Articles for tag: Come Receive the Light program, Fr. Chris Metropoulos, Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis, The Heavenly Banquet

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

You are invited to the Heavenly Banquet

This post is a transcript of a recorded interview of Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis by Fr. Chris Metropoulos for the radio show, “Come Receive the Light” on September 22, 2009.

Fr. Chris: A unique new commentary on the Divine Liturgy is now available from Orthodox Witness. The Heavenly Banquet: Understanding the Divine Liturgy, by Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis, was written for all inquiring worshippers. In his Foreword to The Heavenly Banquet, Archbishop Nathaniel says, “No longer will anyone say, ‘I get nothing out of the Liturgy.’” We have with us today Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis, to tell us about his new book and why you will want to read it!

Hello, Fr. Emmanuel. Thank you for this interview.

Fr. Emmanuel: Thank you, Fr. Chris, for having me.

Fr. C: There are already a number of books on the Divine Liturgy. What’s so unique about yours?

Cover of The Heavenly Banquet

Fr. E: To be sure, there are a number of liturgical commentaries written on the subject, both ancient and modern (I refer to all of them in the very first notes of the book). I drew from all of these sources, utilizing what I thought was of interest to our contemporary readership, acknowledging them in appropriate citations. Information was also drawn from many small articles, in print or in electronic form, as well as in other sources where pertinent information was found. A number of good commentaries are in Greek, a couple of which have been translated into English, like the two-volume commentary by Metropolitan Augoustinos (1984) and that by Metropolitan Dionysios (2000), which are very pastoral. A number of other contemporary commentaries are good in certain areas, like those by Fr. Harakas, Dr. Kalellis, Fr. Mastrantonis, Fr. Nasr, Archbishop Paul of Finland, etc.

Fr. C: Now, you used over 300 sources in putting together this book. That’s amazing! What motivated you to invest that amount of time and effort?

Fr. E: Despite the seeming plethora of sources, I perceived an absence of a comprehensive study that would address many questions I had, and that most people have. I purposely placed two quotations by two prominent hierarchs on a page by itself after the book title. It is worthwhile to bring them to our audience.

“If today we lament because of the unfruitfulness and meagerness in the life of our faithful, it is due to the lack of liturgical education and enlightenment.” † Metropolitan Emilianos of Silybria

“[T]he faithful are seldom if ever taught the actual meaning of the actions and words which they see and hear during the Liturgy. How, then, do we expect educated and cultured younger generations to continue to attend the divine services?” † Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

Most of what falls into the people’s hands is brief, contained as an introduction to the text of the Liturgy. Our commentary is the most comprehensive. It can be used as a reference source.

I therefore believe that the book meets a real need.

The entire text of the Divine Liturgy is included, with page numbers where prayers and petitions are commented on.

Another factor that motivated me was what I perceived a need to offer a contemporary commentary, which would provide direct and responsible answers to current questions. The ancient commentaries, like those by St. Germanos, St. Maximos, St. Symeon of Thessalonica, and especially St. Nicholas Cavasilas, are very valuable, but difficult to navigate through and are heavy in symbolism and mysticism. We mention such interpretations, but generally we stick to an approach we call “realistic,” because the words and actions are commented based on the textual and historical witness. We also tried to address current issues. Other commentaries are scholarly, contained in specialized books and articles, like those by Robert Taft, Fr. Schmemann, Fr. Calivas and others.

The language we use is simple, to make it accessible to everyone.

Fr. C: Could you share with our listeners a sample of what readers will find?

Fr. E: The bulk of the text consists in a line-by-line commentary of the entire Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Interspersed are 80 special studies dealing with important issues and expanding on the words and actions of the Divine Liturgy. Many of the notes are valuable, containing important information.

The full text of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is provided. A nice feature about it is that next to each petition and prayer there is a number that refers to the page number where the topic is addressed.

In the extensive Introduction we state concisely what the purpose of the Divine Liturgy is: to unite us with the Theanthropos Christ and to transform our lives. It answers the question, What is the Divine Eucharist, in eight different ways. It is

  • The real presence of God
  • A memorial of His love
  • Our thanksgiving to God the Father
  • A memorial of the Mystical Supper
  • A commemoration of the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross
  • Communion by the faithful of the Body and Blood of our Savior
  • A continuous Pentecost and
  • A foretaste of the Banquet of the Kingdom

It explains that the Divine Eucharist is a meal, even a Heavenly Banquet, it goes over its symbolism and mysticism, it points to its resurrectional and celebratory character, and accentuates its participatory character as well, which constitutes one of the main aims of the book.

Main text, footnotes and Mini Study

Fr. C: One of my favorite elements in the book is the Mini Studies. Can you tell our listeners about them and maybe give a few examples?

