Monday, February 9, 2009

For whom the bells ring

One of the most striking lectures given during the 6th Jerusalem Conference was the interview of Prof. Bernard Lewis who dedicated his life to in-depth analysis and insights about Islam in the history of Europe and with regards to the Middle East. He closed the Jerusalem Conference 5769-2009 having a dialog with Dan Diker.

To begin with, it should be noted that Prof. Lewis started his lecture by quoting St. John of Capistrano, the notorious Franciscan preacher, soldier, crusader, anti-all-heresy monk. Pope Calixtus III allowed him – the monk was seventy years old – to lead a crusade against Mehmed II who had tried to seize Rome and Vienna, after the fall of Constantinople. The Franciscan friar was rather known for his very abrupt theological positions and he had severely attacked the Hussites.

B. Lewis said that the saint had commented a very peculiar and significant point in the life of the Jewish communities. His words dealt with the behavior of the Jews as individuals and community members. He reminded the audience that, in the opinion of Giovanni di Capistrano, the Jews committed a constant mistake of appraisal throughout the ages by pretending that every Gentile nation may have access to God through their special ways that differ from Judaism. He mentioned the Christians and the Muslims, usually considered as believing in the One God. It is interesting to find such a statement in the words of a Franciscan monk, i.e. a member of the Catholic Church at a time of great anti-Semitism. The Franciscan saint was quite “obsessed” by the purity of faith, true orthodoxy in the sense of obedience to the Catholic Church, pretty much assaulting the faithful of heretic denominations and sects. He had led a crusade.

In contrast, in a much milder way, Cervantes had a similar view: he wrote that he had decided to choose Judaism, the Jewish philosophy and ethical way of living. His “Don Quixote de la Mancha” is definitely a book showing his commitment with the Jewish prophetic movement that should never be considered as a mere form of utopia or dreamy day-nightmare.

Judaism should never be reduced to some ethnic, nationalistic, DNA and specific cultural topic or prejudice. It should be noted that the core of Judaism is very close to the fundamentals of the “creed” of the Churches. Judaism does focus on “one, holy (mikdash\מקדש, orthodox (emunah shlemah, emet\אמונה שלמה.אמת ) and catholic (klal, klalit\כלל.כללית) and apostolic (shlichut\שליחות)” community. Progressive split and schism, estrangement and hate, alterity and revision of the meaning of the words in a context of general competition between the Jewish and Christian communities led to incapacity to refer to words that are indeed in force in Christendom and Judaism. Such are the fundamentals of Jewishness that stumbled through history against the stone of those who permanently endeavored to supersede some unexplainable sort of “birthright”.

Judaism is not racial; it has nothing to do with maternal birth, blood analysis or exceptional skills. It relies on a series of continuous gracious and freely given blessings that change both flesh and souls. These blessings have been protected by overtime memorizing capacities. This situation is thus totally free, and calls to a constant service for the sake of the Holy Name and all humankind. Indeed, the Klal Israel/ gathers in the Jews first (Paul of Tarsus) then the Greeks (Gentiles) and s this carries out this move into the future till the eschaton. “Klal\כלל” means “totality” and sums up the two words “orthodox = authentic faith” and “catholic = kath’olon = open to the fulfillment, plerome, plenitude”. This is a call, i.e. a real vocation given in this world to specific humans serving gracious unexpected rules or commandments: it is the Kahal = called community [QHL\קהל = the sound of the Voice/Qol\קול]. “Klal\כלל = totality” in the sense of a “wedding plenitude as stated on the sixth day of the creation: “Vayichulu\ויכולו = (heaven and earth) were achieved on the sixth day = KOL\קול / is comparable to the “kallah\כלה/ = bride” who longs after being connected with the bridegroom.

The topic is then dealing with an ongoing sort of monologue between the monotheist faithful: who is correct, authentic, exact, true and the one chosen and beloved of God. The question is rather childlike if not even “churlish”. It maybe the most developed spiritual if not theological subject. It is discussed as if some answer could be proved or approved and sealed in this world. Then who is truly responsible for the breaches that affected humankind on their mental and divine path?

Prof. B. Lewis exposed an opinion that is rather spread; he had the privilege to among the very first scholars to determine the matter with clear-cut historic documents and insightful envisioning of our situation at the present and in the future.

Dr. Daniel Sibony, Prof. Maxime Rodinson and, to some extent Lawrence of Arabia himself were aware of the tremendous cultural and theological influence of Islam in Europe, the Middle-East and Asia. At this point, things are often mistaken or misinterpreted. It maybe the consequence of some mental slips or of spiritual negation of current evidences.

To begin with, the Church was born out of Judaism and Judaism does not require any Christian influence, confirmation or assessment. Judaism exists and has always developed into different groups; I am rather reluctant to speak of “sects”. But the word is often correct because some specific groups did cut themselves from a large Jewish original root: “sect” = “sectus = cut, separated”, which is the situation of the Karaites [Qora’im\קוראים], many of the Shabbateans who do not acknowledge the Talmud-Mishnah. The Early Christian church was some sort of a self-ruled Jewish group. This endured until the Jews, with seemingly much reluctant, finally introduced the Birkat Minim\ברכת מינים. It is today the Birkat Malshinim\ברכת מלשינים (Benediction against the heretics) and many siddurim have removed the “blessing” against the Minim who supposedly were the Christians. The Council of Nicaea took a rather decisional position by obliging the Church not to celebrate the feast of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the same date as Pesach/Passover, on Nisan 14th.

There was a special aspect that should be taken into consideration for a correct understanding of Christian historic development. Christian faith – along with the related conflicts that showed from the very beginning of the movement – underscores the apostolic preaching of the Kingdom of God to the entire creation, which is the major element of initial Judaism. “Proselytism” is not understood accordingly. Today, it is an embattled concept about how Judaism and Christianity split and clashed over the ages. The “shlichut/שליחות “ implicitly sustains the proclamation of God’s reign through some commandments as the Noahide commandments for the non-Jews and the Mitzvot for the Jews. Indeed, every soul depends on the existence of these Mitzvot. They surpass individual consciousness. It is possible to say that the Mitzvot do exist whatever way humankind accepts, rejects or selects them for their use or misuse. They are also deeply present in Christianity since Jesus said he came to “fulfill and not to abolish the Law” and they abide the Muslim theology that focuses on the Mahdi, the mirrored character of some messiah with the expectancy of Messenger Muhammad.

We do forget in the present that the ongoing battle in the Middle-East firstly developed all over Europe, Asia and expanded to all parts of the world. It is the initial combat – an apocalyptic one – in which Islam and Christianity are facing each other . They are tempted to eradicate, convert, capture and overcome the other party(ies). Interestingly, the Jews are not fundamentally concerned by this very harsh conflict. We can dream of very sweet and peaceful collaboration between monotheists. It merely remains a dream or a way not to be able to cope with reality. Compromises are then more convenient and strangely mild.

Today's developments are not only political wars and contests. It is a sort of duplicate of the Gog and Magog eschatological war that leads Islam to some profound move in order to conquer again or seize what they lost in the course of the past centuries. Islam has tried to take over all of Europe. It had North Africa and canceled the power of Christianity there. Islam was stopped in the South of France in the 8th century. It turned to Italy, Malta, Cyprus and the Balkan. Turkey used to be the cradle of Christianity. It became Muslim and spread with the reign of the Ottoman empire that only collapsed in 1918. The Ottoman regime always threatened Vienna. This has deeply imprinted the local memory of the Central and East-European nations. Someway, they remained faithful to Christian faith. In the West, Catholicism and Protestantism split from the Eastern "deir Rum" = Eastern [Roman empire] Church. Since the first conquests of Islam in the 6th and 8th centuries till the Crusades, Western Christianity faced Islam. The Muslims consider they have reached the true fulfillment of spiritual history. This theological and spiritual combat started and it continues at the present, whatever political situations concerned .

Just as ancient gods and goddesses were involved in harsh heavenly fights and quarrels, the humans continue to argue and kill each other in the name of some deity or the One God alike; but this corresponds to mirroring projections of in-depth pagan tendencies or taboos. In the prologue to the Book of Job, it is written how God and Satan pass an agreement about how to test Job’s faith without touching the integrity of his soul. God and Satan do fight just as the Yetzer haTov/good evil faces Yetzer HaRa/the Bad evil. But this is a divine fight. We cannot mirror such a fight in this world except if we comprehend that we may test each other though we have no right to act in such a manner.

When Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem persuaded Sultan Omar that he could not destroy the Holy Sepulcher, he saved the Christian world in a way that seemingly got swept out of all Christendom’s memory and records. Since 638 AD., when he obtained this agreement that sealed the survival of Christianity in the place of its birth (in the Resurrection of the Lord), Middle-Eastern Christianity feels in danger and is much aware in its memory that the Churches face Islam, often with much aggressiveness, cruelty on both sides… and competition. True, it does not mean at all that Jesus and Muhammad would in vivo and in vitro support such disputes.

Islam has conquered immense territories in the West and around the Mediterranean Sea. They would have like to seize Rome as they had taken over Constantinople. Right now, visitors in Istanbul will hardly be told about the fact that Turkey was among the cradle areas of Judaism and Christianity. There are certain places in Cappadocia and Smyrna and other places where Christianity does exist or survive. Nothing to be compared with the prestigious and highly appraised faculties of theology that have been closed (Chalki). Patriarc h Bartholomaios, who is the first patriarch among the others (primus inter pares) in the Eastern Orthodox Church faces terrible difficulties in accomplishing his spiritual task locally and at an international level. I just mention the issue that is a real concern and shows how Christendom has been weakening since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

Since the early centuries of Islam and their inner splits between Sunnites and Shiites, the Sunni had ruled over the majority of the Muslim countries, even if the local faithful belonged and still refer to the tradition of the Sha’ih as it is the case in Iraq, Lebanon and Iran.

Islam is of great interest because it only reaches at the present its 15th century of existence in a context in which history and memory constitute the major part of the background of the “Umma – (world) community (of the believers). The split happened in 632 when Muhammad passed away. The Sunni party focused on the lineage inside of the Prophet’s family (blood line). Intriguingly, the same problem did show for the succession of the Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem: how was it possible to maintain the management of the Christian community in the hands of Jesus’ family (St. Jacob/James, first bishop of Jerusalem and his successors till 135 to some extent)? Christianity chose external leadership by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

The Sunnites ruled till the fourth caliphate. Some believers preferred to recognize Ali who was Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali’s son Hussein was assassinated in 656 as a consequence of harsh conflicts between Sunnites and Shiites. The child considered as having disappeared, being hidden and having the privilege of being the “invisible mahdi” who will come back by the time of the final revelation. In 874, the 11th imam’s son was told to have disappeared, opening a era of contest with the Sunni. The collapse of the Ottoman empire provoked a profound spiritual upraise and deny of the Sunnite among the Shiites of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Basically, Jordan and Palestine are Sunnites and occasionally require the assistance of the Shiites of Iran or Egypt. The “Muslim Brotherhood / Al Ikhwan al Muslimun” progress step by step in their opposition to “corrupted Sunni system”. Things are definitely not easy to understand. For example, Osama Bin Laden is a Sunni opponent; or him, the fall of the Muslim caliphate in 1920 is viewed as a real catastrophe for Islam and the revelation of the hidden Mahdi.

