Saturday, July 8, 2023

July 9 , 2023 Sixth Sunday after Pentecost Scripture from Lectionary thoughts

 July-9: Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

Evening :St. Luke 17: 1-10
Morning :St. Mark 6: 30- 52
Before Holy Qurbana
Exodus 30: 34-38 , Psalms 20
Isaiah 14: 22-27
Holy Qurbana
Acts 1: 15- 20 , I Corinthians 8: 1-6
St. Matthew 15: 32-39

or 

Evening :St. Luke 17: 1-10
Morning :St. Mark 6: 30- 46
Before Holy Qurbana
Exodus 30: 34-38 , Joshua 10:33-37 , 2 Samuel 3:17- 21 
Isaiah 14: 22-27
Holy Qurbana
Acts 1: 15- 20 , I Corinthians 8: 1-8
St. Luke 13:22-35  

I often marvel at how the Church arrange the Scripture Readings connecting the Old Testament , Epistle and Gospel Readings to a theme.  This week, I could notice a theme of need to discerning what is pleasing to God ,be humble in knowing our limitations and yet be ready to act upon it for His glory.  

OT reading from Exodus  30:34- 38 appear pointing towards the Church to be the fragrant perfume, consecrated and sanctified where God will meet His people.  

The second Epistle reading (I Corinthians 8: 1-8) seem to be very significant for the Church then and now to hold on to the faith on who is our God  " ..For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),  yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. "  The portion on food offered to idols appears to be a direct call to each of us within the Church to be non judgemental, kind towards one another and not be the cause for another's faith to falter. 

The Gospel reading (St. Matthew 15: 32-39) shows hour Lord and Saviour had compassion on those who followed him earnestly , understanding their condition and ask his disciples to feed them. It also seem a direct revelation to the Church on how to trust God with what we have and be strong in the assurance that the Lord can bless and multiply them for His work way beyond our imagination and what we can comprehend with our limited knowledge

July 8, 2023



Sunday, June 25, 2023

Scripture Reading - Prayer of Azariah (Fourth Sunday after Pentecost)

Scripture Reading  - Prayer of Azariah (Fourth Sunday after Pentecost)

Prayer of Azariah- (Daniel the Younger 3:24-45)

They walked around in the midst of flames, singing hymns to God and blessing the Lord.

Then Azariah stood still in the fire and prayed aloud: 

“Blessed are You, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise ; and glorious is your name forever !

For you are just in all you have done;

All your works are true and your ways right,  and all your judgments are true.

You have executed true judgments in all you have brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our ancestors ; by a true judgment you have brought all this upon us because of our sins.

For we have sinned  and broken your law in turning away from you ; in all matters we have sinned grievously.

We have not obeyed your commandments, we have not kept them or done what you have commanded us for our own good. 

So all that you have bought upon us ,and all that you have done to us, you have done by a true judgment. 

You have handed us over to our enemies , lawless and hateful rebels, and to an unjust king , the most wicked in all the world. 

And now we cannot open our mouths; we , your servants who worship you, have become a shame and a reproach.

For your name’s sake do not give us up forever, and do not annul your covenant. 

Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham your beloved and for the sake of your servant Isaac and Israel your holy one, to whom you promised to multiply their descendants like the stars of heaven and like the sand on the shore of the sea. 

For we, O Lord, have become fewer than any other nation, and are brought low this day in all the world because of our sins.

In our day, we have no ruler , or prophet , or leader, no burnt offerings, or sacrifice, or incense ,  no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy .

Yet with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, as though it were with burn offerings of ram and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs ; such may our sacrifice be in your sight today , and may we unreservedly follow you, for no shame will come to those who trust in you. 

And now with all our heart we follow you ; we fear you and seek your presence.

Do not put us to shame, but deal with us in your patience and in your abundant mercy. 

Deliver us in accordance with your marvellous works , and bring glory to your name, O Lord. 

Let all who do harm to your servants be put to shame ; let them be disgraced and deprived of all power, and let the strength be broken.

Let them know that you alone are the Lord God, glorious over the whole world. “

-----------------------------

Note: From the Web page of Malankara Orthodox Church, we have a prescribed Scripture reading and a Lectionary. Yet we have a revised Lectionary through MOC Publications available and a Kalpana by HH Baselios Mathoma Paulose II for it to be used from 2016. It is in this that the prayer of Azariah is prescribed as one of the Old Testament readings.  

It is my prayer that respective Bishops of Dioceses and the Synod will raise the importance on the need of consistency and discipline on this matter to the clergy to use one version and return back to the basics on the  expectation of laity to have read and meditate upon these Scriptures readings prior to coming to Church.