Fr. E: The Heavenly Banquet provides answers to a multiplicity of questions. Why do we pray “for our armed forces”? The question leads to a brief examination on the issue of war. The petition, “for favorable weather” leads to an exploration of the issue of God’s involvement in the world; the petition for those “departed from this life before us” leads to a study on the souls; and praying for health leads to a study on miracles. Many other issues are addressed in a similar fashion, including suffering, grace, intercession and veneration of saints, inspiration, judgment, open communion, significance of dogma, and so on.

I would like to single out our proposed version for The Lord’s Prayer (p. 307). The established version (based on the Episcopal Book of Common Prayers) is full of errors and therefore unacceptable. Yet it was recently advanced by the Archdiocese as its “official” version. We believe that our brief commentary (5 ½ pages) on the Lord’s Prayer is of value to anyone.

The Banquet in Heaven

Fr. C: Now, you also address a few sensitive topics. Would you talk a little about that?

Fr. E: Certain touchy topics need to be addressed. The commentary does not balk at addressing difficult and controversial issues: Here is a sampling: Is there grace outside the Church? What about ecumenism? Should we have “open communion” with non-Orthodox Christians? Why do we insist on dogma? What is the relationship of faith and science? Some of our proposed “solutions” may not be agreeable to all (pp. 266-268).

A few sensitive subjects are contained in various notes and studies, like that on the Church (p. 211) and the Unity of faith (p. 302), the reception of converts (p. 153), the “one baptism” given in the One Church (commented upon in the Creed, note 652, p. 211), the subject of liturgical translations (p. 213), the commemoration of the bishop (note 989, p. 293) and the comments on their attire (note 364, pp. 129-131—there is a note probably bishops would not like), etc.

Fr. C: What are the main objectives of your commentary?

Fr. E: The commentary returns to a few points with persistence. Active and joyous participation by the people stands out—participation through a fuller comprehension, by joining in the singing (called a right and a privilege of the people), by praying and, especially, through participation in the holy mysteries.

The commentary insists that the so-called secret prayers be read out loud (nothing is kept secret from the people of God).

Fr. C: Who did you write this book for? What’s your target audience and what do you hope they’ll take away with them from the book?

Fr. E: My target audience is anyone who reads books! Admittedly, this is a limited target these days… Originally the book was conceived for the “average” reader. I had to revise it to the “inquisitive” or “inquiring” reader.

Fr. C: I wonder if this might not be a wonderful introduction to the Liturgy for seekers or visitors to Orthodox churches so they could understand all the symbolism. I mean, you really use easy to understand, modern language to explain these very complex ideas. For example: “it takes guts to raise our eyes and address God.”)

Fr. E: I think converts and catechumens would devour it. It is ideal for study groups.

Fr. C: Do you have anything else to say about your book?

Fr. E: We think that by studying The Heavenly Banquet the Divine Liturgy won’t be boring ever again. This book helps one to pray with understanding, with meaning, with fervor, and with spiritual joy.

I would like to say two words about the publisher, Orthodox Witness. We are an outreach organization founded in 2002. We published this book ourselves, with the assistance of my son, Tony, a professional multimedia specialist and book editor. Perhaps another time, Fr. Chris, you will invite me to share with your audience our organization’s mission, goals and vision.

Fr. C: Are there any other projects or books in the works you’d like to tell us about?

Fr. E: Yes, thank you. Before I do that, allow me to first thank Archbishop Nathaniel for his eloquent and generous Foreword to the book. I’m heavily indebted to him.

I would also like to mention that our organization, Orthodox Witness, has three more books out: the lives of two contemporary holy men, Elder (now Saint) Iakovos of Evia (called The Garden of the Holy Spirit) and Papa Dimitri Gagastathis, The Man of God, and a small treatise by St. Theophan the Recluse, called Preaching Another Christ: An Orthodox View of Evangelicalism. All three have been translated by Prof. Dimitri Kagaris of our group.

As for future works, I’m presently working on a dogmatic treatise on the human nature of Christ. [Now available: Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective –ed.] Years ago I became aware that Orthodox clergy and professors have deviated from the solid tradition of the Church, presenting Christ as having a fallen human nature. The study rebuts this idea as a dangerous heresy. Since this topic is debated by Roman Catholics, Protestants and Adventists, I’m addressing the book to all Christians.

I would also like to publish a comprehensive and practical Guide to Orthodoxy, geared to Protestants. I’m already over 300 pages into it.

Another study presents the Faith out of the early patristic documents, called Our Christian Roots. [a class developed and presented by Fr. E.H., forthcoming online –ed.]

