Prayer of the Holy Light

This beautiful prayer is recited silently by the Patriarch from within the Holy Sepulcher as part of the Mystery of the Holy Light, a rite unique to the Church of Jerusalem, whereby tangible, visible fire is sanctified, becoming for us an icon of the Uncreated Light. Once completed, the Patriarch comes out of the Tomb and distributes the holy fire to the faithful for sanctification of soul and body. Nowadays, the fire is not only brought to parishes throughout Palestine, but is transported by plane to Greece, Cyprus, Russia and other countries in time for their Resurrection services:

H.H. Theophilos III, Patriarch of Jerusalem

"Master, Lord Jesus Christ, the original wisdom of the beginningless Father, O unapproachable Light, who said that Light will proceed from darkness, who said let there be Light and there was Light. O Lord provider of Light who took us out of the delusion of darkness and led us to the miraculous Light of Your awareness. You fully illumined the whole earth through Your incarnate presence, also to the underworld Your descent into Hades brought light and joy, and after these through Your Apostles You gave the light to all nations that walked in darkness. We thank You because through pious faith, you brought us from darkness to light and we became sons through holy baptism, seeing Your glory full of grace and truth. O light-giver and Lord, O great light who called the people who were in darkness. Master, Lord, the true light that illumines every man who comes in the world, the only light of the world and light whose glory filled the universe, You brought the light to the world through Your economy of the incarnation even though people loved the darkness rather than the light. You Lord, giver of light, listen to us sinners and unworthy servants who, at this moment stand by this Your Most Holy and light bearing Tomb, and receive us who honour Your Holy Passion, Your most holy Crucifixion, Your voluntary death, the laying of Your divine body in this holy tomb, Your burial and Your resurrection after three days, which we joyfully have already started celebrating, remembering Your descent to Hades, by which the souls of the righteous You despotically freed, the lightning of Your divine light filled the underworld. So with a happy heart and spiritual joy, on this most blessed Sabbath, we celebrate Your most salvific mysteries which You divinely executed on earth and under the earth, and we remember You, the exhilarating and appealing light which You divinely shone in the underworld, we celebrate the appearance of the light, Your congenial divine appearance to us. Because during the salvific and bright night everything was filled with light, the heaven, the earth and the underworld through the supernatural mystery of Your descent to Hades and Your resurrection from the tomb after three days. By this [light], having received it with piety, from this, Your light-bearing Tomb we offer it to those who believe in You, the true light and ask and supplicate, O Most Holy Master, that You make this a gift of sanctification and full of Your every divine grace through the grace of your Most Holy and light- bearing Tomb. And those who touch it with piety, bless and sanctify them, free them from the darkness of passions and make them worthy of Your brightest dwellings, where the light of Your unsetting divinity shines. Lord, grant them health and good life and fill their homes with everything good. 

 

Yes, Lord, the Light-giver, listen to me the sinner at this moment, and grant to me and to them to walk in Your light and remain in it as long as we have the light of this temporary life. Lord grant us that the light of our good works shine in front of the people together with Your without beginning Father and the Holy Spirit. You appointed us to be the light to the nations that we shine to those walking in the darkness. But we have loved the darkness rather than the light, committing evil works. Anyone who does evil works hates the light according to Your faultless word. For in this we stumble every day due to our sinning because we walk in the darkness. But make us worthy to live the rest of our life with enlightened eyes and minds. Grant us to live as sons of light and walk in the light of Your commandments. The bright garment of our baptism which we have blackened by our evil works, whiten it like the light, transforming the light into garment. Grant us to dress ourselves with the weapons of light, that we may overcome the lord of darkness, who transforms himself into an angel of light. Yes, Lord, as You shone the light to those who are in darkness and under the shadow of death, likewise, today, shine in our hearts with Your pure light, so that becoming illumined and warmed up in faith, glorify You the one and only original light, exhilarating light to everlasting ages. Amen”. 