Contests and spiritual competition are fundamental in all the disputes that affect the theological life of the monotheist communities in the Middle-East and the Semitic society. The Arab world will never deny they are definitely rooted and linked to Abraham and Ishmael, which created a specific close relationship and adversity among the Arabs and the Jews. The main issue is either to reply upon blood and flesh, i.e. about generation through generation or to confide in the principles of faith as the Sunnites did and continue to do.

Curiously, this attitude is at the very heart of some authentic Semitic way of training and envisioning the realm of faith. It is also present in the Jewish tradition till now. This is one of the major problems raised by the repose of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. He died without descent. As time passes, nobody was elected to lead the Chassidic movement; some member of the Chabad would consider that he was moshiach/the messiah and somehow is kept hidden and alive by the Divine Providence. Until now, the Jewish movement has avoided creating a real split inside of the very dynamic group.

Subsequently, it should be underscored that Christianity is still facing at the present the deep conflicting eschatological project as detailed by the Sha’ih. This is true everywhere in the world. The Arab culture spread through Islam till Indonesia and Philippines and also in Africa. Harsh battles are conducted in these areas by the heirs of the Muslim movements inherited from the time of the caliphs.

In the meanwhile, Christianity views its task as announcing the redemption and salvation acquired in the resurrection of Jesus Christ to all the nations, from Jerusalem and the cities of Galilee as stated in the Gospel. It opposes Judaism in all the territories of the dispersion; nonetheless, the synagogues allowed the apostles to preach the Risen Lord as Paul of Tarsus did. This never occurred between Christendom and Islam who always have been in serious competition. Islam had a golden age in Spain and with the assistance of Jewish scholars; they saved the Greek and Latin heritage of the Antiquity.

On the other hand, till the present day, Christianity is facing Islam and, in return, Islam is confronting Christianity. In Iraq and Iran, the ancient Semitic Assyrian and Syrian Orthodox Churches could maintain their influence and culture mainly through the bloodline and family “dynasties of priests and bishops”. It is quite probable as many European Church scholars noted (Fr. Christophe Dumont, Istina) that Christianity could survive in the Middle-East by a double and parallel system: the existence of a married clergy, i.e. the bloodline generational transmission of faith accompanying the monastic presence (Greeks and Franciscans as the guardians of the Holy Land).

The 11th century Great Schism (1054) is in fact a consequence of transfer of spiritual matters “resolved” through taking over by force actions within the framework of the split of the Roman empire. It continued into the Holy Germanic empire. The Western crusades aimed at overcome poverty and unemployment in the West. They also strived to seize and abate the Jews and their properties. The terrible point – still pending in the Eastern Orthodox conscience – is the way the Western Church people attacked and plundered the most venerable and ancient patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Whatever status, Jerusalem will remain forever the Mother of all the Churches. There, the Savior was born, resurrected and delivered his message of peace and unity. Words that in the Semitic tongues include “fulfillment, plenitude and ransom for the multitude”.

Indeed, the Churches have always been compelled to face Islam, in a real context of spiritual and proselytism competition. The colonial presence did not help in that sense. St. Francisco of Assisi was among the very few men of God who acted with faith in order to create connection, love and “peace in a natural context””. Europe had no “Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem” who succeeded in convincing the Sultan to spare the Holy Sepulcher, i.e. saved the Christian presence in Jerusalem. It is still in force in the present.

There are historical flashes. Islam is trying again a new conquest of the infidels that had failed in the past. In the course of history, Islam also spread through the links provided by the colonial systems. It is normally present in the whole of Europe and does not need to capture Vienna, Germany, France, Great-Britain and America. It also developed along with the ancient Church route from the Persian Plateau to Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Bengla Desh, down to Malaysia and Indonesia then up again to Asian islands. It could also rely upon the Turkish-speaking countries of Central Asia till Mongolia and the Philippine islands. Timur/Tamerlan destroyed the extraordinary Assyrian and Manchu Aramaic-Syrian-speaking communities that grew in the south of India. They split there through the opposition of the Western and Oriental Churches and patriarchates.

Interestingly, the Turkish government that protests against any action conducted by Patriarch Bartholomaios – noticeably his encounter with Pope Benedict XVI – recently consented for the ordination of new bishops of the Syrian Orthodox and Armenian Churches in the region of the Tur Abdin, one of the first Christian settlements in history.

The point is that Christianity and Islam have been always carrying out a sort of open conflict, with some times of apparent pauses. The Churches have undoubtedly developed their capacities to discussing with the Ottoman empire, i.e. with the Muslim caliphs. This knowhow is of great significance for the present and the future development of the Christian-Muslim relationships.

On the other hand, all sorts of opinions have developed with regards to the relationships between Judaism and Christianity. The so-called “Ahl al Kitab/ People of the Book” Muslim respectful attitude was initiated without specific recognition of the Jewish and Christian faiths. This is a point that should be defined with more insights. It appears that the Muslims determined the “People of the Book” as those nations whose beliefs rely upon specific Sacred Books or Scriptures: Baghavat Gita for the Hindu, for example, Tao King for the Buddhist tradition or the Avesta for the Persian culture. It implicitly includes the Bible and the New Testament. It does not mean that Islam acknowledges their value in-depths. Even if the Quran and the Hadith are based on strong Christian and Jewish influence, there is no evidence that Islam would accept the pertinence of the related roots of their Scriptures.

Today, Christianity continues to face Islam. This has significantly increased over the past 30 years and can be felt in the West Bank, Bethlehem and also in Galilean towns. Still, it is true that Islam in the Holy Land has always been “soft”. It is a region of transit, has always been and there is some evidence born of historic experience that this can only continue to develop in that peculiar way.

The great event was seemingly not noted by the creation of the United Nations proclamation of the partition of Palestine under British mandate into two states, i.e. Israel as the Jewish national home and Palestine for the Arabs in November 1947. The real problem strongly showed in 1967, when Israel took over a large territory from the Golan, West Bank, Gaza and Sinai. Israel also took over the whole of Jerusalem and there are prospects to enlarge the settlement s in the neighboring areas as Abu Dis, the Mount of Olives and other religiously relevant places.

Coming back to Israel (Galilee) after 1967, a newly ordained Greek Catholic (Melkite) priest stated that at this point, the Arab world could not deny the existence of a Jewish State. It had been real and growing since 1948. Fr. Emile Shufani concluded that the Arab society, in particular the Arab Christians – should recognize the Jewish reality. In a book recently published in French by an Israeli journalist of French origin, Catherine Dupeyron (“Chrétiens de Terre Sainte – Disparition ou mutation”, Ed. Albin Michel), Fr. E. Shufani explained with much insights the present situation of the Christians in the Holy Land.

He underscored that, contrary to the previous Christian way of living under the Ottoman and British rule, the Palestinian Christian Arabs are broken down into different and separate areas, without sharing the same spiritual needs and societal existence. It should be noted that the Jordanian Greek Orthodox or other Christians are definitely autonomous and free, with a real Arab Church culture.

Fr. Shufani told that it is not evident to link the Christians living in Galilee, the Center of Israel, the South Negev, Gaza and those of the West Bank, Judea-Samaria and Jordan. These developed into very “specific” entities within each Church. Interestingly, the Jews feel the same problem of connection between the related regions of Galilee, Jerusalem, the Center/Merkaz, Galilee and the South Negev.
1967 created an unexpected new situation. It placed all the Christian sites, among them the holiest ones (as the Holy Sepulcher or Anastasis) under the “control, rule” of the Jews, i.e. the Israeli State. The contest is very severe about Jerusalem, but it is extending to all of the Palestinian territories, the Arab regions as a whole. Therefore, we do assist to the sprouting of Churches in Israel. It was definitely unthinkable for traditions that had lived under the Islamic Ottoman rule for centuries and had gotten used to come to some sorts of agreements with the Muslims.

It also means that the Churches cannot freely find their ways in an authentic dialog with the Jews and with the Israeli administration. Theological preventions and terrible à-priori’s remain in force and will hardly be overcome before decades; I would presume it may take some centuries. There are and can be “good relationships”. It is doubtful that these reflections are conducted with mutual sharing of faith experience. The Christians cannot measure or are scared to get aware of the terrible burden of the past between Jews and most of the Christian Churches. This is a simple matter. It is itchy, a terribly itching issue. Jews and Christians must try to approach each other with much patience and be ready to hear and patiently overcome full nonsense on both sides. At least, speech can heal. This task can only be conveyed with a total sense of sacrifice. There is no other way but faith that allows some new processing of the problems.

The Christian world was used to have their Jews. They dwelt in all of the Christian communities. Then, we see something new: in their approach to the Christians, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, Mizrachim (Orientals; Yemen, Arab societies) abandon this traditional pattern of Jewish identity. They are either Western or Eastern Jews, both influenced by their local non-Jewish heritage. Israeli society mixes these “niches” into a new “Israeli” body and identity. This is not known to the Churches that did not anticipate such a reversing hapax - new revival of Jewishness. The Holy Land is a place of very strong and tied-up traditions. Newness of this nature is on the verge of what is bearable, not only for the Christians and the Muslims but also for some Jews and other nations with different creeds. Thus, the Churches had their Jews and they still have them to some extent. Therefore, they are barely likely to be the Christians of a new Israeli, Jewish-ruled State and society.

There are different manners in making such statements. Either it is a sort of useless revenge of Jewishness over the non-Jews; it would be in total contradiction with the spirit of the Mitzvot and the loving sense of hospitality shown by Abraham “in the heat of day” when he welcomed everybody under his open tent. Dates, camel milk or mint tea and some bread and salt are the best ailment. Still, it is a fascinating challenge, facing rejection and exclusion.

Israel does exist for everybody. But it hardly fits at the moment with the prophetic and eschatological envisioning of present Islam and Christianity. The wonderful bells of the Holy Sepulcher call to the prayer. They have rung since the days of old. At 5 am., in the morning, when the bell rings for the Divine Liturgy at the Great Orthodox monastery of Jerusalem, the muezzin starts praying and covers the singing voice of the bell. This has been the spiritual challenge for the authentic faith in the past centuries: the mosque of Omar opposite the preserved Church of the Holy Tomb (Taphos; Naos = Temple).

The Christians can hardly update at the moment to the point that the Shabbat Mitzvot is again applicant to the Old City. Suddenly, the Jewish principles are in force and somehow influence the daily life and societal connections of Christendom. The State of Israel has a strong law defending the “liberty of speech and conscience/religion” (art. 140-77). This seems to remain a bit “unthinkable”. The Churches have now to discuss with the Muslims in various areas, also in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Some Emirates appear to be rather tolerant because of the presence of a lot of Christian expatriates (Qatar, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, …).