Tuesday, April 4, 2023

Excerpts from published talks ( Shared from Transfigured in the Night - The Life and Teachings of Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra by Monk Maximos (Constas) and the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood)

Opening the Doors of Our Hearts

When someone interrupts our routine, it seems a terrible intrusion, and we get very ruffled by it. Isn’t it odd? We desperately long for someone else to approach us, to speak to us, to love us, to fill our solitude, to unite with us, but as soon as someone does, we can’t wait to get rid of them. We reject them immediately, pass judgment on them, speak to them with anger and contempt, presume to tell them what to do, say “no” to them, and in general do whatever we can to let them know that their presence bothers us. And we find hundreds of ways of telling them: “Go away. Leave me alone. Don’t intrude on my solitude.”
And everything bothers you; everything annoys you. The way people look, the sound of their voice, the way they walk, or because they’re too short or too tall, or because their nose is like this or that, or because their eyebrows are too high or too low. Any little thing is enough to ruin your day, and, after all that, all you want to do is run away. And what is all this, if not hell for the damned?
And why have they gone to hell? Because they didn’t want paradise. Hell is exactly what they were looking for, and exactly what they found. But whenever we want, our heart can open and at once the great transformation will take place. And this is an opening to the spiritual fire, to the Holy Spirit, to Christ, to God. Do we want this? Will we unlock our heart? It all depends on whether we want to love God, or continue loving ourselves. And if we do decide to
stop living on our own, and throw open up the doors for the light to enter, then we’ll discover that, while we were looking for God, we also found our fellow man, for now we realize that there are people all around us. 

Spiritual Lethargy

Another problem we have is that we tire easily. When it comes to worldly pursuits, our energy knows no bounds, but we grow weary very quickly when God is concerned. Those who chase after wealth or glory never tire of doing so. Others pursue sensual pleasures, tirelessly chasing after sin. But even the thought of running after God leaves us feeling fatigued. We get tired, and then we forget, and then we’re led astray by the world. But then something happens to make us think of God, and so we make promises and resolutions, but, after a little while, forget all about them, and so it goes round and round. But think about the material things you’re chasing after and accumulating in great piles: they’re all banal, fleeting, and utterly without meaning.

If you are able to see this, then sink the eyes of your soul deep into your heart—be it ever so twisted or perverted—and ask God to take over. Hovering over the chaos of your life, God will shine His light (cf. Gen. 1:3), and the abyss of hell that was in you will be transformed into heaven. God is humble, and will not shrink from entering into your sinful heart in order to rescue you from sin. That’s God! And only God can do this. No one and nothing else in this world can raise you from your state of death. There is no other cure for your wound, no other remedy for what ails you. In whatever you do, choose the path of humility, and God will glorify you. 


Preparation for the Jesus Prayer

Now, if we wish to devote ourselves to the Jesus Prayer, we must also recognize that we have a problem. We are imprisoned within the confines of our worries and concerns. We are always in a hurry. We get tired. We become disillusioned. We live with stress, we are troubled by disturbing thoughts, by our passions, by inner storms. In order to sleep, we need to be on the point of exhaustion; and in order to be happy, we have to listen to music, or find some other amusement. This is no life at all! It tires us out, and doesn’t allow us to pray as much and in the way that we want.
This is why the Fathers assure us that the words of God “refresh and strengthen the soul, as wine strengthens the body.” Know that the word of God is to be found both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers. We must diligently study both; and among the latter, the Ascetic Fathers particularly. We must likewise always be attentive to our work, not squandering our strength needlessly, but expending it responsibly on the duties which are before us. In this way our life will become a
daily spiritual exercise, and, coupled with spiritual study, will smooth the ground of the soul, rendering it capable of rising upward.

Love for God

The closer you are to God, the more you love Him. And our desire for God knows no satiety; it is something that can never be completed or exhausted. Love finds its perfection, not in this life, but in the next, and this means that perfect love should always be a perfect dissatisfaction.
“To love” means to find no final satisfaction in the things of the world, and thus it expresses both our movement toward, and the distance which still remains, between us and God. The extent of our love, then, can be measured by the duration of our weeping. It can be measured to the extent to which we’ve been reduced to nothing in the infinity of God, and by our attempts to make God our own and to comprehend Him. And this measure can be grasped, not by any intellectual calculation, but only through the experience of suffering and love. 