Pharisaism

In the last issue of Orthodox Tradition, one of the few publications I subscribe to, there was an interesting entry on ‘Orthopraxis’ by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, a person always worth reading whatever the topic. Though not quoted there, the gist of what he writes can be summed up by the famous dictum of St. Maximos the Confessor – “Theology without praxis is the theology of demons” - “It means nothing to believe correctly if that belief has no consequences in action and for the way that we live.” He identifies Orthopraxis with such “internal” matters as “repentance for our failings, the hard rule of forgiving others as we find fault with ourselves” but also “external” things, “how we speak, walk, dress and groom ourselves, how we relate to others, and how we eat (not to mention, of course, how we worship).” When it comes to these external matters, warnings or accusations of ‘Pharisaism’ invariably come up, and perhaps rightly so, since Christ is quite clear as to what kind of future life shall await us if we do not heed the warnings He gave the Pharisees. Indeed, we shall be judged more severely, having been called to a higher standard. That being said, however, I feel the term is often misunderstood, misused, and at times even used as a stick to beat others over the head with (or should I say a plank, which, once removed from the eye, is used to punish those with motes in theirs).

So what is Pharisaism? Doctrinally speaking, it meant belief in the resurrection of the dead, for which reason St. Paul exclaimed “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6). This is obviously not what those who use it today have in mind. Rather, it refers to the admonitions of Christ, particularly those in the 23^rd chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. They are condemned for keeping the minutiae of the Law, but neglecting its true meaning, for taking care to appear outwardly righteous while neglecting to purify their hearts, for performing prayers and good deeds out of love of self rather than of God and their neighbour, of honouring the past prophets while cursing those who in their own day followed their example. In short, for their hypocrisy and pride. Never does Christ suggest that observance of externals was wrong in and of itself. Only when they are done for the wrong reasons, or at the expense of more important things do they become a problem: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt. 23:23).

Such hypocrisy is something we must always be on guard against, and something most probably struggle with at times (I certainly do). This I don’t dispute. Yet there are those who, presumably able to discern the hearts of men, disparage all forms of Orthopraxis as Pharisaism, as if all who fast regularly or strictly, who dress modestly, who don’t participate in certain social activities, are somehow doing it out of a self-righteous display or in judgment of those who don't, rather than out of a humble desire to improve their lives, grow closer to God, and mind their own business in the process. I have on numerous occasions seen people, knowing full well a person was observing Lent, proceed to offer them food they knew they wouldn’t wish to eat. When the person declined with a polite “no thanks, I’m not hungry”, they were met with hostility and accusations of self-righteousness. The prayer of the Publican is no longer “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (Lk. 18), but “God, I thank you that I am not like the Pharisee”. In other words, the spirit of Pharisaism is not found only in the observance of externals, nor does the observance of externals necessitate Pharisaism. Indeed, the very purpose of external observances is to “infuse everyday acts with spiritual significance” and, when properly understood, serves to aid in the purification of the soul and to cultivate humility, repentance, love for God and neighbour, which will in turn be reflected in one’s behaviour. 

There seems also to be an artificial separation between “good behaviour” and “religious behaviour”. Social work is good, everyone likes that, but prayer and fasting is for the Pharisee. Yet Christ said exactly the same about giving alms as He did about prayer and fasting – do not do it to be seen by men. The call to do things without pride and hypocrisy should not be confused with a call to stop doing them altogether. Praying for those who hate you is Orthopraxis, so is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, as well as lesser matters like dressing modestly, observing the fasts as far as our strength allows, keeping a rule of prayer, and attending church. Perhaps it’s the name that throws people. Much in the same way as books on Orthodoxy are not actually books on Orthodoxy (i.e. Christianity), but only on those aspects of Orthodoxy which differ from Protestantism or Catholicism (and often just the external ones), so perhaps Orthopraxy is not understood as life according to the Gospel, but the observance of practices at odds with those of heterodox Christians (fasting and prostrations).