In Palestine, the Churches have also to face the laws of the Shari’a that governs daily Muslim life and the tempo of the Arab population. In many places, the Christian Arabs have to fight with much wisdom and century-long experience in order to survive in some sharp Muslim tendencies. It is often kept in silence and not enough known abroad.

This places the Churches in a new and delicate situation. The local Churches had come to some agreement with the Ottoman administration. It was also rather difficult by the time of the British empire. The Greek Orthodox patriarchate was daily visited by British officers who checked the situation of the patriarchate, the money, the assets and the properties. For centuries, life has been terribly perilous for the Greek Orthodox monks. At the present, the Eastern Orthodox Church are also challenged in the way they are or not capable to get united and supportive to each other.

The Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem faces an unbelievable situation. In a time of war, he has to sustain the relationships with all the faithful and confide that they can be lay and clergy people of faith. The political ties let him play something very similar to what Daniel Rossing (Israeli specialist of religious affairs) has called a chess game in six dimensions. This requires a lot of energy and creativity based on the experience of the Church throughout ages of deep suffering.

Christians have to gather and find some sort of true unity. This is not the case at the moment. Times have changed and we are not in the century when the European monarchs who all belonged to the same bloodline could draw the map of their mutual influence in specific areas. In that sense, we are still living in a colonial structure of mind.

Intriguingly, Jews and Arabs can discover each other as truly linked by common roots. Some remarkable relationships were established after moments of terror and murders. In 1967, some Arab family returned to Jewish families the land their parents had legally acquired (Gilo and Beyt Jala). By the time of the Independence war, some Arabs had killed Israeli settlers of German origin. The Jewish father had pardoned them and the two families had decided to work together for reconciliation. They play an essential role in the encounter between the two people.

Some 12 years ago, the former Soviet newcomers had some difficulties in meeting with the Arabs. The situation is interesting because many Palestinian Arabs went to the university in the Soviet Union and had learnt the Russian language. At the present, the immigrants (rapatrianty) of Russian culture would not learn Arabic. On the contrary, their children do understand that Israel exists as a full part of the Arab world. It is thus important for the young Israelis to get into contact with the Arab culture and people, even if this can be dangerous or quite uncertain at the moment. In the next 200 years, things will evolve and we have to build up and strengthen the points of connectedness.

av aleksandr [Winogradsky Frenkel]

February 3/January 21, 2009 - 9 deShvat 5769 - ט' דשבט תשס"ט

Monday, February 2, 2009

Axios!

Things are always going a bit special with regards to faith in Israel. The Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow proceded today to the enthronement of the new-elected Patriarch Kyrill I of Moscow and All Rus'. It is indeed a major event for the Russian Orthodx Church. It is the first xtime in Modern times that a patrairch is freely elected in the country. The Russian Orthodox Church is undoubtedly the biggest Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, as a consequence of the fall of communism and the full emergence of all Christian Orthodox Church, this event can be counted among the most fascinating new challenge of Christendom in the world. The Patriarchate of Moscow is present everywhere in the world. It had participated in the creation of the local American and Canadian Church. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Patriarch Tikhon has sent emissaries to set up parishes and spiritual centers in the West and the many diasporas.

The Church of Jerusalem is under the omophoron of Patriarch Theophilos III who heads the Greek/Rum Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The faithful of all Orthodox Churches are under his obedience and normally, only the local Church of Jerusalem is entitled to marry, a rule that was pending under all previous political systems and that is continuing with the Israeli State, the Jordanian Kingdom and the Palestinian Authority.

Nonetheless, the Church of Moscow has a long tradition in the Holy Land. In 1840, bezfore the birth of Eliezer Ben Yehudah - the reviver of Modern Hebrew - the Eqstern Orthodox ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem used to propose the Divine Liturgy in Hebrew along with Church Russian (Slavonic). Today the fact is bot very much mentioned, but the clergy of the Russian convents and monasteries often learn Hebrew and slowly make their journey through new "Israelity".

Israel has constant problems with the Christian denominations, whatever tendencies or new trends concerned. Still, new Patriarch Kyrill follows the way opened by late Patriarch Alexey II who had visited Jerusalem in 1991 when he was elected. He then met with the Israeli authorities. The country has and still shows a real cultural imprint that is common with many aspects of the Slavic cultures and languages. The Church do not influence the Israeli attitude. In these very difficult days for the Israelis and the Palestinians, the enthronement of the new patriarch cannot be ignored. Russia had strongly supported the Greeks during the war of Crimea and the problems in the Holy Sepulcher. They also had helped the Arab clergy in publishing the liturgical books in the Middle-East.

Patriarch Kyrill was the assistant of late Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad who served many years in Jerusalem. He died in the arms of late Pope John Paul II. He was a man of openness and ecumenical dialog. The new patriarch has the immense task to allow the Russian Church to come out to the full and update in many aspects of the Church life. It is great; he has to cope with multi-faceted orientations, often contradictory movements and groups. Faith is a real challenge for the former Soviet nations. There is the challenge for more freedom, independence from any political bounds. It also relates to the other Christian Churches, the other Eastern Orthodox Churches and Catholicism.

It also concerns the relationships to Judaism and the Jewish tradition. The arrival in Israel of a big number of Russian educated newcomers and of a lot of Orthodox among them should also positevely be considered by the hierarchy. The Russian Church had always developed traditional pilgrimages to the Holy sites. This can pave the way to more positive changes in century-old contacts that could have been more fructuous for the spiritual benefits of both Judaism and Eastern Christianity.

Thus, it should be noted that most Israeli newspapers and media did not mention the enthronement of the new patriarch. Israel and the Israeli Jewish society has the right to feel some caring attitude and reflection about their difficult time, along with the reflection that can be conducted in favor of the Gazan people. This is not a political issue. It is the way we connect or not to those who believe in the Most High. The Russian Church leaders may feel back-laid or keep silent.

Still, it is an event of great importance. It is possible to wait and see. It is always nice and friendly to greet and welcome. New leaders build for generations that are ours and will not be theirs. They have the task to build with insights.

av aleksandr

Sent beyond the end of time sea

On the 9th of February 2009, Tu bishvat/ט"ו בשבט תשס"ט - Shvat 15, 5769, will mark the celebration the New Year of the Trees/Eylanot - אילנות. It is an agronomic annual rendezvous with nature and fruits, plants and flowers, trees. It can be very healthy to give charities in order to promote the planting of trees before the feast, after the Shabbat and, in general throughout the year. It is also a time for buying fresh fruit and remembering to pay some unpaid tithes, if any, or to pay some for the development of agricultural products.

The reading portion of the week is Shemot/Exodus 13:17-17-16 for Shabbat "Beshallach/בשלח": "And Pharaoh let the people go ".116 verses : 58 to go and get free, 58 conflicting ones, but the general atmosphere was corny, grouchy, definitely not comparable to some mind blower. The main issue is expressed toward the end of the portion: "Hayesh HaShem bekirbenu im eyn/היש ה' בקרבנו עם אין - Is the Lord present among us or not?" (Shemot/Ex. 17:7). The haftarah (prophetic readings) is from the Book of Shoftim-שופטים/Judges 4:4-5:31, with some slight variants between the Ashkenazim and the Yemenites.

Miracles are natural. They are daily stuff. We may not care or be aware that small or big events positively change and even save our state of mind, life, physical and material, financial position. The problem is very correctly exposed in Exodus. Did they really want to be delivered from bondage? Or enjoy some refreshing time in the wilderness? Something has pushed the Israelites to follow Moses' injunction to leave "Mitzra'im-מצרים (Egypt) = place of imprisonment". Not only a jail, but Egypt was very famous for being a place of graves and tombs.

Versatility should be noted in the events of the week. Stubborn Pharaoh finally stepped down an accepted that Moses leave the country with a population of more than 600.000 people. Then, all of a sudden, the ruler felt wrongful, mistaken and ran after the Hebrews (Ex. 14:3). By the way, when the Israelites were fleeing from Egypt, God said: "The people may have a change of heart ("pen-yinachem ha'am - פן ינחם העם") when they see the war and return to Egypt (Ex. 13:17). They had not been free or centuries. Slavery is hard but somehow "secure", much more than any social and medical system; it may sound bizarre, but look around. This is a normal human reaction. It does not involve in personal armed conflicts. God stiffened both the hearts of Pharaoh and of the Hebrews.

Pharaoh clumsily pursuited his slaves; his army perished in the waters. God knew that the Israelites might be "waking up" from some involuntary dream. Return ticket are so pleasant when they allow to get back home after a refreshing off-shore cruise. It is good to feel that dreams can fail to get true. True, many people have thought of going back to slavery jail. Therefore, it is impossible to cheat God; He made their way longer. The scene is grandiose, not that Hollywood style if we consider the local places and events. The waters split at the Yam Suf-ים סוף - The Sea of the Reeds?

Nu? There are doubts about the grandeur of the event. Say that liberty implies a certain splendor. But the site is small and not proven to be splitting so much. Yam Suf is the "Sea of the Reeds", not really the Red Sea. This refers to a place of humility as suggested by the name of the location: the "reeds - suf-סוף": a deadline.

Botanically speaking, this is not bombastic nor flamboyant, but humbling. This aspect is rarely taken into account. Ordinary men and women, people who fled from Egypt someway under condition of anonymity. Without much intimate conviction, they reached at least the deadline of human bondage. And this is at times unbearable. This sea marks an end (sof-סוף), the humbling moment that swirls a life into a totally new and unexpected direction. The right and left side walls of the waters allowed them to pass the sea in dry ground! With a cloud of darkness and a pillar of fire that panicked the Egyptians in the morning. A destruction conducted with mastery "between good and evil/בין טוב ורע" (Talmud Tanchumah Bereishit 12).

But please, God, Moses, more miracles! We are not awfully afraid. We are only scared because we don't feel secure. This makes the "chom/חום" - "protective wall-warming" barely real. And still, they got saved. This may explain why we cannot "see" God; we would die. But we "see" Him in miracles. When the miracle has humbled and reinvigorated us, it clutches definitely to our beings. At the Yam Suf - Sea of the Reeds, a world was overcome and destroyed: slavery. Wow, this can take lives to be understood as a true human experience.

Thus, the prominent "shirat HaYam/שירת הים - Song of the Sea" in Exodus chapter 15 is essential. Its verses account facts that the Israelites did undergo, but the whole text - in Hebrew - is in imperfect tense. It is an ongoing, present, future daily involvement that any Jewish believer continues to live through. And the Prophetess Miriam, chanting it with a choir of women shows the full unity of the people and the coming generations.

The Christians experience a rather similar situation as Paul of Tarsus states: "For we were saved in hope. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But I we hope or what we do not see, we wait with endurance" (Romans 8:24-25). Or: "Our ancestors were all under the cloud and passed through the sea, into Moses. All ate the same spiritual food (manna) and all drank the same spiritual drink...Yet God was not pleased with most of them and they were struck down in the desert... God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial He will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it" (Corinthians 10:1-5.13).