Marriage

When you see difficulties in your marriage, when you see that you’re making no progress in your spiritual life, don’t despair. But neither should you be content with whatever progress you may have already made. Lift up your heart to God. Imitate those who have given everything to God, and do what you can to be like them, even if all you can do is to desire in your heart to be like them. Leave the action to Christ. And when you advance in this way, you will truly sense what is the purpose of marriage. Otherwise, as a blind person wanders about, so too will you wander in life.… 
It is an adulteration of marriage for us to think that it is a road to happiness, as if it were a denial of the Cross. The joy of marriage is for husband and wife to put their shoulders to the wheel and together go forward on the uphill road of life. “You haven’t suffered? Then you haven’t loved,” says a certain poet. Only those who suffer can really love. And that’s why sadness is a necessary feature of marriage. “Marriage,” in the words of an ancient philosopher, “is a world made beautiful by hope, and strengthened by misfortune.” Just as steel is fashioned in a furnace, just so is a person proved in marriage, in the fire of difficulties…Marriage, then, is a journey through sorrows and joys. When the sorrows seem overwhelming, then you should remember that God is with you. He will take up your cross. It was He who placed the crown of marriage on your head. But when we ask God about something, He doesn’t always supply the solution right away. He leads us forward very slowly. Sometimes He takes years. We have to experience pain, otherwise, life would have no meaning. But be of good cheer, for Christ is suffering with you, and the Holy Spirit, “through your groanings is pleading on your behalf” (cf. Rom. 8:26).…

Marriage is a road: it starts out from the earth and ends in heaven. It is a joining together, a bond with Christ, Who assures us that He will lead us to heaven, to be with Him always. Marriage is
a bridge leading us from earth to heaven. It is as if the sacrament is saying: Above and beyond love, above and beyond your husband, your wife, above the everyday events, remember that you are destined for heaven, that you have set out on a road which will take you there without fail. The bride and the bridegroom give their hands to one another, and the priest takes hold of them both, and leads them round the table dancing and singing. Marriage is a movement, a progression, a journey which will end in heaven, in eternity.
In marriage, it seems that two people come together. However, it’s not two but three. The man marries the woman, and the woman marries the man, but the two together also marry Christ. So three take part in the mystery, and three remain together in life.
In the dance around the table, the couple are led by the priest, who is a type of Christ. This means that Christ has seized us, rescued us, redeemed us, and made us His. And this is the “great mystery” of marriage (cf. Gal. 3:13)


Suffering

At the beginning, after the Fall, man himself sensed and realized that what had appeared as a curse—namely, God’s decision that he should live by the sweat of his brow, bear children with pain, and rediscover paradise through many tribulations (Acts 14:22)—hid what
was in fact God’s love, that it comprised a way and means for man’s second creation, for His renewal [of man] who had fallen away and was dying. On maturing, man recognized in his sufferings, in his labor and sweat, and even in his death, that his pain encompassed a means of
expression, a living possibility for his presenting and revealing himself to God, of confessing to Him his longing for the deification now lost.

This is to say that he, man, found no better way of expressing his yearning for deification than by suffering pain for the sake of God. Man, indeed, longs to become a god. But the one language capable of asking for his restoration to fellowship with God is the language of sacrifice, the fully vivid and living language of suffering for Christ, for the sake of God’s Kingdom. Suffering thus becomes a necessary element of the human soul, innate, instinctive in it, the very stuff out of
which we construct our relationship with God. It is out of sufferings, trials, and ordeals that the soul approaches God. It thus loves God the more, becomes more fully dependent on Him…. God does not heal the soul by any other method so much as by pain, by labor and travail, in order that He may give us life in exchange for our voluntary death.
Spiritual Study

Don’t try to find in Holy Scripture prescriptions and rules for your life. At the same time, rid yourself of the desire to insert your own thought into the text. You should be reading to learn what God says, and God will inspire you. And you should accept whatever God tells you. But perhaps now you’re thinking to yourself that all of this is a bit naïve; that such things don’t have a place in the modern world. What you say might be fine for people living in monasteries,
you’ll tell me, but we’ve got things to do, jobs to go to, problems to deal with. I see. So the Christian life is only for monks and nuns?...
The notion that it’s no longer possible to apply the truths of Christianity to our lives is like nitric acid. I’ve heard that if you throw a little of it onto a flower, it will shrivel up and die. That’s how such a notion affects our life. The Holy Scriptures are for us, the writings of the Fathers are for us, not simply for monks. They have their peace and quiet, they have their safe harbor, they have everything taken care of for them. We’re the ones in the middle of the fight, in the middle of the storm, we’re the ones pursued by the devil. And it is to us who Christ comes, in the midst of all our difficulties, to provide us with these spiritual weapons, which are called spiritual books.

Detachment

When some urgent business compels you to drive somewhere quickly, you don’t inspect the car to see if it’s new, or what sort of incidental feature it has, but what concerns you is getting to your
destination. So it is with the saints, who never deviate from their purpose.
They are attached to nothing in the world. They love nothing in the world. They await only Christ. And He purifies them: He purifies their heart. Then, as St. Symeon told us, he illumines their souls and grants them the vision of God. God appears before their very eyes.