The Pharisee can just as easily be the one who eats as it can be the one who abstains (cf. Rom 14:3). Let’s therefore not allow "Pharisaism" to undermine the importance of Orthopraxis to our Christian life and relationship with Christ - either to justify our own laxity or weakness, or to undermine the struggles of others - all the while taking care not to think ourselves righteous or judge those whose conduct is different from our own. 

Intellectual Arrogance and Anti-Intellectualism

A nice quote from St. Nikolai Velimirovic's Prologue of Ohrid ("Reflection" for 25 December) published in the latest issue of Orthodox Tradition (2013, vol. 2, p.59).

“The Lord Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was first worshipped by shepherds and wise men (astrologers) from the East — the simplest and the wisest of this world. Even today, those who most sincerely worship the Lord Jesus as God and Saviour are the simplest and the wisest of this world. Perverse simplicity and half-learned wisdom were always the enemies of Christ’s Divinity and His Gospel” [emphasis added].

On Spiritual Reading - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

I was lying comfortably on the sofa as I read this:

"Today with so much reading people end up like tape recorders, filling up their cassettes with superfluous matters. According to Abba Isaac, however, Wisdom not based on righteous activity is a deposit of disgrace. You see, many who are interested in sports read sports magazines and newspapers while they are sitting. They may be like the fatted calf, but they still marvel at the athletes. “Oh he is marvellous! He is great! Bravo!” But they don’t work up any sweat, and don’t lose any pounds. They read and read about athletic events, and then they go and lie down; they gain nothing. They are satisfied with the pleasure of reading. Some worldly people read newspapers, others romantic literature or an adventure novel, still others watch a football game at the stadium and pass their time. The same thing is done by people who read spiritual books. They may spend the whole night reading spiritual books with great intensity and be content. They take a spiritual book, sit comfortably, and begin reading. “Oh, I profited from that,” they say. It would be better to say, “I enjoyed myself, I spent my time pleasantly.” But this is not profit. 

"We profit when we understand what we read, when we censure ourselves and discipline ourselves by applying it: “What does this mean? Where do I stand in relation to this spiritual truth? What must I do now?” After all, the more we learn, the more responsibility we have to live up to what we have learned. I am not saying that we should not read so that we can plead ignorance and therefore be set free from responsibility, for this is a cunning deception; I am saying that we should not read merely to pass our time pleasantly. The bad thing is that if someone reads a lot and has a strong memory, he may remember many things and even talk a lot about what he has read, and thus deceive himself into thinking that he also personally observes the many things he reads. So he has created an illusion toward himself and others. So don’t be comforted by the thought that you read a lot. Instead, turn your attention to applying what you have read. Much reading alone will only educate you encyclopaedically."

From Elder Paisios of Mount Athos, Spiritual Counsels, Vol. II: Spiritual Awakening, Souroti, Thessaloniki: Holy Monastery “Evangelist John the Theologian”, 2008, pp.110-11.

Review: Life After Death

Since we’re approaching the Raising of Lazarus tomorrow, I thought it appropriate to post a review of a relevant book I just finished reading: Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (Levadia, Hellas: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 2005). Having read Orthodox Psychotherapy by the same author the week before, I was keen to get a copy, but was put off by the extortionate prices online. I was, however, lucky enough to stumble across it in an ecclesiastical shop in Cyprus a few days ago, this time with a slightly more agreeable price tag.