I would also like to complete the music of a Divine Liturgy for youth. It is a liturgy in plain English, with rhythm and melody our young people need. I hope they would love it. Presently they have very little. I would like to find a youth choir to perform it and make a recording. I have also composed a number of Orthodox songs and hymns for children, enough for two CDs. If a choir director is listening he or she can contact me by email, fremmanuel@orthodoxwitness.org.

I’ve also written a few Christmas Plays, which I would like to publish [They have been published and are available as free downloads –ed.]. There are other projects I would like to complete, if the Lord wills and gives me time, strength and good health to do them in my retirement. Perhaps that’s asking a lot.

Fr. C: I wish every success for this worthy book, which I highly recommend, and for all your endeavors.

Fr. E: Thank you, Fr. Chris, very much for putting me on the air.

Photo of author
The Orthodox Witness website is published by Anthony Hatzidakis.

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Whatever shines is not always gold

Editor’s note: This article is a personal account written by Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis about his experience in Italy in the early 1960’s. We publish this article with his consent.

I was not even 20 when my life changed. I became Roman Catholic! I was born and raised in Chania, Crete (Greece) into the Orthodox faith. In my last year of high school I studied Italian with a Franciscan monk. (Like my older brother and many other students we looked in those days to study abroad—Italy, Germany, England.) I even sung Panis Angelicus in his church. The nuns loved it. It never occurred to me to inquire into the RC faith. It was not my Church. I was Orthodox.

Emmanuel while serving in the Greek army.

I went to Italy to study engineering. Instead, in the middle of my second year I happened to walk into a religious bookstore run by the Daughters of St. Paul, a Roman Catholic religious congregation. I was immediately impressed by the religious fervor and zealous missionary spirit of these young, vibrant, educated, and intelligent nuns. This religious congregation was dedicated to spreading the word of God through the modern means of communication. The male congregation was called The Pious Society of St. Paul. A “family” of a total of ten congregations and institutes founded by Don James Alberione, who has now reached beatification (the last step before being declared a saint). They started their “apostolate” primarily in publishing, but soon they moved into recording, production of documentary movies—they even owned and operated radio and TV stations, and much more, all over the world.

After I found out about their mission I became convinced that they were living in the present, whereas we Orthodox lived in the past. What I witnessed in Italy was life-changing. I realized that they were carrying out The Great Commission (Acts 1:8). The goal is to reach the people where they are. When “Come to me” does not work, the good shepherd goes out to seek the stray sheep. The doors of our Orthodox churches were open, but empty of people, especially young people. I saw that the people of these organizations were on the right track, spreading the word in the only way possible: in the language and manner appealing to the culture of the time and place. I had not witnessed anything like it in our Orthodox lands. I was converted almost instantly. I abandoned my studies in engineering and, after a short trip back home to advise my parents of this turn in my life, and as it happens with many converts, I joined The Pious Society of St. Paul. On May 30, 1961, at age 19 and a half, I officially entered the RC Church. Shortly thereafter I took my temporary vows, with the intention of eventually becoming a monk and a priest. The irony is that when, at age 18, I was leaving Greece to go to Italy I was convinced Greece was in need of missionaries (now more than ever before).

Emmanuel (center) while preparing to become a Roman Catholic monk in Rome.

I was first at Ariccia, near the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, outside of Rome, in the beautiful Alban hills, then in Rome proper, near St. Paul “Outside the Walls.” I’ve seen two popes: John XXIII and Paul VI. I was in Rome during the Vatican II Council.

Like everyone else I was working, while studying the courses leading to the Licenza: philosophy, Latin and Italian languages and literature, etc. I worked as a proofreader. I also worked with printing machines and record presses. I was very happy at the Institute. Yet, something was missing. I prayed hard during the four years I stayed at the Institute of St. Paul. But life became less and less fulfilling. In private I was studying very hard, the Fathers and the history of the early Church. I just couldn’t reconcile certain beliefs and practices of the RC Church with what I was studying, particularly the primacy and infallibility of the pope. My superiors thought it was a matter of Roman rite—and that too played a role. They put me in touch with the Byzantine Catholics. They arranged for me to meet with the Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV. It was to no avail. Other dogmatic issues bothered me: Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, rationalism, scholasticism.

I have found out that whatever shines is not always gold. I thought that if I stayed any longer I would suffocate. In the meantime my temporary vows were expiring. Soon I would have to take permanent vows. At that difficult juncture of my life I met with Archimandrite Maximos Agiorgousis (now the former Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh). He received me back paternally: “You were too young to know what you were doing.” Later he would tell me: “I saved you from the wolf’s mouth.” After staying a month close to him, I returned to Greece, where I served my two years in the Greek army, pondering all along what to do with my life.