Saturday, November 26, 2022

Fr. V.C Samuel - Blessed Memory 25 Year - On Chalcedon - 2

 Blessed Fr. V.C Samuel of Memory Eternal. Those who have known him would say that Fr. Samuel with utter conviction to his thoughts cultivated to live by example in his Personal life and vocation as Priest, Teacher and Servant of God and the Church. 

One of the most important topic dear to Fr. V.C Samuel's heart was the need of the Church to go beyond divisions that arose out of the historical councils and separated to Non Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian bodies currently known as 'Oriental Orthodox' and 'Eastern Orthodox'. It was so important to him that he revisited his book ' The Council of Chalcedon Re- Examined 'and added notes , concluding observations and what he felt very relevant to our own contemporary times. 

Through  Divine providence , posthumously with the help of E.J Varghese of V.C Samuel Ecumenical Forum and Fr. Peter Farrington of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Fr. V. C  Samuel's reflections in ' The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined' could be republished  in 2001. 

As we enter the 25th year of commemorating Fr. V.C  Samuel's  repose, some of us believe that while committed to Orthodox Christian faith, his most original and revolutionary thoughts have yet to be understood and find more of its place in the worship, service, and common witness in the life with Christ in the Church. It is my prayer that the study on Chalcedon will be read, understood and applied going beyond peripheral discussions  to bear fruitful results for God's glory. These are some concluding observations by Fr. Samuel.

November 18, 2022 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concluding Observations

2. The Relevance of the Discussion in contemporary Context 

The Christological controversy belongs admittedly to the ancient Church history. A study in depth of that phase of ecclesiastical history should be of contemporary significance at least in three ways.

a) From an Ecumenical Perspective

The Christological controversy, as we have noted, was the apparent cause of the division of eastern Christianity into three bodies.Following the split in the fifth century, each of them looked upon them others as heretical and broke off communion with them. 

Was this action justified? The question is indeed very important. The ascription of heresy, for instance, would seem to assume that at the time of the division there existed a universally acknowledged norm of Orthodoxy in the Church. Is it a fact that such a norm was there in the Church during the fifth century? As we have shown, we have evidence that subsequent to the council of Ephesus in 431 there emerged two positions which had a bearing on this question. Thus the Alexandrines maintained  that orthodoxy required continuity with the creed of Nicea. But the Antiochenes were not willing to endorse the council of 431 in its totality; they accepted that council only insofar as it had been approved by the Reunion of 433. In that situation the council of Chalcedon paid no attention to these conflicting views, but offered the Tome of Leo and the council's own definition as the norm of orthodoxy. However, these are the very things which the non-Chalcedonian side strongly criticized and rejected. As for the Church of the East which perpetuates the memory of Nestorius and other Antiochene theologians, it took no cognizance of the council of 451. If we take these facts into account, we shall see that in ascribing heresy by each of the three bodies to the others, it was not assuming a norm of orthodoxy which had been admitted by all of them prior to the division. In other words , none of these ecclesiastical traditions has a legitimate basis to look upon the others as heretical.

The churches are, however, disunited and an effective means of helping them to regain their lost unity is indeed a need. In fact, Rome had tried, on the strength of its claim of universal supremacy over the Church, to solve problems by creating uniate churches with converts from members of these communities to its adherence. Although this plan had a limited amount of success in very few areas of eastern Christianity what has been accomplished is not worth reckoning. The problem needs a satisfactory solution on the strength of an objective and positive  evaluation of the history of that division as well as of the doctrinal position conserved by each of these churches. It is an effort towards this end that we have tried to fulfil by means of this study. 

(b) From the perspective of Ecclesiastical Authority

If there was no agreed norm of Orthodoxy at the time of the division , was there not ecclesiastical authority to be reckoned with? Pope Leo , for instance claimed for his Tome divine inspiration through Petrine succession, and the Chalcedonian body in the east maintained that the Holy Spirit had lead the council of Chalcedon, as also other ecumenical councils, to conserve the faith in its purity. In both cases the question at issue has reference to ecclesiastical authority, which indeed is a subject of real importance for the Church at all times, including our own. 

Two positions are noted here. Firstly that there is the emphasis that as the linear successor of Apostle Peter, the bishop of Rome has a direct personal access to the secrets of the chief of the Apostles and through him to the mind of the incarnate God the Son himself, and that for this reason he is invested with special authority to interpret the faith inerrantly by himself, without any external assistance. Secondly, It is insisted that as an ecumenical council the Chalcedonian assembly has made a declaration of the faith which should be considered binding on the whole Church. Concillar authority, in fact, is not taken in any agreed sense. Whereas some church traditions tried to make out that  by the very act of deciding an issue the ecumenical council speaks authoritatively, others would maintain only that  authority of a conciliar decision depend upon the truth content which it conserves. Those who hold the latter view would assert that all the recognized ecumenical councils have made doctrinal decisions which have been validated as conserving Christian truth.