A section of the book, ‘The Taxing of Souls’, is one I have recently seen appear on a number of blogs, websites, and magazines, though I must confess to not having taken the time to read it until I got the book. While Met. Hierotheos accepts the so-called ‘Toll House Theory’ – a strongly divisive topic, elevated to the status of doctrine by the more extreme of its proponents, and rejected as a heresy of heresies by its opponents – there are a number of elements which sets this book apart from the (in)famous and similarly titled work of Hieromonk Seraphim Rose on the topic, The Soul After Death:

1. The purely symbolic nature of ‘taxing’, ‘toll’, ‘customs’ is made clear from the outset. The demons which appear as the soul departs from the body are likened to tax-collectors on account of the rather unpleasant nature of that profession in the ancient world. Today it might be better to speak of the “aerial parking wardens”. While Fr. Seraphim clearly states the ‘toll houses’ are symbolic in that there are not literal demon-operated booths in the sky, it is still fair to call him a literalist.

2. The Metropolitan limits himself to the liturgical texts of the Church and commonly accepted patristic references. He does not go into the level of detail one finds in Fr. Seraphim’s book, much of which is based on a single source of dubious origin (The Life of St. Basil the New). The number of toll-houses is not mentioned, nor is the nature of each toll-house, nor the way in which the soul is prevented on its journey towards Christ until the demonic customs officers have been paid off by the prayers of the person’s spiritual guide, etc.

3. The fact that the demons have no power over the soul of the person who has joined themselves to Christ is repeated time and again. The demons attempt to ‘claim’ only that soul which has already willingly attached itself to them.

4. The Metropolitan acknowledges that the idea of toll-houses has its roots in Gnosticism and various pagan myths, such as those of the Egyptians and Chaldeans. He argues, however, that the Fathers took these ideas and reinterpreted and reapplied them to Christian truths, something they did with many other ideas. The example he gives is the immortality of the soul, an idea borrowed by the Fathers from Greek philosophy, but while the pagans held the soul to be immortal by nature, Christianity holds it to be immortal by grace. Imagery and terminology is borrowed, but the ideas they are employed to express are very different.

5. Without denying the reality of the presence of angels (both good and evil) at the moment of death, the Metropolitan also stresses the patristic interpretation of the toll-houses as the presence of the passions. It is the memory of ones unrepentant sins which torment the soul at its departure, while its attachment to worldly things prevents it from ascending to God. This, I believe, is the interpretation favoured by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, who represents the opposite side of the toll-house spectrum. Elsewhere, on the subject of near death experiences, the Met. Hierotheos writes: "I cannot maintain that all the views of Father Seraphim Rose are orthodox, and besides, I have no intention of being his advocate. Nor do I maintain that the theological arguments of 'Archbishop' Lazar are not right, but I want to emphasise that great care is needed" (p.120).

Thus, while one could certainly argue against Met. Hierotheos’ acceptance of the toll-houses, he remains solidly grounded in the liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church and represents something of a middle way on the topic. What he presents here, then, is a perfectly Orthodox theologoumenon – theological opinion – which avoids the literal and overly speculative mythology one finds among writers like Fr. Seraphim,[1] who often run the risk of undermining true Orthodox soteriology. In Fr. Seraphim’s book, we are also informed about the passage of the soul before the third and fortieth day after its separation from the body (corresponding to the days on which we customarily perform memorial services for the departed). Once again, this kind of speculation, which is presented quite dogmatically in Fr. Seraphim’s book, is avoided here. As the author quite rightly notes "In the tradition of the Church death is called a mystery. And in fact it is a mystery, not in the sense of the sacraments, through which we partake of the uncreated grace of God, but from the point of view that at the hour of death and afterwards mysterious things take place which man's reasoning cannot yet grasp" (p.51).