My intention was to go to a monastery—an Orthodox monastery. I was thinking of St. Catherine’s, on Mount Sinai. But I was without a spiritual guide. I hesitated. So when my sister, who was married in Cleveland, Ohio invited me over, I went, to clear my head. A year and a half later, instead of cooling off, I met a Polish-American girl. Within six months we were married. I’d forgotten about my vocation. But not for good. Sixteen years later I found myself dissatisfied with my work in the insurance business. The old “calling” returned. With my wife’s consent, at age 45, I enrolled at Holy Cross in Brookline, MA, parting from my wife and our three children in St. Louis. With credits for previous studies at Cleveland State University, Oberlin College and The University of Chicago, and a very heavy load, I finished my theological studies in two years obtaining my Masters of Divinity “with distinction.”

Before I was even ordained a priest I was translating hymns from Greek to English, striving to render them in such a way as to preserve precisely the original melody. I have composed non-liturgical songs and hymns for children, who know next to nothing in English. I have written Orthodox Christmas plays for the youth. I’ve also written two liturgies for youth choirs. I always made all the services available to my parishioners—not only the Liturgies, but also Matins, Vespers, Supplicatory Canon, Complines. I also produced literature, for distribution in the narthex for free, for everyone, but particularly for inquirers.

It bothered me that as Orthodox we were content remaining an unknown entity in our own cities and neighborhoods. Then the Pauline Congregations came to mind and their “apostolate”: how they spread the word through the modern media of communications around the globe. However the difference between religious orders unified under a vote of obedience and us, disunited jurisdictionally, made our effort difficult. When I began to talk about making a unified effort to evangelize the people around us, I met resistance, both by our hierarchs and our fellow priests…

Read Part Two: “The parish: an evangelism center”

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

MANIFESTO

My dear Christians,

I am writing these words to inform you where our Church is lately, because most people are not informed by their shepherds.

Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis

Our Church leaders, prelates of different titles (patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans and bishops) have abandoned the faith of our Fathers.

This was shown more openly at the so-called Synod of Crete in June 2016. In one of its texts this pseudo-Synod recognized the existence of other Churches besides the Orthodox Church. We believe that God’s Church is only one, and this is the Orthodox Church.

Four Autocephalous (independent) Orthodox Churches did not participate in this pseudo-Synod of Crete, while two of these, the Churches of Bulgaria and Georgia, condemned its decisions. The Orthodox Church is being torn in two.

The worst is that our Patriarch and all the bishops that follow him want to unite with those other “Churches,” without first being united in the same faith. This would mean that the struggles of our Fathers were in vain.

According to our Patriarch, the differences that exist between us, which the Holy Synods of the Church have condemned, no longer prevent us from uniting.


manifesto

It is no longer allowed to call those who are outside the Orthodox Church “heretics” and “schismatics.” To them, there are no more schisms and heresies; anyone from any tradition and form of worship is in the Church of Christ.

The Patriarch has given the directive to no longer receive those Christians who want to become Orthodox through baptism, because, he says, since they are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity they have a valid baptism. For us there are no Sacraments outside the Church.

They recognize the aero-baptism that is performed even by non-Christians, and fiercely hunt down priests who dare to baptize converts. They allow marriages with non-Orthodox, without requiring them to become Orthodox.

They say that we should not let minor differences divide us, we should no longer insist in dogmas that became the reason we are divided and remain separated, and that we should be united in love.

Were the struggles of our Fathers, who kept our faith in the Holy Trinity and in our Christ pure and undefiled, in vain? “We have gone beyond them,” they would reply, “because we have more love than they had.”

We, my dear Christians, must follow the faith of our Fathers: of Saint Nektarios, of the holy Elder Paisios, of Saint Justin the New and of all the Saints, whose teachings are not followed by our Patriarch and by all the bishops in America.

What do we need to do

  • Courageously resist our ecumenist Bishops
  • Priests who want to remain Orthodox need to stop commemorating them
  • Start following an Orthodox Bishop
  • Stand behind our priests
 

Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis
Orthodox Priest
fremmanuel@orthodoxwitness.org

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature – Part 6 of 8

jesus fallen human nature
In this series of eight blog posts we are addressing the subject of the human nature of Christ from the perspective of the Orthodox Church. This, the sixth post in the series addresses the following question:

Were Christ’s conception and birth like ours?

Concerning the statement, “No special exceptions are needed for Him,” it would be sufficient to recall Christ’s extraordinary conception and birth. Since the beginning the Church has expressed her faith that Christ was conceived without human seed (virgin birth) and that He was born leaving His mother a virgin, as she was before conception. Being born without a human father is an exception, not an excuse. And it is of faith.