Our point here is not to discuss the issue of ecclesiastical authority by defending or criticizing either of the two foregoing views, but to observe that in the light of the facts which we have brought out about the council of Chalcedon and other councils neither of these claims can be supported in an unqualified sense. Therefore, neither the Christological controversy nor the councils which discussed the issue in olden times can be legitimately cited as worthy precedents pointing to the way in which ecclesiastical authority should be properly exercised. 

In saying this we do not imply that the story of Chalcedon ipso facto disproves the papal claims of Rome or the eastern claims of conciliar authority. It is a fact, however, that like the issue concerning norms of orthodoxy, the question of how ecclesiastical authority should be exercised had no agreed tradition in the Church. Whereas the east in general adopts the theory of conciliar authority as the final arbiter in ecclesiastical matters, Rome add to it papal supremacy over the Church. Both these positions are unclear in regard to a number of points. The papal theory, has to substantiate the claim that Apostle Peter had a knowledge of the mind of Christ with reference to any doctrinal dispute which may arise in the Church, and that this is inherited by the bishops of Rome. As for the conciliar theory, the fact that it has not clarified itself concerning its composition and nature of its authority. Should, for instance, bishops have the right of membership in a council? It is a fact that the custom of only bishops constituting a council is not older than the council of Chalcedon. Even there the presiding officers were state officials, not even ordained men, and there were clergymen of non-episcopal ranks actively involved in council's proceedings. It should also be remembered that the ancient councils did not arrive at their decisions by the procedure of vote-taking by bishops alone. In the light of such facts what we can say is that Church had different traditions with reference to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority. In the contemporary setting of the Church these should be brought together with appropriate modifications in each of them. The council of Chalcedon and other ecclesiastical assemblies of olden times do, as a matter of fact, point their finger to this need.

As regards the exercise of ecclesiastical authority we should bear in mind a number of facts. In the first place, both the bishop of Rome himself and the bishops who take part in councils whether as individual persons or as a body are children of their own age. We have no basis for believing that through papal enthronement or episcopal consecration they have been able to transcend their human limitations in knowledge, prejudice or conditions of life. Secondly, in the real sense belong by nature to God alone. Any authority in the Church is derived from Him, and it is granted for carrying out of his plan and purpose. Therefore all ecclesiastical authority should conform to the divine plan and mandate in its exercise. Thirdly, ecclesiastical decisions, whether doctrinal or administrative, are bound to be relative to the times and conditions in which they are made. Through the value of the principle underlying them should be recognized whenever possible and necessary, the decisions themselves cannot be insisted on for acceptance of the Church for all times and for ever. In making this point, it should be recalled that the Chalcedonian side has modified its stand with reference to at least three positions which the council of 451 has adopted

I. the decision concerning Theoderet of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa 

II. whereas Chalcedon had practically ignored the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril, the council of 553 proceeded on assumption that the council of 451 had in fact recognized the document as fully authoritative; and

III.although Chalcedon had excluded the phrase ' from two natures' and 'one incarnate nature of God the Word , the Chalcedonian side declared the orthodox, and acceptable in 6th Century

IV. With reference to councils of 553 and 680-681 ,we have seen both of them had most deplorably misrepresented the Christological position of non-Chalcedonian side. 

In claiming these and similar councils to be ecumenical and authoratitive, these facts about them cannot be ignored. They show that none of them was in itself inerrant, and that no authority can be ascribed to them in an unqualified sense. They are, in fact, ecclesiastial assemblies held in particular contexts subject to their limitations. What is of value in them consists in the principles of the faith which they may have to sought to safeguard. With their positive contributions and failures, they belong to Christian history. Conserving the principles of value found in them and rejecting the mistakes which they may have committed, we shall try to face our responsibilities in our contemporary situations. For this ,there is no need for insisting on a judicial acceptance of any council by a church tradition which had rejected it in the past. 

Our point here may be made clear in this way.Whereas the ancient Church of Persia does not recognize the councils of the fifth century and those held in later times, and whereas the non-Chalcedonian side does not accept the councils of 451, 553 and 680-81, the Chalcedonian side claims to stand in the tradition set up by these councils in continuation of the council of 431. The real point of this claim is not that the Chalcedonian side includes them in its list of accepted councils. The legal acceptance of a council does not mean anything unless it implies the endorsement of the doctrinal principle affirmed by that council. The only legitimate sense in which a council can be said to be accepted is thus the admitting the faith which it is believed to have safeguarded. Viewed in this way, the difference among the three traditions into which the Church came to be split on account of the Christological controversy is not really insurmountable. Even with reference to the second council of Ephesus in 449 which the non-Chalcedonian side considers acceptable, although Chalcedon tried to make out that it had been excluded summarily , the fact is that almost all its decisions bearing on the faith of the Church have been ratified by the council of 553 implicitly, and they continue alive in both the Chalcedonian and non- Chalcedonian sides. 