I have spent quite a lot of time on toll-houses here because it is such a contentious topic. In the book itself, however, only a mere 18 pages out of a total 384 are directly related to this idea, and only a single chapter is devoted to the more general theme of the soul's separation from the body. The rest of the book is a brilliantly clear and comprehensive exposition of the patristic understanding of things such as the nature of the soul, Orthodox anthropology, the nature of death and its defeat by Christ, the state of the soul between death and the day of resurrection, the second coming and the judgment, the nature of heaven and hell, the state of those who die in infancy, the renewal of creation, theosis, the nature of time, etc. Some might find the second half of the book a bit heavy-going, and due to the overlapping themes there is also quite a bit of repetition. The good thing about that, however, is that it allows you to read each chapter as a stand-alone essay, which is useful for such a lengthy work which many will probably not have time to read cover to cover over a short period. There is also a very interesting chapter on the Orthodox-Catholic debate over purgatory at the Council of Florence chapter 5, while chapter 8 provides an Orthodox reading of St. Gregory of Nyssa's writings on the restoration of all things, which have led most academics to conclude he taught a form of Origenist apokatastasis. Whether you find the author's arguments to the contrary convincing, he bases himself on the opinions of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus, both of whom argued that St. Gregory's views on the subject were Orthodox when read correctly.

Even for the most ardent anti-toll-houser, then, this book will prove to be a goldmine of information, not only on the question of life after death, but on many of the core themes of Christian doctrine. As we approach Pascha, we await the celebration of Christ's victory over death, the trampling down of death by death, and the defeat of Hades. The subject of death, then, is absolutely central to the Christian faith. As the most comprehensive work I've read on the subject, I would go so far as to call this book required reading, and would certainly recommend it over any of the other similarly titled works I have come across. I am pleased to say that it was yet another pleasant surprise.

---

[1] I should point out, though, that most of Fr. Seraphim’s popular works are not simple expositions of Orthodox teaching, but attempts at responding to popular ideas and movements of his day. Venturing into unchartered territory a lot of the time, it should not come as a surprise that he occasionally got things wrong. Moreover, the errors were often not his own, but the prevailing tendencies among theologians in the ROCOR to which he belonged, which he in all humility accepted as standard Orthodox teaching. 

Mixed marriages: the wrong kind of compromise?

For an Orthodox viewer, the most memorable scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding was probably the awkward baptism of Ian the Xenos in a children’s paddling pool. While the scene was intended to be humorous, it pithily summarises what in my opinion is one of the biggest problems facing the Church today. While the Church strictly speaking does not allow a person to marry outside of the faith, a concession is usually made in non-Orthodox countries allowing marriages between Orthodox and other Trinitarian Christians. This is understandable as in the so-called diaspora – i.e. countries in which Orthodox Christians are largely limited to minority immigrant communities – the likelihood of an Orthodox Christian finding and falling in love with a non-Orthodox person is high. To force a person to choose between their faith and the person they love – particularly since such a relationship had probably developed over several years before the decision to marry arose – would not only be cruel (even if it is ‘tough love’ rather than malice), but would inevitably cause many to abandon the Church. Better to allow them to marry, remain in the Church, and hope the spouse will later follow suit. When the spouse is not a member of any mainstream Christian confession, however, they must receive holy baptism before the marriage can take place. Ideally speaking, this is both correct and desirable, but the reality is quite different. The problems with both are as follows:

1. In the case of a mixed marriage, you are allowing the participation of a non-Orthodox person in an Orthodox Mystery. Why, if marriage is indeed a Mystery of the Church, can non-Orthodox participate in this but not in any others? Moreover, the very purpose of the Orthodox marriage ceremony is to join two people together on the basis of a common faith and participation in a common Eucharist, symbolised by the bride and groom drinking from a common cup of wine. What exactly is the point of the marriage ceremony when one of the participants is barred from the Eucharist of which s/he symbolically partakes? In short, the practice of mixed-marriage undermines the very reality of marriage as a Mystery of the Church by disconnecting it from the Eucharist, the wedding banquet in which the relationship between Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, is consummated - the very relationship of which the earthly marriage between a man and woman is an image.
2. Only rarely when a person approaches the Church for holy baptism prior to a marriage does s/he do so out of a genuine desire to encounter Christ and a firm conviction as to the veracity of the Christian faith. Priests will generally insist on a minimum period of catechism before the baptism, but education alone cannot produce a sincere intention. Often even this process is undermined as the couple frequently approach the priest with venue already booked and guests already invited, meaning the priest feels unable to insist on a catechetical period of sufficient length. Is it not a betrayal of Christ to allow an unbeliever to falsely profess his faith and receive baptism? Is it not absurd that we (rightly) refuse the Eucharist to sincere non-Orthodox believers of deep conviction, but we allow atheists to receive baptism?! The correct thing would obviously be for the priest to deny baptism to anyone he knew to be insincere, but this is easier said than done. Likewise, we can condemn the bride/groom-to-be for their dishonesty, but they also find themselves in a very difficult position and in one way the fact that they're willing to undergo both instruction and initiation into the Christian faith for the sake of their significant other is commendable.