Indeed an extraordinary Being requires an extraordinary conception and birth! A Protestant may believe whatever s/he wants, but to be Orthodox a Christian must believe in the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ and the ever-virginity of the most holy Theotokos (Mother of God).

1) Official pronouncements of the Church

First Ecumenical Synod

“…the Son of God… was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.”

Fifth Ecumenical Synod

“The Word of God… came down from heaven and was incarnate of the holy, glorious, Theotokos, and Ever-Virgin Mary.”

2) The witness of the Holy Scripture

Mt. 1:23, Is. 7:14

“Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

3) The witness of the Fathers of the Church

St. Augustine

“A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and after the birth as a Virgin still.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria

“After His birth, He preserved the virginity of His mother, although this is not true of any of the saints…Because He was God by nature, when in this last time He also took the human condition, He revealed the birth from the Virgin as different from all other births. Therefore, it is right and just that the blessed one should be called Theotokos and Virgin Mother. For Jesus, who was born of her, was not a mere man.”

St. John Damascene

“[He is] like to us in that He was man born of woman, and above us because it was not by seed, but by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Virgin Mary, transcending the laws of parturition.”

4) The witness of the hymnology of the Church

Ancient liturgical hymn

“Only begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal, You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man.”

5) The confirmation by Orthodox theologians

Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae

“Through the descent of Christ as hypostasis within her and as He began to form the body from her with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit as a whole person, her body that was kept by her in the purity of virginity and in the purity of total availability for God, is cleansed also of the original sin so that the divine Hypostasis may not take His body from a body still under this sin and under the natural law of birth in voluptuous pleasure.”

Some of this material was drawn from my book, Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective (Orthodox Witness: Clearwater, FL, 2013).

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature? – Part 5 of 8

jesus fallen human nature
In this series of blog posts we are addressing the subject of the human nature of Christ from the perspective of the Orthodox Church. In this post we’ll address the question:

What happened when the Son of God assumed our nature?

The answer given by our blogger (who prompted the writing of this series) to this strange question is “Jesus became like us in every way.” He lived in this fallen world in the one and only humanity that exists. Certain Fathers too, including Church documents (as we’ve seen in a previous post), state that in some way the Son of God assumed a fallen human nature. However, even in such instances we are not to assume that He lived as all of us do in our “post-fallen” condition. Why? Because what He assumed He renewed and deified it.

The following quotations from Church councils, Church fathers, services and contemporary authors bring the Church’s answer to this question into focus.

1. An official pronouncement of the Church

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Tome of Leo

“The fact that He partook of our human infirmity did not make Him a partaker of our transgressions. He took on Him “the form of a servant” without the defilement of any sin, augmenting what was human, without diminishing what was divine.”

2. The witness of the Holy Scripture

Acts 2:27 (Ps. 16:10)

“For You will not abandon My soul to Hades, nor let Your Holy One see corruption.”

John 1:14

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

3. The witness of the Fathers of the Church

St. Athanasios the Great

“Christ’s body by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it, it was placed out of the reach of corruption.”

St. Gregory the Theologian

“Because the devil led astray to the transgression of God’s commandment the nature which God created sinless and caused to it sin, which brings death, this self-same nature did God the Logos assume once more (pavlin) unto Himself, and rendered it incapable of the diabolical deviation and of invention of sin. That is why the Lord said, “The ruler of this world is coming, and he finds nothing his in Me.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“He Who has taken all that was ours, on the terms of giving to us in return what is His, even as He took disease, death, curse, and sin, so took our slavery also, not in such a way as Himself to have what He took, but so as to purge our nature of such evils, our defects being swallowed up and done away within His stainless nature.”

St. Gregory Palamas

“Christ took upon Himself our guilty nature from the most pure Virgin and united it, new and unmixed with the old seed, to His divine person. He rendered it guiltless and righteous, so that all His spiritual descendants would remain outside the ancestral curse and condemnation.”

4. The witness of the hymnology of the Church

Feast of the Annunciation

Today…is the festival of the Virgin… Adam is renewed… the tabernacle of our nature, which the Lord took upon Himself, deifying the substance He assumed, has become the Temple of God … Christ God, our salvation, has assumed our nature, restoring it to Himself.

Feast of Holy Transfiguration

With Your invisible hands, O Christ, You formed man in Your image; You now manifest the original beauty in that same body; You reveal it not as an image, but as You are in Yourself, truly both God and man by nature.

Feast of the Ascension

The pre-eternal and un-originate God, having mystically deified the human nature He assumed, has now ascended.

5. The confirmation by Orthodox Theologians

Nikos Matsoukas

Christ’s human nature remains always created, before and even after the Resurrection. On account, however, of the hypostatic union, it becomes a partaker of theosis and incorruption, not being subject to any corruption (neither decay nor dissolution). Before the Resurrection however it is subject voluntarily to the real blameless and natural passions through concession, so that the plan of divine economy may be realized.