 c) In the Light of Church's Faith

The real issue then is the Church's faith in the person of Jesus Christ. It is , in fact as old as Christianity itself. The synoptic gospels record how our Lord asked the disciples who, in their view, he was, and how Peter made the famous confession that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This same answer is implied in the New Testament writings in a real sense. Following the New Testament times, the fathers of the Church continued in the process by further expounding the faith. In carrying on the work they relied primarily on the rule of faith, which for them signified the Church's deposit of faith

The work which these men had done in their respective generations, which guided the Church more than anything else, should be viewed as much from the point of view of the method they used as from that of the content  which they sought to conserve. Both these aspects of their work are indeed important.

i) The Method

Theological expositions of the ancient Church were carried on within the cultural and intellectual settings of those times. In interpreting the faith they took over in varying degrees and concepts current in the Graeco-Roman religious and intellectual world. But they were not doing this by uncritically adopting a syncretistic attitude in regards to the Christian confession. They tried, on the other hand, to remain faithful to the rule of faith which they reckoned to be based on the Apostolic preaching, as also the reality of a life of worship and discipline that had been developed on its foundation. Thus in their theological undertaking they followed a method aimed at safeguarding the essential character of Christianity. 

The developing of a similar method whereby to conserve the faith on the one hand and to communicate it intelligently on the other is indispensable for the Church in every age. The cultural and intellectual conditions of the twentieth century are certainly not in the same as those of the times in which the ancient theologians and Church fathers lived and worked. Even in our day they are not the same for the European and the Indian or for the American and African. Corresponding to difference in culture and other conditions there should be different expressions of Christianity. In fact, the Church in every age and in every geographical area should be able to work out its own method of communication of the faith and patterns of life , without diluting or distorting the faith itself. Faced with this task, the Church can see in the method adopted by ancient theologians a worthy lesson of contemporary significance. 

ii) The Content

All the three bodies into which the Church came to be split on account of the Christological controversy are agreed in affirming that Jesus Christ is the one and only definitive saviour of the world. They differ only in the interpretation of how he is to be so affirmed. 

This fact may be illustrated by referring to the three positions. The Chalcedonian side affirms, both in its Byzantine eastern and Thomistic western traditions,that Jesus Christ is the saviour of the world, because He is God the Son who has united human nature to himself by becoming its person. God the Son, one of the Holy Trinity, gave himself as the activating agent of the human nature in Christ. Thus the reality that underlies all men and women who constitute the whole human race has been united to himself by God the Son- an emphasis which is found in all the three traditions. This in incarnation, and the person of the saviour is the eternal person of God the Son. The Antiochene side does not go all the way with this emphasis. It maintains that God the Son, one of the Holy Trinity, raised the human through one member of the race to a union with himself, though without undergoing a descent on his part, and thus he is the saviour of the world. The non-Chalcedonian position affirms that God the Son, one of the blessed Trinity united manhood to himself. In the union the manhood is not impersonal, though not a person parallel to the person of God the Son. He is a compound person, God the Son integrating in himself the personal reality of the manhood. Jesus Christ is therefore God the Son in his incarnate state, and as such the saviour of the world. 

Each of these positions is bound to raise questions, and none of them can be considered throughly without flaw from a strictly intellectual perspective. This itself is an indication that the issue need reappraisal. The fact, however, is that all of the continue in the living stream of Church's doctrinal heritage. Reckoning with their existence, we should proceed on the basis to expound the faith meaningfully to our generation.

(Contd...)

Friday, November 18, 2022

Fr. V.C Samuel - Blessed Memory 25 Year - On Chalcedon - 1

Blessed Fr. V.C Samuel of Memory Eternal. Those who have known him would say that Fr. Samuel with utter conviction to his thoughts cultivated to live by example in his Personal life and vocation as Priest, Teacher and Servant of God and the Church. 

One of the most important topic dear to Fr. V.C Samuel's heart was the need of the Church to go beyond divisions that arose out of the historical councils and separated to Non Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian bodies currently known as 'Oriental Orthodox' and 'Eastern Orthodox'. It was so important to him that he revisited his book ' The Council of Chalcedon Re- Examined 'and added notes , concluding observations and what he felt very relevant to our own contemporary times. 

Through  Divine providence , posthumously with the help of E.J Varghese of V.C Samuel Ecumenical Forum and Fr. Peter Farrington of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Fr. V. C  Samuel's reflections in ' The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined' could be republished  in 2001. 