In Israel, we often have some scatterbrained galut/dispersion attitudes. Ingathered? Right; but Jews recognizing Jews as wool-gathering groups of people. We are hardly conscious that we have constantly been saved by God's outstretched arm: He undoubtedly ensnared us from death. Still, we need to complain as Moses' flock. The Christians also need but they don't dare. It is exact that, considering some torturous diseases, lifelong ones, handicaps, mental or physical defects, all the sufferings of social and economic indigence and humiliation, the humans would firstly require substantial assistance. But God has the nerve - if not the chutzpah/חוצפה (arrogance) - to entrust faith and His kingdom to hokey children.

The Israelites got many miracles along the journey. We can't stand bitter waters? There we get some fresh sources. We had better died in Egypt with some bread: cool, guys: the Lord provides flesh (fat fowls) at night and "manhu/מן הוא - what's that (manna)" the bread that falls from heaven for a full month in the morning, i.e. one extra portion for the Shabbat. Because the exodus included a resting day, the institution o the Shabbat before the Torah was given. So they were sitting put in the wilderness, expecting a seventh portion of manna, they had already swallowed the day before. As concerns the "shelav/שלו - quails" or supper, the phenomenon is known in the region at specific times. These fat bird name comes from the root: "resting, overweight, pleasure" as today "shalwah/שלו(ו)ה". At Massa and Meriba (trial and quarrel), the Israelites felt a special thirst that Moses resolved by striking the rock with his rod and a lot of water quenched the complaining nation that still had to comment: "Is the Lord present among us, or not?" God had the endurance to oblige the Israelites to fight Amalek at Rephidim. A victory against Evil and Idolaters that is reminded everyday in the morning prayer and still a combat that continues "The Lord will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages"(Shemot 17:16).

The real problem is "emunah\אמונה - faith". Crossing the Sea of the Reeds, yes, the Israelites saw the death of Egypt in the sea and "vaya'aminu baHaShem uvMoshe avdo\ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו - and they had faith in the Lord and His servant Moses (Ex. 14:30). But they did not get to the point that they were getting totally free, boundless. Faith still appears as a dead-end. True, this generation had a lot of faith, but failed when Moses came down with the Torah and they died in the wilderness. They will rest forever in the sand of the desert: "midbar\מדבר = place where God speaks", not in some polytheist Egyptian grave. The Amalekites will be exterminated by David, but Maimonides underlined that the Jews had the task to bring them to the Noahide rules in a peaceful way.

Miracles are daily, they happen everywhere, anytime, reaching out to anybody. Still, most people require "proofs, evidences". God has nothing to prove: He works and gives miracles. We are more sensitive to calamities, but God strengthens.

When the Churches confess that Jesus was born to a virgin young woman, walked on the waters, healed the sick and resurrected Lazarus/Eleazar, these statements provided by faith experience and not some film script requires to have more faith. This sort of faith surpasses all natural faith as Moses Mendelssohn once declared. It takes a long time before the basic acts of faith truly get integrated in depths. In that sense, holiness consists in overcoming such doubts and life tragedies, especially in the natural and supernatural realm of the Mitzvot. Rabbi Akiva, tortured by the Romans, uttered the "Shm'a Israel,/שמע ישראל - Hear Israel" proclaiming his lifelong faith, far beyond any mistake, lack of understanding.

On the eve of Tu BiShvat and the new year of the Trees, it maybe useful to say that "everything was very good- tov me'od/טוב מאד" and that we can go ahead of the Yam Suf with confidence.

av aleksandr [Winogradsky Frenkel]

February 1, 2009 - 7 deShvat 5769 - ז' דשבט תשס"ט

The Notion of ‘Liturgical Theology’ in Kern and Schmemann



By Prof. Dr. Archimandrite Job Getcha,
former Dean of the St. Sergius Theological Institute,
Professor and lecturer in Ukraine - he is of Ukranian Canadian descent.
Fr. Job Getcha will also participate in the Lenten Lectures delivered at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris in 2009.

The notion of ‘Liturgical Theology’, used frequently by modern liturgiologists and sometimes criticised, appeared in the XXth century. Until then, the study of liturgy was often restrained to the practical field, to the study of ritual in the process of forming future clergy, and did not find its place in the purely theological field. The Orthodox world is greatly indebted to Father Kiprian Kern who has promoted the theological aspect of liturgical studies by defending the notion of ‘Liturgical Theology’. His disciple, Father Alexander Schmemann, followed the steps of his master, and this explains why he dedicated his doctoral thesis, “Introduction to Liturgical Theology”, to Kern’s memory. The aim of this present paper is to show the contribution made by both of them to the definition and elaboration of a method of Liturgical Theology. Taking into account their respective sources of inspiration, we would like to focus on how their contribution illustrates in an admirable way a relationship of a master to disciple.

The Status of Liturgical Studies at the Beginning of the XXth century
If the notion of ‘Liturgical Theology’ is obvious at the beginning of the XXIth century, this was certainly not the case at the beginning of the XXth. In most textbooks of liturgy, the liturgical science was defined as “the study of the ordo of divine services of the Orthodox Church” . It had a ritualistic or rubrical approach and was developed as the study of the liturgical system as it then existed in the Church. This approach is in fact rather interested in the Typikon (ordo) in its actual redaction and is neither preoccupied by the ordo’s origins, its historical development, nor by its different types or families. The aim of this discipline was to educate celebrants (clergy and cantors) and make them capable of performing the services according to established rules. This approach generally went hand in hand with a purely ritualistic approach to the services. The services were often celebrated without any intelligence or knowledge, for the theological sense of them had been lost. At the same time, iconography and liturgical music had lost their clean specificity as they blended with purely humanist art.

Prior to this, in the XIXth century, the Russian liturgical school was primarily interested in the historical aspect. The school developed around the Professor A.A. Dmitrievsky, nicknamed the “Russian Goar”, and earned many adherents (among whom are M. Skaballanovitch, I. Lisicyn, K. Kekelidze, I. Karabinov). Professors Katansky and I.D. Mansvetov were its forerunners. This school was interested in the historico-archaeological approach . Here, the study of liturgy evolved from simple training in the ordo towards a true science, but this science remained more attached to “ecclesiastical archaeology” than to theology . The historian N. Gloubokovsky notes that Professor I. Mansvetov was, “the main reformer of liturgical studies and became practically its founder as a true science” . The purpose of this approach was to present the historical development and changes that occurred to the liturgy, and it was particularly interested in the appearance and transformations of its specific elements. The study of manuscripts and of different historical witnesses of course proved to be necessary. This historico-archaeological study marks the start of a liturgical renewal which manifested itself, in the case of the Russian Church, during the Council of Moscow of 1917-18 .

The Notion of Liturgical Theology in Father Kiprian Kern
To these two approaches, Father Kiprian added a third one, a theological approach, to his own course of liturgical theology at Saint Sergius Institute. He defines it in the following way:
“The third approach, theological, considers liturgical science not only to be a historical subject or an archaeological study, and not only as a series of rules for the celebration of service according to the mind and letter of the ecclesiastical Typikon (ordo), but mainly as a theological discipline, as a source of the knowledge of God and as a means that can help in the development of an Orthodox theological system” .

Father Kiprian maintained that ‘liturgical theology’ as an independent discipline had the right to exist besides other subjects of systematic and historical theology, and that it was closely linked with patrology. According to him, “patrology, the history of Christian dogma, interested in the study of the development of Christian theological thought in different writers and doctors of the Church at different epochs, should not be isolated from liturgical theology. The study of liturgical hymns, of their appearance, their development and content, fulfils the study of the theological writings of the Church Fathers” . As he reminds us, several Church Fathers are not only the authors of theological treaties, but are also the source of the hymnographical material, whose wealth had been already underlined by Cardinal Pitra. The study of hymnography completes our knowledge of history and of the system of Byzantine theology. So, he adds “you should not limit the study of patristic writings only to theological treaties written in prose, but it is necessary to turn yourself also to ecclesiastical poetry, iconography, symbolism, and more generally, to liturgy” .
Father Kiprian drew the attention of the public to the notion of ‘liturgical theology’ as early as 1924, while he was still a 25-year-old student in Belgrade, in an article called “Lily of Prayers”. The article was published in the journal of theological students at the University of Belgrade , and was then taken into a collection of articles published under the same name in 1928, with the crucial subtitle: “Collection of Articles of Liturgical Theology” . Later in his life, the distinguished scholar was very critical of the writings of his youth, which he thought reflected his aestheticism and his Romanticism; nevertheless, these writings had the merit to put down the principles of his deep thought, at least when he youthfully asserted: “They are right, our theologians, who assert the need to develop our ‘liturgical theology’, that is to say, the systematisation of the theological ideas within our liturgy” .

The Sources of ‘Liturgical Theology’ of Father Kiprian Kern
The early writings of Father Kiprian were mainly inspired by Bishop Gabriel (Tchepour) who, with Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovistky), exercised an indisputable influence on the young theologian . Bishop Gabriel, who wrote his final dissertation on the Typikon of the Great Church of Constantinople, established a link between Father Kiprian and the Russian liturgical school, and more particularly with M. Skaballanovitch. Both Bishop Gabriel and M. Skaballanovitch were disciples of Professor A. Dmitrievsky at the Theological Academy of Kiev.

As a young student of theology, Father Kiprian acquainted himself with Bishop Gabriel in Belgrade. The Bishop was a fine expert of the Typikon and marked his students with his deep knowledge and understanding of hymnographical texts, texts which Fr. Kiprian would later quote by heart in his own remarkable preaching. “It is Bishop Gabriel”, confesses Father Kiprian in his memoir, “who was our master of liturgics, but not in an academic sense: he provoked in me an interest for the historical analysis of our liturgy, for comparison of our way of celebrating with the way of the Greeks and the Slavs of the south. Thanks to him, I threw myself with greed on Dmitrievsky, who with all his descriptions of manuscripts of Typika and of Euchologia proved to be annoying and not very comprehensible for non-specialists and beginners, on Mansvetov, on Skaballanovitch, on the study of liturgical texts, on the comparison of translations and variants, etc.”

Contray to I. Orphanitsky, who did not conceive at the beginning of the XXth century that it was possible to refer to and quote liturgical texts in scientific research, and contrary to Archbishop Anastasiy (Gribanovsky), who was not in favour of a ‘Liturgical Theology’, Father Kiprian said that he had been inspired to develop liturgical theology by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Bishop Gabriel (Tchepour), Father Pavel Florensky, and Father Serge Bulgakov. Father Kiprian, however, considered M. Skaballanovitch to be the pioneer of the subject . To these great figures of Russian theological thought during the XXth century, we can also add Western scholars, such Dom Prosper Guéranger of Solesmes, and the studies of the monasteries of Grottaferrata or Maredsous, and, certainly, the Liturgical Movement from which Father Kiprian gained knowledge after his arrival in Paris .