Some of this material was drawn from my book, Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective (Orthodox Witness: Clearwater, FL, 2013).

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature? — Part 4 of 8

jesus fallen human nature
In this post, part 4 of 8 of our series on the human nature of Christ, we address the question:

Did Christ exercise control over the passions?

The following quotations from Church councils, Church fathers, services and contemporary authors bring the Church’s answer to this question into focus.

1) Official pronouncement of the Church

Sixth Ecumenical Synod, Synodical Letter by St. Sophronios of Jerusalem

He gave to the human nature, whenever He wanted, time to act and to suffer what was proper… For He did not accept these [human idioms] involuntarily or by constraint… His human characteristics were above human nature. Not because [His] nature was not human, but because He became a human being voluntarily, and having become a human being He accepted [them] voluntarily; and they are not [acting] tyrannically or by constraint and unwillingly, as it is with us, but He gave His consent whenever and to the extent that He wanted He allowed them to inflict pain on Him and to cause Him sufferings which were against nature.

2) The witness of the Holy Scripture

John 10:18

No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down on My own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

3) The witness of the Fathers of the Church

St. Hilary

He had a body to suffer and He suffered, but He had not a nature which could feel pain, for his body possessed a unique nature of its own; it was transformed into heavenly glory on the Mount, it put fevers to flight by its touch, it gave new eyesight by its spittle.

St. Ambrose

He did not hunger because He was overcome by the weakness of the body, but by His hunger He proved that He had verily taken upon Himself a body; that so He might teach us that He had taken not only our body, but also the weaknesses of that body.

St. Maximos

When it comes to the Lord the natural characteristics do not precede His will, as it happens with us. For even though He truly hungered and thirsted, He did not hunger and thirst after our manner, but in a manner that exceeds ours, because He accepted such things voluntarily.

4) The witness of the hymnology of the Church

Vespers of the Holy Spirit

Master, who by extreme condescension have become a partaker with us of like flesh and blood and of our blameless passions, which You have willingly accepted to experience in Your bowels of compassion; and in that You Yourself have accepted to be tempted, You of Your own free will became a Helper for us that are tempted; wherefore, You led us into Your own passionlessness.

5) The confirmation by Orthodox theologians

Vladimir Lossky

Only Christ has known what death really is, since His deified humanity must not die. Only He could take the full measure of agony, since death seized His being from the outside instead of welling up like fate from within, instead of being, as with fallen man, the irreducible kernel of a being mixed with non-being when sickness and time have corrupted his pulp of flesh… The finality of death was, in effect, not rooted in the human nature of Christ.

Fr. John Romanides

That He was not allowing oeconomically His incorruptibility to be operative does not mean that He was under the dominion of death. He received the human nature from the Virgin through the Holy Spirit as it was before the fall, neither incorruptible nor under the dominion of death.

Metropolitan Hierotheos

The innocent passions functioned in Christ above nature, because it was not possible for them to take precedence over His will. There was nothing compulsory in Christ. Therefore it was by willing that He hungered, by willing that He thirsted, by willing that He was afraid, and by willing that He died. In other words, the passions did not govern Christ, but Christ governed them.

Some of this material was drawn from my book, Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective (Orthodox Witness: Clearwater, FL, 2013).

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature? – Part 3 of 8

jesus fallen human nature
In this series of blog posts we are addressing the subject of the human nature of Christ from the perspective of the Orthodox Church. In this, Part 3 of 8, we will address the following question:

Did Christ assume voluntarily the blameless passions?

The following quotations from Church councils, Church fathers, services and contemporary authors bring the Church’s answer to this question into focus.

I must have left you quite confused and puzzled with our previous post. In our very first post we proposed that there is an alternative to fallen or un-fallen. But then we brought evidence that Christ had a nature like Adam before the fall. We will clarify that in becoming human the Son of God voluntarily accepts only certain consequences of the fall, called the blameless or innocent passions, while rejecting the sinful passions.

1) Official pronouncements of the Church

St. Sophronios of Jerusalem, Synodical Epistle

“God the Logos operates through humanity. However, Christ experiences everything human ‘naturally’ and ‘in a human way’ although not by necessity or involuntarily.”

Second Confession of Orthodox Bishops at their Consecration

“The Word of God…took our whole fallen human nature from the pure and virginal blood of the only immaculate and pure Virgin…Furthermore I confess that He assumed all our human blameless passions that constitute our nature, excepting sin, i.e. hunger, thirst, weariness, tears, and such like: He underwent them not of necessity as in our case, but by His human will following His divine will; for willingly He hungered, willingly He thirsted, willingly He wearied, willingly He died.”