The answer to this is ultimately proper catechesis of Orthodox believers. However, the Church has to deal with the reality of ignorance and nominalism, and in that context the need for a degree of compromise – an exercise of eikonomia – seems undeniable. I wonder, though, if we are not currently compromising on the wrong things. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul says “that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him” (7:12-13). This was itself such an act of compromise. While it is not in any way an endorsement of marriage with non-believers, it does, I think, refute the notion held by some that civil marriage is no better than fornication. As such, would it not be better, when such a compromise was genuinely needed, to allow an Orthodox person to marry their non-Orthodox partner in a civil service rather than in Church, while insisting that the children of such a union are baptised Orthodox (as is the requirement for mixed-marriages)? Would not a person be more likely to eventually follow their believing spouse into an Orthodox Church that took seriously the faith of its members and their participation in Her Mysteries, rather than one which carelessly and hypocritically granted them to unbelievers? Would the children of an unbelieving father outside the Church and a faithful mother who leads by example really be more likely to leave Orthodoxy than ones who saw their openly atheist father regularly approach the chalice with the full consent of the priest? And is denying the Orthodox believer the blessing of a Church wedding (a self-inflicted wound, surely) really worse than facilitating their spouse’s self-condemnation? Moreover, if the whole purpose of the Church wedding is completely undermined when performed with a mixed couple, are you even denying them anything other than cultural expectations?

The Bible and racism

Non-believers who have never read the Bible seem to have a habit of making long lists of what kind of horrible things it contains. One thing that almost always makes the list is racism. But what does the Bible actually say about racism?

And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of the Ethiopian woman whom Moses had taken, because he had taken an Ethiopian woman. And they said, "The Lord has not spoken only to Moses, has he? Did he not also speak to us?" And the Lord listened. And the man Moses was very meek, more than all the people who were upon the earth. And the Lord said at once to Moses and Mariam and Aaron, "Come out, you three, to the tent of witness." And the three came out to the tent of witness. And the Lord descended in a pillar of cloud and stood at the door of the tent of witness. And Aaron and Mariam were called, and they both came out. And he said to them, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision I will be known to him, and in sleep I will speak to him. Not so my attendant Moses; in my whole house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in visible form and not through riddles. And he has seen the glory of the Lord. And why were you not afraid to speak against my attendant Moses?" And the anger of the Lord's wrath was against them, and he departed. And the cloud withdrew from the tent, and behold, Mariam was leprous like snow, and Aaron looked upon Mariam, and look, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, "I beg you, Sir, do not lay extra sin upon us, because we were ignorant in that we sinned. Do not let her be like unto death, like a miscarriage coming out of a mother's womb, and it devours half her flesh." And Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, "O God, I beg you, heal her!" And the Lord said to Moses, "If her father when spitting had spat in her face, would she not be put to shame for seven days? Let her be separated for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she shall enter." And Mariam was kept apart outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not set out until Mariam was cleansed. [Numbers 12]

In other words, marrying a person of a different colour or race is perfectly fine, speaking against those who do is ignorance and sin, and racists are deserving of leprosy and exclusion from the rest of society. Not sure it could be much clearer than that.