The Double Task of Liturgical Theology according to Kiprian Kern
In the opinion of Father Kiprian, liturgical theology has a double challenge. First of all, it must help the faithful to understand worship. Indeed, Father Kiprian wanted to underline the didactic and pedagogic aspect of the liturgical services of the Byzantine rite. He wanted to remind theologians, too, that the religious and theological education of ancient Byzantium or of ancient Russia was first of all transmitted by the liturgy. As he writes,
“There were no seminaries, academies or faculties of theology, but God-loving monks and pious Christian drank the living water of the knowledge of God from stichera, canons, kathismata, prologues and synaxaria. The choir and the ambo of the church thus replaced the professorial pulpit” .

Unfortunately, as Father Kiprian himself emphasizes, these services, with all their wealth of hymnography, often prove to be incomprehensible to modern man. This incomprehension is sometimes linked with the use of ancient liturgical languages, such as Slavonic or ancient Greek, unknown to the majority of the faithful . But the difficulty also comes from a lack of culture, or rather, from the fact that we live in another culture. He continues by stating:
“Used to the realism of ‘peredvizhnechestvo’ and of academic painting, we do not understand anymore the true beauty of the non-earthly faces of our icons and of the divine revelations coming from another world; educated by a contemporary poetry in decline, we do not understand anymore the ecclesiastical poetry and the depth of its meaning. We cannot even understand anymore the vital, real sense of our divine services. We do not understand anymore the inner contents of our liturgical theology. Worship has ceased to be for us a source of our knowledge of God. Coming back to the church, we do not understand what is sung. It is therefore necessary to give explanations, to make commentaries” .

That is why, he said, “the need for a systematic commentary on our divine services has been felt for a long time” . In Belgrade, during the 1920s, Father Kiprian realised this when working with students’ brotherhoods, and when teaching at the theological seminary of Bitola in Macedonia . His articles written during this period form the origin to his book “Lily of Prayers”, and they were meant to be first of all a commentary on the weekly cycle of topics contained in the services of the Octoekhos. They therefore intended to reach a very broad public. The articles suggest a popular approach rather than liturgical theology as a science, properly speaking, and their style has a more literary than academic character.

To achieve his goal in these writings, Father Kiprian took as a model the incomplete work on Christian feast days by Professor M. Skaballanovitch, which was in turn inspired by “The Liturgical Year” of Dom Prosper Guéranger. Prof. Skaballanovitch’s work introduced the biblical foundations to the feasts, their historical aspects, doctrinal meaning, patristic interpretations, and it also gave translations of the texts of liturgical service along with archaeological and philological commentaries in the footnotes. Father Kiprian thought that this work, as well as the “Typikon with Commentary” by Prof. Skaballanovitch, were, in this direction, a perfect example .

But liturgical theology, in the view of Father Kiprian, had not only to deal with popular explanation. It had to be a true science, having its place next to other subjects of systematic and historical theology. As a science, the challenge of liturgical theology according to him was to systematise the teaching contained in the liturgical books: the hymnography and the euchology. To this end, amidst the whole range of liturgical material, the study and analysis of the hymnography contained in the Horologion, Octoekhos, Meneia, Triodion and Pentecostarion, are of major interest to the liturgist . But analysis of the content and theological topics developed in the different prayers of the Euchologion are also necessary. As he says, “The Euchologion (or ‘Trebnik’), this book of our liturgical and theological [heritage] whose wealth is not yet revealed, can teach many things to the theologian concerning the questions of anthropology, demonology, cosmology, etc.”

Here, perhaps, resided the biggest challenge for liturgical theology because such a task had not yet been undertaken. In 1924, Father Kiprian writes: “as a systematic science, liturgical theology remains, at least for us Orthodox, a discipline relatively young and not much developed” . He thought that the development of liturgical theology would allow a properly Orthodox theological system to be established which would distance itself from all systems established up to that point, be they Protestant or Latin . Liturgy appeared therefore to his eyes as one of the main sources of Byzantine theology.

Thus he thought that ‘liturgical theology’ surpassed other subjects, since it transcends the very concept of discipline by becoming a true theological method. In his memoirs, Father Kiprian writes: “Liturgical theology became for me a way of thinking. I would say this: Bishop Gabriel, my own life, and the progression of my thought defined liturgical [theology] for me as a method rather than as a discipline. I started to consider everything from a liturgical point of view, or more precisely, from a eucharistic point of view. And I think that for us Orthodox, this is how our approach to liturgical [theology] must be defined” .

Principles of Method in the Liturgical Theology of Father Kiprian Kern
If, in the view of Father Kiprian, the purpose of liturgical theology is to systematise theological ideas contained in the divine services, hymnography, iconographic compositions, church holidays, sacraments, and in a more general way, all the liturgical material of the Church , liturgical theology, as a discipline, has to have its own method in order to do so.

According to him, liturgical theology must be studied with a historical perspective, by paying particular attention to constant developments and transformations of this or that rite, and of this or that feast . Here, we can see the influence the Russian liturgical school and its liturgico-archaeological studies had on him. “If we are poor until now with regards to systematic textbooks”, he confessed, “we are however rich in the field of great liturgical studies” . We could also here identify the influence of the method used in the “Dictionary of Christian Archaeology and Liturgy” with its editors and main collaborators: Duchesne, Cabrol, Leclerc, Salaville and others, all of whom Father Kiprian held in high esteem .

But liturgical theology must also take into account comparative liturgy, that is to say the comparative study of the Byzantine rite with other rites: Roman, Armenian, Coptic, Nestorian, etc . First developed by the German liturgiologist A. Baumstark , this method had already been used by the Russian liturgiologist M. Skaballanovitch in his booklets on Christian feast days. Useful for the historico-archaeological studies, comparative liturgy could also assist with regards to theological interpretation. According Father Kiprian, the study of the liturgical material contained in the Horologion, Octoechos, Meneia, Triodion, Pentecostarion and other liturgical books must be compared and interpreted with the aid of patristic writings, texts of the ancient liturgies, hagiographic texts, and ancient iconography . The interpretation of liturgical texts can only be made with the aid of other ecclesiastical texts, and conversely, the liturgical texts can be of use for the interpretation of the sacred texts. So, hymnographical texts can be enlightened by patristic homilies or hagiographical stories, as they were indeed sources for hymnographers, and they are sometimes prescribed by the ordo to be read as edifying readings at services. This close relation between liturgical theology and patrology, underlined by Father Kiprian , allows us to add apocryphal texts to the list, for they ought also to be considered. They played an indisputable role in the creation of hymnography and of iconography. In turn, iconographic compositions are in symbiosis with liturgical compositions, and therefore one can become clearer with the help of the other.

Finally, liturgical theology cannot dispense with philological study. By working with translations or versions of the liturgical texts, the liturgiologist has, at all times, to compare them with the original Greek in order to prove the accuracy of the translation . Such methods were in fact used by Russian liturgiologists such as A. Dmitrievsky, who wanted to compare liturgical manuscripts, and M. Skaballanovitch, who in the footnotes of his booklets on Christian holy days drew the reader’s attention to the sense of various Greek words. Such philological study can prove to be decisive for theological interpretation, especially in cases where a translation introduces an interpretation – or a reduction – of the original meaning, as well as in cases where the translation inopportunely alters the original sense. Already in the articles of his youth and which were later taken into the collection “Lily of Prayer”, Father Kiprian drew the attention of his readers to the original sense of Greek terms whose translation was not always accurate in the Slavonic books. As a matter of fact, Father Kiprian knew Greek perfectly and loved comparing the Slavonic liturgical texts with their Greek originals. Moreover, for the celebration of liturgical services, he always enjoyed using a Greek Hieratikon .

The Idea of Liturgical Theology in Father Alexander Schmemann
Father Alexander Schmemann, disciple and spiritual son of Father Kiprian, was unquestionably the one who contributed most to spreading the concept of ‘Liturgical Theology’. As a matter of fact, he dedicated his doctoral thesis to Father Kiprian, a thesis he defended at Saint-Sergius Institute on July 2nd, 1959, and which he consecrated to “the history of Byzantine liturgical synthesis”. This study, first published in Russian in Paris in 1961 under title: “Introduction to Liturgical Theology”, and then in English in London in 1966 , was meant to develop a method of liturgical theology and spread the concept of ‘liturgical theology’ beyond the Orthodox world. Schmemann remained particularly tied to the didactic aspect of liturgy. He was certainly the biggest popularizer of liturgical theology in the XXth century. But he also contributed to working out the concept and to forging its method.

Following the steps of his master, Alexander Schmemann sketched the milestones of the liturgical theology of the Orthodox Church. In his book Introduction to Liturgical Theology, he gives the following definition of liturgical theology: “Liturgical theology is the elucidation of the meaning of worship” . This meaning is much deeper than the superficial and arbitrary symbolic explanation that Byzantine liturgy knew, especially after the XVth century, and which was often criticised by Father Alexander.

For him, as he says, “the task of liturgical theology consists in giving a theological basis to the explanation of worship and the whole liturgical tradition of the Church” . This implies three things from his point of view. Firstly, liturgical theology must find and define concepts and categories that can express the essential nature of the liturgical experience of the Church. Secondly, it must link up these notions with concepts used in theology to express the faith and the doctrine of the Church. Finally, thirdly, it must introduce the information transmitted by liturgical experience as a whole: the rule of prayer (lex orandi) which determines the rule of faith (lex credendi) of the Church.

The ultimate purpose of liturgical theology for Schmemann is therefore to clarify and to explain the link which joins liturgy and Church, and to show how the Church expresses itself and is even realized in liturgical action . Here, we can say that the disciple takes a step beyond his master: if the master conceived liturgical theology as a systematic presentation of the dogma contained in the euchology and the hymnography, the disciple had the deep conviction that liturgical theology has to explain the link which exists between the Church, as mystical Body of Christ, and liturgical celebration.

The starting point of Father Alexander Schmemann is the famous patristic saying to which he always refers: “Lex orandi lex credendi”. For him, just as for Kiprian Kern, theology in general cannot work without a liturgical science. Schmemann compares the place of liturgical theology among different theological disciplines with the one that occupies biblical theology: just as biblical theology tends to connect the text of Scriptures and dogmatic theology, liturgical theology has to study the data of the liturgical texts and its use by dogmatic theology . Schmemann implies therefore, just as Kern, a work of exegesis as well as interpretation.

Twenty-two years after the defence of his doctoral thesis, Father Alexander Schmemann came back to the Saint-Sergius Institute to speak about liturgical theology and its method at the 28th Congress of Liturgical Studies in June, 1981. In his presentation, he distinguished “liturgical theology” from the “theology of liturgy”, where defined the latter as “any study of Church worship in which this worship is analysed, included, and defined in its essence and in its forms with the help and in function of theological categories and concepts, external to worship and its liturgical specificity”, where, according to him, “liturgy is subordinated, if not subjected, to theology” .

Unlike “theology of liturgy”, “liturgical theology” is founded “on the recognition of liturgy, in its entirety, as being not only an object for theology, but first of all its source, and this by virtue of its essential ecclesial function : to reveal the faith of the Church by the means which are peculiar to it and belong only to it; to be this lex orandi in which lex credendi finds its main criterion” .