Note: It does not say that His human nature is fallen, but that He assumed our fallen nature (what happened when He did that will be addressed in a future post). Later on it explicates that by this expression it means that He assumed only the blameless passions of our human nature (and it lists them, excluding any sinful consequences). It also makes clear that He assumed the blameless passions “not of necessity as in our case.” These are the two points postlapsarianists need to understand and accept. Otherwise they are outside the pale of Orthodoxy.

2) The witness of the Holy Scripture

John 19:30

“He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”

John 10:18

“No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down on My own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”

3) The witness of the Fathers of the Church

St. Gregory the Theologian

“Are you then to be allowed to dwell upon all that humiliates Him, while passing over all that exalts Him, and to count on your side the fact that He suffered, but to leave out of the account the fact that it was of His own will?”

St. John Damascene

“Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh [by an act of His human will] to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For willingly He hungered, willingly He thirsted, willingly He feared and willingly He died.”

4)The witness of the hymnology of the Church

Vesperal hymn

“Let us sing hymns of praise to Him who of His own free will was crucified in the flesh, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead for us.”

Holy Saturday Matins

“Rise up of Your own will, You who willingly gave Yourself up for us.”

5) The confirmation by Orthodox Theologians

Fr. Georges Florovsky

“Like the First Adam before the fall, He is able not to die at all (potens non mori), though obviously He can still die (potens autem mori). He was exempt from the necessity of death, because His humanity was pure and innocent. Therefore Christ’s death was and could not but be voluntary, not by the necessity of fallen nature, but by free choice and acceptance.”

Some of this material was drawn from my book, Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective (Orthodox Witness: Clearwater, FL, 2013).

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature? – Part 2 of 8

jesus fallen human nature
In this second post of our series, we continue our reply to a blogger’s article, “Was Jesus Christ Born With a Sin Nature and Original Sin?”, and will address the following question:

In becoming human did the Logos assume a fallen nature?

I don’t know how can our blogger state so categorically that Christ “assumed every part of humanity as it is (post-fallen).” If he or anyone else were to search carefully for a single document supporting his position he would go away empty. Not only would he not find any such teaching in the tradition of the Church, but au contraire he would come up with a great number of statements “proclaiming unequivocally” that the Incarnate Son of God did not have a fallen human nature. Actually, the Church’s teaching is that Christ’s nature was as that of Adam before the fall. Check out these authorities:

1) An official pronouncement of the Church

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Tome of Leo

Jesus Christ was born in the entire and perfect nature of man very God, whole in what was His, whole in what was ours. By “ours” we mean those things that the Creator formed in us at the beginning and which He once more received restored. For those things that the deceiver introduced, and the deceived man admitted, not a trace was in the Savior.

2) The witness of the Holy Scripture

Heb. 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings.

1 Cor. 2:8

None of the rulers of this age understood this [i.e. “redemption in Christ” (RSV)]; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

3) The witness of the Fathers of the Church

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Christ has refashioned the nature of man into what it was in the beginning. “In Him all things are made new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

St. Maximos the Confessor

In being formed as a human being, He condescended to what was by law the creaturely origin of Adam prior to his fall.

St. John Damascene

You assumed, O Master, the entire Adam, before His transgression, free from sin.

4) The witness of the hymnology of the Church

Kontakion, First Sunday of Lent

The uncircumscribed Word of the Father became circumscribed taking flesh from thee, O Theotokos, and He has restored the sullied image to its ancient glory, filling it with the divine beauty.

Vespers of Annunciation

I will give birth to the Bodiless One who will take flesh from me, so that by His union with it, He may raise man, as the only mighty One, to the ancient dignity.

5) The confirmation by Orthodox Theologians

Panagiotis Trembelas

Since the Lord was sent by His Father to the world to raise the fallen human nature, reconstituting it as another ancestor and new Adam, it was natural for Him to assume the human nature, which “Adam received sinless at the first creation,” so that that nature which the first Adam threw to “corruption and death,” the Lord raised “sinless according to nature.” Therefore the Lord did not assume another human nature, different from the one that came out of the hands of the Creator, but the self same one carried by us, save healthy, and not one corrupted or rendered sick by sin, which reveals Him perfect man, precisely as the first Adam was in Paradise before falling into transgression.

Metropolitan Hierotheos

Christ’s conception in the womb of the Theotokos took place creatively through the Holy Spirit and not by seed, because Christ had to assume the pure nature that Adam had before his transgression.

In the Orthodox Church we don’t bring fancy arguments or express personal opinions. We rely on the Church, “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Some of this material was drawn from my book, Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective (Orthodox Witness: Clearwater, FL, 2013).