As we enter the 25th year of commemorating Fr. V.C  Samuel's  repose, some of us believe that while committed to Orthodox Christian faith, his most original and revolutionary thoughts have yet to be understood and find more of its place in the worship, service, and common witness in the life with Christ in the Church. It is my prayer that the study on Chalcedon will be read, understood and applied going beyond peripheral discussions  to bear fruitful results for God's glory. These are some concluding observations by Fr. Samuel.

November 18, 2022 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Concluding Observations

1. Our Findings

In the light of the facts we have discussed in the present study we can make the following remarks with reference to the Christological controversy

a) What Christian theology refers to as 'Nestorianism' is the misleading position which the Antiochene interpretation of the position of the person of Jesus Christ came to be understood to affirm. Neither Nestorius himself nor any of the men recognized as leaders of the Antiochene school may have held it in any extreme form. In the same way ' Euthychianism' or 'Monophysitism' is a distorted version of the Alexandrine Christology. The evidence which we have is not really adequate to insist that Eutyches had maintained it. Since, however, he was not capable of bringing out his view clearly, no defence of the man is necessary to be undertaken. It should be stressed, at the same time that neither Cyril of Alexandria nor any of the recognized theologians and Church fathers of the Non- Chalcedonian side including Dioscorus of Alexandria has ever been guilty of asserting it. 

b) At a time when the Church in the Mediterranean and the middle eastern world was more or less united, a synthesis of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene positions was felt to be indeed desirable. The fact, however is that it was not possible to be worked out even in those ancient times. For one thing, each position had become so deeply established in certain areas, that neither side was willing to work for a rapprochement. 

The reunion of 433, for instance, was an incident which could be taken by the parties concerned as a basis on which to arrive at a synthesis. But each side took it as a stepping stone to advance all its emphases to the exclusion of those of the other. In this, to be sure, the Alexandrine side was much stronger than that of the Antiochenes. Chalcedon, on its part, reversed this situation, by going beyond what had been granted by the reunion of 433 in asserting the phrase 'in two natures' . After Chalcedon also the same thing happened in connection with the Henotikon of Zeno. Although it had been issued as an instrument whereby to bring the parties to unity, those who accepted the document on either side took it only as an immediate step from which to assert their respective points of view, without paying heed to the opinions of their opponents. 

c) At Chalcedon, although Rome's concern was only with making the council accept the Tome of Leo without questioning and seeing that its theology was adopted as the Church's doctrinal standard, the imperial authority was keen to have a formula of the faith drawn up by a committee consisting of men belonging to the various provinces of the Church, thereby bringing unity to the empire. Here the state leadership was guided by political considerations, and not theological interest, combined with the issue of human prestige. 

d) In insisting on an acceptance of the Tome of Leo so uncompromisingly, Rome was led as much by the idea of pressing of its papal claims as by the desire of sharing its understanding of the faith as it had conserved in the theological tradition of the church in the west. But in so doing, pope Leo showed no understanding of the Christological controversy of the east, nor did he base his theological interpretation on the decisions of the earlier councils reckoned as ecumenical. In the same way, the imperial authority in Constantinopole had no sympathy either for the council of Ephesus in 431 or for the tradition of the Alexandrine fathers. The plan of the emperor and the empress was to befriend Rome against Alexandria with a view to raising Constantinople, the capital of the empire, to the a position of leadership in Church , secondly only to Rome. Since the western see and imperial authority in Constantinople, who controlled the Chalcedonian, had each of them its own plan to carry out through it - a plan which surely had no bearing on the Christological question - neither of them had any difficulty in misrepresenting the point of view of the council's opponents in the most amazing manner, without showing even a shred of evidence in its support. 

e) Pressed from the side of Rome on the one hand, and from the imperial authority on the other, the synodical committee produced a definition of the faith which was a sort of compromise formula, evading the central problem facing the Church at that time. Although it satisfied Rome and the men of Antiochene side, it came to be opposed by the Alexandrines who had not taken part in the council of 451. To be sure, both Rome and emperors had misjudged the hold which the Alexandrine theology had in the east. The opposition to the council was so vehement and determined that the Chalcedonian position had to be defended on the other hand by a ruthless programme of persecution let loose on the council's opponents by the emperors of Constantinople, and on the other by reading into them the monophysite heresy inspite of their disclaiming it in clear terms. Neither of these measures helped the Chalcedon side to bring the entire eastern church to its adherence, in fact, the efforts of Justinian and some of the successors to effect a reunion did not materialize because of the simple reason that the Chalcedonian side would not give up the council and the Non- Chalcedonian side would have nothing to do it. 