Just as for Kiprian Kern, the concept of liturgical theology for Schmemann distances itself from a simple historical study of the liturgy as it was conceived by the generation of Dom Cabrol in the West (or by the Russian historical school of Dmitrievsky). In them, “the study of liturgy reduced to history was fundamentally an auxiliary science, without ties to theology, and which governed liturgy without being concerned about history”. He admitted however that, “this historical school [...] prepared the advent of the Liturgical Movement and therefore of liturgical theology to which this movement could only lead. [...] To put it briefly, it is the historians of liturgy that without searching for it, helped us to find this specificity of liturgy, which makes it the source of a theology sui generis, a theology of which liturgy is the only source and the only revelation” .

If he showed himself a worthy disciple of his master, the merit of Schmemann is to have identified clearly the eschatological character of Christian worship and made it the specific focus of liturgical theology. Two years before his death, he asserted with boldness: “it can be said that liturgical theology has as its own field, as its object, eschatology, which is revealed in fullness in the liturgy” . If this seemed possible in his opinion, it was due to the fact that liturgy not only fulfils the Church but also reveals the Kingdom of God. It is what allowed him to speak in his writings of the “sacrament of the Church” and of the “sacrament of the Kingdom”. As he says it himself, “it is the Eucharist which, obviously, constitutes the heart, the centre of this eschatological experience: in it and by it the Church is fulfilled in its ascent to the table of the Lord, to His Kingdom, in order to be able to testify of His Kingdom in this world” .

The Method of Liturgical Theology of Father Alexander Schmemann
Just like his master, Father Alexander thought that as an independent theological discipline, liturgical theology needed its own method .

He considered that historico-critical research was necessary in order to evaluate the liturgical tradition. Conscious of the fact that the liturgy knew a very long and complex evolution, he wonders in his Introduction to Liturgical Theology if everything that was transmitted in the Church by the liturgy has an equal value or equal importance . Schmemann underlines therefore, just like his master, the necessity of historical study of the liturgy. However, he underlines that the study of the history of liturgy should not be an end in itself, as it was often the case in the XIXth century. “After historical analysis, there must come a theological synthesis”, he writes, one that he defines as “the elucidation of the rule of prayer as the rule of faith” and “as the theological interpretation of the rule of prayer”. This constitutes in the view of Father Alexander the second aspect of liturgical theology that he considers to be most important . Thus, if the role of the study of the history of liturgy is to show its structure and its development, the role of liturgical theology is to discover, decipher, or unveil its sense .

In his Introduction to Liturgical Theology, Schmemann offers a plan of study for the science. According to him, it should begin with an evaluation, in a historico-critical way, of the ordo of the Church so as to reveal its theological sense. Indeed, it seemed to him necessary to study the ordo by wondering what links unite today’s ordo with the primitive ordo: what is the norm of origin, what is the theological sense, and what represents or expresses our true liturgical tradition?

Just like his teacher, Schmemann found theological interest in studying euchology and hymnography, admitting, however, that some of these texts have, “a rhetoric and artificial character” ; he also considers that the historico-critical study of the ordo is necessary for liturgical theology. In his Introduction to liturgical theology, he tries to sketch four strata of its evolution. The first one corresponds to the pre-Constantinian period, with the origin of the daily, weekly, and annual cycles, the origin of the practice of fasting, and the predominance of psalmody. The second stratum is revealed in the secular (or cathedral) ordo, with the importance of the Constantinopolitan liturgy, the development of singing, of liturgical music, and of dramatic elements, as well as the multiplication of liturgical feast days. The third one is constituted by the monastic ordo and its influence on the evolution of liturgy. Finally, the fourth stratum represents the synthesis of the secular ordo and the monastic ordo with what he conceived as the triumph of monastic piety, and which he qualified rightly as the “Byzantine synthesis” .

According to him, the first chapter of liturgical theology should be dedicated to the sacraments of baptism and chrismation as the entrance rites of the Church, followed by a second chapter on the Eucharist and all that is linked to it. Schmemann warns us here against a scholastic approach which tends to privatise sacraments with regards to the whole life of the Church or to separate one sacrament from the others . On this point, he refers explicitly to his teacher who also maintained that if the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, a theology which does not have the Eucharist as its foundation would be by definition defective . Schmemann here also warns us against a tendency, linked with the eucharistic renewal of the time, which made the Eucharist not the source, the centre, or the summit of the life of the Church, but reduced it only to its content, by focusing on it alone and forgetting the other aspects of the liturgical experience of the Church .

The plan of liturgical theology worked out by Father Alexander in his Introduction to Liturgical Theology ends with a third chapter on the sanctification of time, whose aim is the study of the prayer of the hours and of the feast days of the liturgical year. A fourth chapter on the sanctification of life follows, having as its object the study of sacraments such as marriage, confession, unction of the sick, etc.

Twenty-two years later, he went on to sketch in his paper at the 28th Congress of Liturgical Studies at St. Sergius three stages which seemed to him unavoidable for the method of liturgical theology. The first one determines the “liturgical fact”, in other words, it makes a historical study of the liturgical document itself. The second stage is the theological analysis of this liturgical fact: it demands to understand it, to locate it in the theological context which is peculiar to it, and not to apply to it theological categories or problems which are foreign to it. Finally, the third stage is the synthesis which consists in showing from the liturgical evidence what Schmemann calls the “liturgical epiphany”, that is to say, the theological meaning . This method, which seems simple but is still seldom put into practice, agrees entirely with the vision which both Schmemann and Kern had of a liturgical theology. Such a vision does not limit itself to the ritual or to the history of texts, but wants the liturgy, its rituals and its texts, to reveal the sources for theology. But both of them were conscious of being pioneers. Schmemman said two years before his death: “If we know what we expect from liturgical theology, it remains to be done” .

The Sources of Father Alexander Schmemann
We can notice how much the concept of liturgical theology and its method elaborated by Father Alexander Schmemann depends on that of his master, Father Kiprian Kern. However, the context of the middle of the XXth century in which Schmemann began thinking about this differs from that of the beginning of the XXth century in which Kiprian Kern wrote. If Kern proved to be a pioneer in the context of émigré community by introducing a theological vision to the liturgical domain which was until then approached in a more practical and historical perspective, Schmemann benefited from being in the West. He did so not only from the studies of his master, but also from the research which was made by the Liturgical Movement, whose golden age he himself locates between 1940 and 1950 and to which he always refers . There was also the atmosphere of preparation for the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Admitting that the Liturgical Movement was an event and a key movement which both revealed the necessity and the possibility of a “liturgical theology”, Schmemann regretted at the end of his life that the Liturgical Movement was not followed by a theological realisation, and this led unfortunately to “a huge confusion, a real liturgical crisis” .

Besides the influence of his master, it is possible to see the influence of Father Nicolas Afanassieff, who was one of the co-founders, with Father Kiprian Kern, of the Congress of Liturgical Studies at Saint-Serge. One sees this influence particularly in Schmenann’s perception of the dichotomy which exists between the sacred and the secular. According to Schmemann, such a dichotomy had corrupted the liturgy of the Church since the end of the fourth century . Afanassieff was, as we know, a pioneer, within Orthodox theology, in Eucharistic ecclesiology, and in this direction, greatly emphasised the unity and the “concelebration” of the entire liturgical assembly . He influenced Schmemann’s vision of the intimate unity which exists between the Church as an event and the liturgical celebration. Of course, this conviction had also been communicated to him by his teacher, Fr. Kiprian, about whom Schmemann writes: “The only thing which will remain forever, as the principle of all principles, as an eternal and decisive form of life: the love for service, the liturgical experience and the knowledge of the Church as real, deep and sincere ‘Eucharisticity’. I am persuaded, having served with Father Kiprian in front of the same altar for five years, that the only joy of his life was serving, celebrating the Eucharist, the mystical depths of the Great Week, of Pascha and of the holidays of the Church” . Therefore it is not by chance that the master and the disciple both wrote a book entitled “The Eucharist” .

We have to be conscious, however, that the concept of “liturgical theology” was not absent from the Roman Catholic liturgiologists, whose writings were known to Father Alexander Schmemann undoubtedly through the influence of his teacher. As recalls his fellow student at Saint Sergius Institute, Father John Meyendorff: “although the influence of some of his teachers at St. Sergius was decisive, he always lived in a wider spiritual world. The forties and the fifties were a period of extraordinary theological revival within French Roman Catholicism, years of a ‘return to sources’ and of ‘liturgical movement’. It is from that existent milieu that Father Schmemann really learned ‘liturgical theology’, ‘philosophy of time’ and the true meaning of the ‘paschal mystery’. The names and ideas of Jean Daniélou, Louis Bouyer and several others are inseparable from the shaping of Fr Schmemann’s mind” .

Indeed, in this milieu, Fathers B. Botte and Irénée Dalmais themselves honoured the theological dimension of liturgy . But when Schmemann develops the concept of liturgy as “sanctification”, he takes his main inspiration from the work of Odon Casel. Casel was a distinguished representative of the liturgical movement of the 1940s, a Benedictine of Maria Lach, and was at the origin of a “theology of the mysteries”, from which Schmemann’s own “liturgical theology” could perhaps be considered a culmination . Indeed, Father Alexander follows Casel when he says that the experience and understanding of Christian worship is, at heart, mysteriological. He follows Casel, too, when he regrets that slowly, in the course of the centuries, the experience of the Church as a liturgical assembly was transformed into an individualistic vision of the sanctification of the faithful by the clergy. This mistaken vision, to Schmemann’s mind, contributes to the cleavage between the sacred and the profane .

In his analysis of the Jewish origins of Christian liturgy and of its liturgical year, and more particularly of the Eucharist, Schmemann is naturally indebted to the studies of Gregory Dix . Louis Bouyer also influenced him with his vision of the centrality of the paschal mystery in Christian worship, as well as of the intimate link which unites the Bible and the liturgy . This notion of the centrality of the paschal mystery in all Christian liturgy, and of the link between baptism and the paschal celebration was developed not only by Father Alexander, but also proved to be central in the liturgical reform of Vatican II which was worked out in the same epoch.

Moreover, the concepts of the “sanctification of time” and of the “liturgy of time” depend partly on the studies of O. Cullman . Schmemann developed these concepts by stressing the eschatological dimension of worship as a manifestation of the Kingdom of God. Schmemann was furthermore one of the first liturgiologists to speak about “the historicisation” of worship. By this he meant the change that occurred in Christian worship from the IVth century onwards where it acquired a symbolic and historical interpretation rather than its original eschatological orientation . He depends for this point on G. Dix , on B. Botte , and more generally on the studies of liturgical origins by Cabrol . On the other hand, he is also indebted to the studies of J. Daniélou on the importance on Sunday, the “eighth day” of the week . It is necessary to remind ourselves that the rediscovery of the importance of Sunday and of its centrality in the weekly liturgical cycle is one of the achievements, in the Roman Catholic Church, of the liturgical reform of Vatican II.