Photo of author

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature? – Part 1 of 8

jesus fallen human nature
When I placed the above question in Google, one of the blog posts it took me to was the following: “Was Jesus Christ Born With a Sin Nature and Original Sin?”, dated Dec. 31, 2012 [this post is no longer online -editor]. The key paragraph in answer to the question posed is the following:

“The Orthodox proclaim unequivocally that Jesus became like us in every way. No special exceptions are needed for Him–He was 100% human just like we are. He assumed every part of humanity as it is (post-fallen) in order to redeem it. This is the only answer you can give without making excuses for Christ’s exemption to some facet of our humanness. Jesus Christ, one person in two natures (everything it means to be human, Jesus became), 100% human and 100% God.”

In a subsequent blog post the blogger stated: “Jesus by necessity assumed a post-fallen nature.” In a series of blog posts I intend to address the subject of the human nature of Christ from the perspective of the Orthodox Church. Below are some of the questions we will address in this series.

Did Christ have a sin nature?

According to our blogger fallen nature means sin nature. Is everyone in agreement with that? What does fallen nature mean? What does sin nature mean? Do we all agree with the syllogism that since Christ was 100% human and since all humans have a sin nature ergo He must have by necessity a sin nature? Or with the syllogism behind the syllogism: Christ has a human nature; human nature is fallen; therefore He has a fallen nature? Can one have a sin nature and be sinless? How can the sinless One reap the “wages of sin”? Does assuming a postlapsarian nature and remaining sinless are mutually exclusive?

Does fallen nature mean sinful nature?

Postlapsarianists want Christ to be exactly like us, fallen, yet not exactly like us, sinful. How can the two be reconciled? Despite attributing to Him a “sin nature” they claim that He resisted temptations and never sinned. But even if Christ remained totally sinless, as most postlapsarianists aver, the fact remains that as fallen He must bear all the consequences of the fall, which, besides having an irresistible tendency to sin, includes corruption, suffering, and physical and spiritual death. Did Christ inherit a fallen human nature and did He necessarily live under the conditions of fallen world, as any other human being?

Is Christ’s human nature fallen or un-fallen?

Fallen – un-fallen. This has been the binary along which Christologists have been debating Christ’s humanness. But can it be that there is an alternative? Christ does not seem to be un-fallen. He exhibits the consequences of the fall, as we all do: He tires, He hungers, He thirsts, He displays ignorance, emotions, sadness, fears; He experiences pain, both physical and emotional, and as He comes into existence so He expires and dies. Yet, He also exhibits characteristics that are beyond normal human experience: He goes on for many days without any food or drink, He floats on water, and He shows extraordinary powers. He doesn’t seem to fit either condition. What’s the answer?

Was Christ in control of the passions or under their control?

Christ has clearly exhibited characteristics that belong to fallen humanity. Could we then call Him fallen? Well, there are a few more questions that need to be answered first: Was He inherently fallen, that is, were sinfulness, corruption and mortality ingrained in His human nature or was He free of these consequences of the fall, but He voluntarily assumed only certain of these consequences, called blameless or innocent passions? Are such passions essential elements of humanity so that Christ had to necessarily assume them in order to be fully human or did He exercise control over the human passions He accepted freely for our salvation?

How did Christ’s two natures coexist?

There is another set of questions pertaining to the union of humanity and divinity in His person. Was there any interchange between His two natures? Did the union have any effect over His humanity or did the two natures function separately and independently of each other? How do we perceive that union? Should we treat Christ as a mere human being in the way He thinks, He acts, He lives, and He dies, or should we take into account the fact that the hypostatic union exerts an influence on Christ’s humanity, making Him a unique reality? What are the consequences of the hypostatic union? How does Christ function as God and man?

Could Christ have a fallen human nature?

Could He? Christ is the incarnate Son of God. Anything predicated upon the human nature of Christ is predicated upon the Person of Christ. Isn’t saying Christ’s human nature is fallen the same as saying the Son of God is fallen? Could we possibly attribute fallenness to the Son of God? How could He be subject to all the consequences of the original sin? How could Christ win a victory over death when He was doomed to die from the moment He was conceived? How could the Son of God be an un-voluntary instrument of Satan? How could the powers of His intellect and soul be feeble and His spirit deprived of God’s sanctifying grace?

In this blog post we’ve only posed questions. In the posts that will follow we’ll examine our blogger’s unequivocal conviction that Christ was fallen, just like we all are, and attempt to provide what we think are definitive answers, at least from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

In Part 2 we’ll address whether or not Christ had a fallen nature.

Photo of author
Continue Shopping →
Item added to cart.
0 items - 0,00 $
Checkout