f) Faced with the challenge of the council's opponents, the Chalcedonian side in the east undertook to work out a Christological position from the beginning of the sixth century. It was essentially the same as that already developed by the council's critics on the foundation of the theological tradition maintained by the Alexandrine fathers, with the significant difference that it defended the council of 451 and the formula of ' in two natures', while both these were rejected by the opponents of the council. But in allowing this development, the Chalcedonian side ,though it kept to the phrase 'in two natures' moved away from Chalcedon's compromising attitude towards the Antiochene theological emphases. In fact, if by so doing, the Chalcedonian side adopted an interpretation of the person of Christ, ignoring the hypostatic character his manhood, or accommodating the Julianistic ideas, it is more anti-Nestorian and anti-Antiochene than the Christology of men like Severus of Antioch on the non-Chalcedonian side. 

g) The obvious conclusion is that by defending the council of Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian side did not really achieve anything for orthodoxy which the non-Chalcedonian side, while rejecting that council, had not all along maintained consistently as their doctrinal standpoint. Therefore, the issue between the two sides was, at best, only one of expressing reservation by either side, regarding the language asserted by the other. If the two sides, are willing to go beyond the terminologies, it will not be impossible for them to accept an agreed formula, and on its basis to work for the restoration of their lost unity. 

h) There is however, one idea insisted on by John of Damascus, following the tradition of earlier theologians recognized by the Chalcedonian side, which the non-Chalcedonian side has not developed in the same way. This has reference to the affirmation that the manhood of Christ was from the moment of its formation in union with God the Son divinized. Linked intimately with the theory of enhypostasia, this view takes the manhood as 'nature' or physis without its own hypostasis. Since, as we have already noted, the manhood has the hypostasis of God the Son as its own hypostasis, it is the same God the Son who performs what is human as well as what is divine. For this reason, the manhood of Christ is divinized, The divinization of Christ's manhood in this sense is not the teaching of the non-Chalcedonian side. In their view, the manhood which is individuated and therefore hypostatic, has become the humanity of God the Son and for this reason it is filled with divine glory.

i) Between the Chalcedonian position as it came to be worked out in the east from the sixth century and the tradition conserved by Antiochene side, stands the Christological teaching of the non- Chalcedonian side. If the last two positions can get over old prejudices, they will be able to reach a theological agreement on the question of Christ's person between them more easily than the first two positions. In fact, unless the Chalcedonian side comes to realize the value of the personal character of Christ's manhood, it will not appreciate the theological contribution of Antiochene theologians. 

(Contd...)



Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Verses to Memory

"Thus my heart was grieved, And my spirit embittered." " I was so foolish and ignorant" " I was like a beast before You. Nevertheless I am continually with You" 

" You hold me by my right hand." " You will guide me with Your counsel, And afterwards receive me to glory." " Whom have I in heaven, but You? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You. " 

" My flesh and my heart may fail ; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever" 

Psalm 73:21-26 -  Reminder to accept  Christ's Unconditional Love , Shared by Fr. Matthew the Poor.  


Saturday, August 6, 2022

Mission of Church awaits

 It is my prayer that we become the Mission of the Church - Each of us as Individuals ,Families and Communities in where the Lord has brought us to remain.  Sharing an extract from 'Building Up the Body of Christ -The Treasure of the Armenian Church for Our People Today ' by Bishop Daniel Findikyan to the Armenian Eastern Diocese.(Pages 13,14)

Building Up the Body of Christ: The Treasure of the Armenian Church for Our People Today

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"..Only in the last thirty years did the diocese frame an official mission statement to guide the ministry of the Eastern Diocese: The mission of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church is to preach the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and to proclaim its message of salvation. This mission is realized through worship, education, witness, service, and the common life in Christ as expressed in the distinctive faith-experience of the Armenian people. All members of the Armenian Church—both clergy and lay—are called to participate fully in its mission.." 

A much more theologically refined formula is attributed to St. Gregory our Illuminator in his extraordinary catechism, known as 'The Teaching of St. Gregory'

To bring light to all people who come into this world [John 1:9, 3:19, 9:5]; 

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 

While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

To offer repentance of salvation to all [John 3:17]; 

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

To wash all people and deliver them from the chains of darkness by means of baptism.  [Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21]; 

"..Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. " 

But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared,  He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 

To seal all nations as Christ’s inner circle [2 Corinthians 1:22] 

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us,  set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

To make the Spirit of God dwell in people’s hearts [Romans 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:22, Galatians 4:6]

And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us,  set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

To unite and join them to the love of the Son of God [Ephesians 4:16], so that the heart of all might shout out as one, and to unite all the world in saying: “Abba, Father,” so that the name of enslavement might be taken away, and the name of adoption be placed on them by the grace of Christ; [Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6-7] 

From Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.And by Him we cry, “Abba, Father.

Because you are His sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

To enable them to eat the Body of the Son of God and drink the life-giving Blood, [John 6:54] so that thereby they escort the entire world into the inheritance of Christ , to become “heirs of God and fellow heirs of Christ.” [Romans 8:17]

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 6, 2022
Feast of Transfiguration