Conclusion
As heirs of the Russian liturgical school of the XIXth century, Fathers Kiprian Kern and Alexander Schmemann were not only related by the links of spiritual fatherhood but also by a true relationship of master to disciple. It appears clearly in the concept of “liturgical theology” which they forged in the XXth century.

From the historical school and the historico-critical method, they kept the need to study the history of the liturgy, for it is necessary as an adequate hermeneutic of the liturgical tradition. But the knowledge of the history of liturgy is not an end in itself. Liturgical theology must help to emphasise the theology which is contained and transmitted by the liturgical texts, as well as the experience of the mystery of salvation lived by the Church in the celebration of its liturgy. It must lead towards the knowledge of the liturgical epiphany of the Kingdom of God.

If one speaks, as Father Kiprian Kern did, of a systematic presentation of the dogma contained in the euchology and the hymnography, or if one wants to show, following Father Alexander Schmemann, the link which exists between the Kingdom of God, the Church as mystical Body of Christ, and the liturgical celebration, then liturgical theology reminds us continuously that liturgy was always one of the major sources of Byzantine theology. Liturgical theology cannot be reduced to a discipline nor to a method. It should become a way of thinking. This is what Father Kiprian Kern transmitted to his disciple, Father Alexander Schmemann. This is the legacy which he, in his turn, transmitted to us.

Archimandrite Prof. Dr. Job Getcha

Monday, January 26, 2009

Xenia the Nun formerly named Eusebia

The lives and praises of the saints are like the stars in brilliance. Because of their number, we do not know all the saints by name; still, they amaze us by their radiant majesty, as do the stars which, fixed in the heavens, illumine all that is below, being seen by the Indians, yet not concealed from the Scythians, shining upon the land and guiding by their light those at sea. Similarly, the radiance of the saints is not bounded by the ends of this earth below, through their relics be entombed in sepulchers. Therefore, we marvel at their lives and are amazed at how God has glorified them that please Him.

Among those who pleased God and were glorified by Him was His favorite, Xenia, whose way of life was wondrous and luminous, and who ardently toiled for the Lord. According to ancient manuscripts, Xenia, or Eusebia (as she was known before she fled the world), was the daughter of a Christian, one of the foremost senators of Rome. She was his only child and he loved her dearly. When Eusebia reached a marriageable age, another nobleman, also of senatorial rank, requested her parents to give her to his son in wedlock. After considering the matter, Eusebia’s parents agreed, the maiden was betrothed to the youth, and a day was announced for the nuptials. Eusebia was not at all pleased by this, because she burned with divine love and had vowed her virginity to the heavenly Bridegroom, Christ the Lord, Who is more comely in beauty than the sons of men. She said nothing about the pledge to her parents, however, since they would not have assented to it, but would have attempted to persuade her to renounce or break the oath. They were determined to see her married, because she was their sole heir; furthermore, they very much desired grandchildren.

The blessed Eusebia had two faithful handmaidens who had grown up with her. One day, while alone with them, she announced, “I wish to share with you my inmost thoughts and desire, but first I enjoin you, in the name of the Lord God, to reveal to no one what I am about to say. Consider following my example, for so doing you will save your souls and assist my lowliness.”

The slaves replied, “You can count on our obedience, lady, and the more so if our souls will profit. We would die before betraying your trust.”

“You are aware that my parents have found me a bridegroom,” said Eusebia. “I want you to know also that I will never marry. This life is insubstantial: a shadow, a whiff of smoke, a dream. Come now and let us reason together and resolve to live chastely to the end of our days. Keep my secret and follow my counsel, and the Lord will bless and guide us. Rest assured that even if my parents discover my intention and try to force me to enter into wedlock, they will not succeed. With God as my helper, neither fire, nor sword, nor wild beasts can defeat me!”

“May the Lord’s will be done!” exclaimed the servants. “We shall assist you in every way possible. We would rather die with you than reign without you.”

Hearing this, the blessed one glorified God. Afterwards the three maidens, equally aflame with desire for God, could think of nothing except how to thwart the matrimonial plans. Every day they begged the Lord for guidance concerning this.

Having convinced her handmaidens to lead a chaste life completely devoted to God, Eusebia decided to distribute to the poor her gold, silver, and valuable. The two servants secretly gave everything she owned and also dispersed their possessions, thereby demonstrating their love for Christ. One night shortly before the wedding, the three maidens changed into men’s clothing and slipped out of the house, taking a little money for their needs. Signing themselves with the Cross, they entreated Christ God, “Be Thou with us, O Son of God, and direct us on the right path. For Thy sake have we forsaken our home and everything therein, choosing a grievous way of life and becoming strangers on the earth. Thee alone do we seek!” With this prayer on their lips, tears in their eyes, and hearts full of joy, the virgins began their journey.

As they were walking, Saint Eusebia said to her slaves, “Henceforth you will be my sisters and mistresses, and I shall serve you as long as I live. Let us be strangers to everything worldly for God’s sake and devote ourselves exclusively to the salvation of the soul. Let us flee every temporal care; let us put our trust in the Lord, Who said, Every one that hath forsaken father, or mother, or houses, or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Yea, sisters, let us strive for salvation!”

While the saint was talking, they reached the shore, and finding a ship about to leave for Alexandria, they paid the fare and boarded it. Sped by a favorable wind, they quickly reached the city. Seeking refuge in a place Eusebia’s parents would not think to look for them, they took another ship to Cos, an island fourteen miles off Halicarnassus, a town in Caria. Because it seemed safe on the island, they redressed as women. They thanked God, rented a little house, and prayed that the Lord send a clergyman to tonsure them and care for their souls. Saint Eusebia instructed her companions, “Sisters, keep secret our identity. Tell no one where we are from, why we left our homeland, or what is my name, lest word of us somehow reach my parents. In God’s name I enjoin you to remain silent about this until the day I die. Do not speak about what we have done or intend. If anyone asks my name, tell him it is Xenia, which means “a stranger,” for lo, I have forsaken home and parents for God’s sake, and am a stranger here. Call me Eusebia no longer, but only Xenia, because I here have no continuing city; rather, I seek one to come. The maidens agreed, and thenceforth Christ’s bride was known as Xenia.

After this Xenia and her sisters went to the docks, where they caught sight of a gray-haired, angelic-looking monk. The saint approached him, fell at his feet, and with tears in her eyes implored, “Man of God, do not reject us strangers, paupers, and sinners, but imitate the holy Apostle Paul and be our guide as he was Thecla’s. Remember the reward God has prepared for teachers of righteousness, and save me and these two sisters.”

The Lord’s servant was moved to tears and sighed, “Of what help can I possibly be to you?”

“Be a second father and instructor to us after God, and take us somewhere we can save our souls,” Xenia pleaded. “We are foreigners, uncertain where to go and ashamed to appear in public.”

“Where are you from, and why are you alone?” the elder inquired.

The blessed maiden replied, “We are Christ’s slaves from a faraway country. We decided to abandon our homeland and go to a place where no one knows us. Night and day we have been praying that God send us a guide to salvation, and behold, He has brought you here to assist us, the feeble.”

“Sister, I am also a stranger here,” the elder said. “I am on my way home from the Holy Places.”

“Where do you live, Father?” asked Christ’s handmaiden.

He answered, “In Mylasa, a town in Caria.”

“Are you a bishop?” inquired Christ’s bride.

“Forgive me, sister; I am a sinner and wear the habit unworthily. By God’s mercy I am a presbyter, the superior of a small community, the Monastery of the Holy and All-glorious Apostle Andrew. My name is Paul,” said the elder.

Christ’s handmaiden cried, “Glory to Thee, O God! Thou didst hearken unto me, the wretch, and send this holy man, as once Thou didst send the Apostle Paul to Saint Thecla, that my sisters and I may be saved.” Then she entreated the elder again, “Servant of God, do not disdain us wanderers, but be a second father to us, after God.”

“I told you that I am also a stranger here,” responded the blessed Paul. I do not know how I can assist you if you stay on this island, but if you come to the mainland, I will help as much as I can. May God’s mercy be with you.”

The virgins fell prostrate and exclaimed, “Take us with you, servant of God! We shall go wherever you command; we ask only that you show compassion and guide us wanderers to eternal life.”

The man of God took the holy virgins to Mylasa, and with gold she had brought from Rome, Saint Xenia purchased cottages for herself and her sisters outside the town at an isolated place where a church had once stood. She built a chapel in honor of the holy Protomartyr Stephen and soon was joined by several additional virgins, whom she betrothed to Christ. A convent was founded under the spiritual direction of the blessed abbot Paul, who tonsured the saint and her two servants. Until her death none of the locals knew where Xenia was born, why she left her native land, or what she was formerly named. Whenever asked where the virgins were from. The venerable Paul would say, “I brought them here from Cos”; therefore, everyone thought they were from that island and referred to the sisterhood as “The Convent of the Cosians.”

Before long, Cyril, the Bishop of Mylasa, died. The godly Paul succeeded him as archpastor and made Xenia a deaconess. The holy virgin was truly worthy of this rank, since she lived like an angel while in the flesh. Although as the daughter of a senator she was reared in luxury, she undertook the most severe ascetic labors. No obstacle could stop her ascent to the summit of virtue. The demons soon learned to keep a distance from her, having been burnt repeatedly by her fasting and self-mortification. Sometimes Xenia ate every other day, sometimes every third day, and sometimes she went for a week at a time without food. She drank no wine, and did not partake of beans, vegetables, or anything cooked with oil, but ate only bread in small quantity, moistened with tears and sprinkled with ashes from a censer. She kept to this rule throughout her day, and so could say with the prophet, I ate ashes like bread and my drink I mingled with weeping. Only her two sisters, who ever strove to emulate her, knew the secrets of her way of life, for she hid these austerities from the others. Without fail she kept vigil from dusk until dawn, standing with hands uplifted. Often the two sisters secretly observed her praying on bended knees and shedding abundant tears the whole night long. Yet despite her exertions for the Lords, she remained humble and regarded herself as the worst of sinners. Who can recount all the saint’s virtues and struggles? Her meekness surpassed description. No one ever saw her angry, and neither pride nor vainglory marred her character. She was completely unpretentious. Her countenance was modest, her appearance unadorned, her body emaciated, and her heart ever peaceful. Her self-control was total, and she strove for every virtue. Ineffable was her humility, boundless her love for others. She helped the poor, showed compassion on the suffering, was forgiving to sinners, and led the deluded to the path of repentance. Her garb was of the most inferior sort, consisting of a worn-out monastic dress and vest; however, she considered herself unworthy even to wear this. Her eyes were springs of compunctionate tears, their flow never ebbing in the drought of temptation. Having her noetic gaze fixed on Christ the Bridegroom, she longed to see Him face to face. With David, she chanted, “When shall I come, and appear before the face of God, before the face of my sweet Beloved? My tears have been my bread by day and by night.”

