitan of Thessalonica. Historians following Migne continued to attribute Cabasilas this title. Lately, however, researchers have reviewed the Migne title. So the noted Byzantine historian A. A. Vasiliev in the revised edition of his monumental History of the Byzantine Empire corrected his earlier view and flatly stated that Nicholas Cabasilas was never Metropolitan of any city.18
It is known that Cabasilas belonged to an old distinguished family of Thessalonian-landed aristocracy. His uncle on the mother's side was an Archbishop of Thessalonica and Cabasilas took his name. Besides the Commentary on the Liturgy, Nicholas Cabasilas is the author of the noted work Concerning Life in Christ in seven books, published by Migne in the same volume ofPatrologia Grecae where the Commentary on the Liturgy was published.19 Of his other writings is known a treaty against usury. He advised the Empress (probably wife of Andronicus III, Anne, the Princess of Savoy) on the acceptable rate of interest. He had authored also several polemical speeches or sermons. One of his works, apparently not known to Migne, Discourse (Logos) concerning Illegal Acts of Officials Daringly Committed against Things Sacred is published and discussed by Ihor Shevehenko in his essay "Nicholas Cabasilas' ?Anti-Zealot' Discourse: A Reinterpretation."20 From this Discourse it is possible to conclude that Cabasilas might have been a lawyer.
Mystic as he was, he was much involved in the worldly affairs of his time. He had closely associated himself with the house of John Cantacuzenus in the struggle for the throne in Constantinople and thus with the aristocratic cause and the hesychasts against the party of Zealots. In the above mentioned Discourse, he passionately defended the inviolability of monastic and any ecclesiastical landed property as sacred against infringement by the government and the Zealots. Some scholars assume that he must have been in Cantacuzenus' service. Virtually all we know about him is connected with the Cantacuzenus struggle.
Cabasilas does not discuss the process of the formation and the development of the Liturgy. For him there is One Liturgy from the beginning to the end. Upon reading his Commentary an impression may arise that he regards every word of the Liturgy as if God inspired. There is nothing to add to it, nothing to change in it. On the other hand he admits that certain ceremonies in the Liturgy fulfill no practical purpose, but only serve a figurative meaning (Sections 1 and 6). But then, of course, the whole Liturgy has a figurative meaning.
The Commentary is divided into 53 uneven sections. The sections in general do not correspond to thie separate components of the Liturgy. They deal with the components arbitrarily. Cabasilas treats the components selectively. Several components, like the Cherubicon, are not mentioned at all. He discusses the ceremony which is known as the Great Entrance (Section 24) during which the Cherubicon is sung, but not a word about the Cherubicon, though in the eyes of many Western and Eastern theologians, the Cherubicon exhibits the central theme of the Eucharist Liturgy. In general, Cabasilas concentrates rather on the description of the priest's actions, what the priest is doing in the rituals, than on his words.
It seems Cabasilas distinguishes two ways in which the participants receive and preserve holiness through the Liturgy. One way is through prayers, psalms (participation in singing the psalms), and reading the Scriptures. Another way is through the commemoration of Christ's life on earth -- his coming into the world, his earthly ministry, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, and his second coming. Cabasilas asks: what do we commemorate? How do we remember the Lord in our Liturgy? Which of his actions, which stages of his life are called to mind? In other words what are we to recall concerning him and his life? We commemorate his whole life, but especially we remember his cross, his passion, his death and his resurrection. There is no need to commemorate his miracles? His miracles did not serve the cause of our salvation. They merely served as demonstrations of his power. They were wrought that the men might have faith in Jesus as the true Savior.
Ceremonies performed by the priest symbolize the various stages of Jesus' life. The Gospel book containing the words of God, serves as a symbol of Christ. Reading from the Gospel signifies proclamation of his message. While preparing for the performance of the Liturgy, the priest expresses in words or represents by his gestures all that he knows of Christ's sacrificial life. He shows how Christ began his passion, how he died, how his side was pierced with a lance, and how, as the Gospel tells us, blood and water flowed from the wound (Section. 35). "The aim of these 14 ceremonies is in the first place, as I have shown, to remind us that, just as the priest marks the bread with the emblems of sacrifice, so the Divine happenings were themselves heralded to us beforehand" (Section. 35).
The celebration of the Liturgy then likens to an unique portrayal of Christ's life. By taking part in the Liturgy we imitate Christ's life, we follow him, we witness his life, his proclamation of the Gospel, his suffering, his death and his resurrection, and we anticipate his return. The participants can say--we have been there, we listened to his words, we saw him on the cross, we witnessed his resurrection and his ascension. And we have become aware of his Second Coming.
In the Liturgy Christ's redemptive work rolls before our eyes, like a film on a reel. His life becomes an object of our contemplation and our faith in him. The participation in the Liturgy renews, preserves and increases our faith which already exists in us and makes it and our love stronger. We have been with Christ. But just as during his earthly ministry not all people who listened to his Gospel and followed him, became aware of his message and some even turned against him in disbelief, the same may happen now. Some while being present at the Liturgy may turn away from him in disbelief.
The consecration of the offerings is not the work of human doings. The consecration operates by God's grace alone. It cannot be invalidated by any human misdoing, or hindered by the wickedness of men. But the participants must be ready to respond to the grace, to accept the grace in faith. The response and acceptance require active participation in the Liturgy. The participants cannot remain passive, indifferent while Christ's life and his Gospel unfold before us.
Cabasilas said in his Commentary that the thoughts and reflections worthy of the Divine Liturgy are necessary to establish and preserve holiness in us (Section 41). Thus the liturgical performance and the participation by faithful do not appear in themselves to be a godly and holy act that sanctify the celebrant and the participants. While it is true that the consecration is operated by God's grace alone, but it is also true that it requires a personal, active response on t