At length the time approached for the ever-memorable, undefiled bride of Christ to depart this fleeting life. In the village of Leuke, there was a church dedicated to Saint Ephraim, a former Bishop of Mylasa. His honored remains were enshrined in building, and on his feastday the blessed hierarch Paul went there with his clergy. On the same day the holy Xenia assembled the nuns in the convent chapel and said, “Esteemed sisters, you have always shown me fervent love, endured my infirmities, and ministered to me, the stranger. Now, I entreat you, demonstrate your love again: pray to God for me, your poor, sinful, homeless servant, that my sins not impede me from attaining Christ. Lo, death is at hand, and my soul is exceeding sorrowful, since I have failed to prepare for its departure from the body. Because our father and master Bishop Paul is away, I want you to relate to him from the lowly Xenia: ‘Reverend father, remember me, a stranger. As you guided me on the way of monastic life, so pray that the Lord deem me worthy of my hope.’”

Their eyes brimming with tears, the nuns cried, “O directress of our souls, do not leave us helpless orphans! Who will watch over us on the path to life? Who will instruct us? Who will send up supplications on our behalf when we are downcast? No, lady, the hour of our separation has not come. You assembled the flock; do not abandon it now. Beg God to grant you more time, for the sake of us paupers and our salvation.”

Then Xenia’s two handmaidens fell at her feet and wept, “How can you desert us, O mistress? What will become of us poor wanderers? You are thinking only of yourself: that is why you are so eager to leave. Have you forgotten the sorrows we shared, the hardships of travel, and our sincere devotion to you? If, however, your must go, remember to pray for us, lady. Permit us to follow you soon and be with you in eternity.”

Bitter lamentation filled the chapel and Xenia, shedding copious tears, spoke these words: “Long ago, sisters, the holy Apostle Peter wrote, The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Knowing this, let us not wile away time, but be vigilant, keeping our lamps lit and filled with oil, so that we may be prepared to meet the Bridegroom. We do not know when the Lord will call us. The harvest and reapers are ready, awaiting the Master’s command.”

At this all the nuns fell prostrate and wept even more bitterly. The saint turned to prayer, saying, “O God, Who hast cared for m, the exile, until this day, hearken unto Thy lowly, sinful slave. Have mercy on Thy handmaidens, my sisters: protect them from every snare of the devil, that Thy holy name may be praised and glorified. I beseech Thee, O God, to remember the sisters who accompanied me into exile out of love for Thee and have never strayed from my side. May we not be parted in Thy kingdom, but be deemed worthy of a place together in Thy bridal chamber.”

Xenia then requested that the nuns leave, as she wished to be alone in the chapel. Her two slaves looked through a crack in the door and saw her at prayer, laying prostrate with arms outstretched, so that her body formed a cross. The saint remained thus for a long time; then light suddenly flashed in the chapel, as though a bolt of lightning had struck. A strong, sweet fragrance penetrated the door, and the two sisters rushed in to find Saint Xenia asleep in the Lord. It was the sixth hour on the twenty-fourth of January, a Saturday. The sisters left the church and called the others, saying, “Mothers and sisters, come; it is time to weep: we have been orphaned! Let us lament the departure of her that was a pillar of strength for the entire community. We have lost our revered mother and teacher, Saint Xenia, and are alone.”

The nuns entered the chapel, saw that the blessed one had expired, and burst into tears. Wishing to show what a treasure had been hidden on earth, God, the Lover of man, revealed a marvelous sign in heaven. No sooner had the venerable Xenia surrendered her holy soul into the Lord’s hands than a brilliant crown formed of stars appeared over the convent, topped by a cross brighter than the sun. This was seen by everyone, including the citizens of Mylasa who were in Leuke with their bishop, the godly Paul. The Mylasans asked one another, “What can this mean?”

Perceiving by the Spirit what had happened, the blessed Bishop Paul announced, “Xenia has reposed. The crown is hovering over her monastery.” Immediately after the Liturgy, the Mylasans, eager to confirm the Bishop’s words, rushed to the convent.

Soon an enormous crowd of men, women, and children had assembled there. Gazing at the crown and cross in the sky, the people wept and shouted, “Glory to Thee, O Christ God: Thou hast many saints who pleased Thee in secret! Glory to Thee, O Word of God, Who didst assume flesh and voluntarily submit to Crucifixion for our sake, and hast revealed Thy great treasure, hidden until now! Glory to Thee, O Master, Who hast deemed humble Mylasa worthy to be the repository for the invaluable pearl, the precious gem, Thy holy bride! Accepting Xenia into Thy heavenly mansions, Thou hast appointed our town guardian of her pure and sacred remains.”

Then the Christ-living people (especially the women, who were filled with zeal), cried to Bishop Paul, “Do not silence our city’s boast, O godly hierarch! Do not conceal our pride and joy, the jewel brought to light by the Lord. Show us the shining candle hidden beneath a bushel. Show Xenia to all, that our enemies may know Who in truth is the Master we serve. May the heathen see and be put to shame; may the Jews understand the mystery of the Cross and admit that they crucified God. May the adversaries of the Cross of Christ mourn. Let them witness how the Ruler of angels glorifies His servants after their death. Let all behold how gloriously Christ God has crowned His bride, a stranger and exile; let all see what favor the Lord has shown or poor and little-known city.” As the crowd was clamoring thus, the Bishop and his presbyters approached the precious body of Saint Xenia, which they placed on a bier, surrounded by burning candles. After censing, the Bishop and presbyters intoned hymns, hoisted the relics upon their shoulders, and carried them to the center of the city. To everyone’s astonishment, the heavenly crown remained over the body the whole way to the town and afterwards. Hearing about the miracle, villagers crowded into Mylasa. Bishop Paul and the faithful remained beside the saint until morning, chanting dirges. Many healings occurred: even those long ill had only to touch the relics and were made whole.

At dawn on the Lord’s day, the honored corpse was covered with a shroud and carried with hymnody to a location south of the city gates called “The Place of Figs,” where before her death the saint had indicated that she wished to be buried. The crown of stars and the cross were still visible over Xenia’s body. When the procession reached its destination, the crown and cross also halted, and the venerable one’s shroud was cut into little pieces. These were given to the faithful, who kept them for healing diseases. The Bishop anointed the remains of the venerable one according to custom, and the corpse was lowered into a new gravel whereupon, the crown of stars and the cross in the sky disappeared. After the burial sick people came to the grave in large numbers and frequently were cured.

Soon thereafter, one of Xenia’s handmaidens died, then the other, Both were buried at the feet of their holy mistress. After the first servant departed to life eternal, the nuns begged the second to tell them what she knew about Xenia. Certain that her won end was near, she revealed everything: where Xenia was from, who her parents were, why she had abandoned house and homeland, that her former name was Eusebia, and that she had assumed the name of Xenia as fitting for one who had become a stranger out of love for God. The nuns made known to all the life of Christ’s bride.

Having forsaken the world, the venerable Xenia greatly pleased God and became a citizen of heaven. While in the body she rivaled the incorporeal angels; as she departed the flesh, she trampled upon the ancient serpent, the devil. Possessing the priceless treasure of virginity, she regarded everything temporal as refuse. By love she was betrothed to Christ, by faith she was wed to Him, and now she has received her desire, to rejoice forever with the immortal Bridegroom Death did not curtail her ability to aid the faithful by prayer, nor restrict her benevolence to the graveside. Because she struggled to attain the height of virtue for His sake, Christ readily hearkens to the holy prayers of His bride and for her sake abundantly bestows His mercies on us.

Several years after Saint Xenia’s repose, the venerable one’s spiritual father, the godly Paul, also departed this life. He had pleased the Lord greatly, and by his entreaties the Most High expelled demons and healed every sickness. Paul’s body was entombed in the church of the Monastery of the Holy Apostle Andrew, where he had once been abbot, while his soul was translated to the presence of God to share in the glory of the saints. By his fervent prayers to God; by those of the venerable Eusebia, known also as Xenia; and by those of her two servants, may the Lord deem us worthy of His compassion, now and ever and unto the ages of ages.

Amen.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Tongue twisting


Times are special. They are difficult. They are full of hardships. It may even be possible that Israel's parties and structures and the Palestinian Authorities, beyond all political considerations, are on a sort of "stand-by/in between" situation. Daily life in Jerusalem and in the country is subtle and cannot be reduced to breaking news reports or flashes. Things are subtle in the area and has always been over 7,000 years of constant pulling in and out of all sorts of nations. The same movement is ongoing and the point is, for the believers, to break through partisanship and develop a real spirit of spiritual path. This is an "exploit" in such a situation; dialogs seem to be cut down into monologues. Stuttering words that usually can hardly be shared and understood by most of the people can hardly reach our ears. It is a situation that is often depicted in the Bible/TaNaKH. It does not mean that we better can solve such a long-term and lasting context of conflict and war.

Maybe it is not a war in the sense that wars show up quite often in the area. 1948, 1967 were wars. On the other hand, the ongoing conflict that only seems to hold on for some time, is like a fire that cannot be controlled.

The problem is very spiritual, far more than we even can imagine or envision because we are glued in the muds of some contradictory factors. Sadly, things have to mature in order to be fulfilled and overcome. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly some paths of linkage. They do connect the socio-cultural flow of attitudes. Things are much more working from the inside of a society that has to admit that the grafting is switched on. It does not mean it can show up. It involves a kind a stuttering speech, a dialog that cannot be understood by those who are not part of it. Exclusion is a mass social tendency; a heavy tendency. Still, exclusion works because links do exist but they act in the undergrounds of the human threads.

Interestingly, and I only intend to focus on the spiritual path that we have to overcome with God's assistance, this week is the week of prayer for Christian Unity, i.e. unity among the Christians. This is quite a challenge. At the same time, the annual Jerusalem Conference will start and reflect an image of how the Israeli side contemplates the vents qnd look at the development of new tendencies in this part of the world and for Israel. The main issue is to see how some people will envision the future on the basis of the recent and eventual events for the Jewish society. In the meanwhile, the Catholic Church has decided to cancel the ban taken against some Tridentine bishops who were ordained without the canonical approval of the Roman Church. One bishop denies the Shoah and reduces the matter to a minor "detail".

Thus, the problem is how faith can be relevant and is relevant in such a situation of profound turmoil and stumbling around. Tongues were gossiping or they used to carry their burdens of slander and calumnious deprecation. Tongue-twisting aims at creating confusion, like the 40 years in the wilderness.
Faith relies on intimate conviction and certainty that the Word is living and surpasses all these shaking turbulences. It is a time for real humbling because we are called to struggle and in such a struggle to remember that we target unity in the face of the only One.

When Jesus healed the blind man, he asked if the man could see. The blind answered that he could see the people "like trees", but not clearly... though he could see them better and better. Maybe we are in this situation of a cataract and sight-swindling.

We are still a part of God's creation Who saw it was "tov meod = very good/טוב מאד ".

av aleksandr
Mohamed Al Adhamy: Bronze. The sculptor is an Iraqi artist