Bread And Wine: Symbolism or Invocations for the Triune God?

(typical protestant communion food)

Once, a long time ago, I was a member of a Born Again church. Our closest neighbors were also our Churchmates (obviously). I have relatives who are now Pastors and/or Hillsong back-up singers. I still have cousins attending the said church.

I have a collection of fond memories of my youth in the Born Again church and one of those is the Eucharistic celebration. In fact that was the first time I witnessed it "up close and personal". It was the first time I had a visual internalization of what Eucharist was. (Notwithstanding my Roman Catholic background, by this time I had believed that the Vatican was total evil... Now I'm glad that's just ignoramuses hyperbole.) 

It was I think, April, just in time for Holy Week. And I remember the Pastor's helpers distributing small plastic cups with sweet red wine in it, and bite size Skyflakes crackers. Then he started saying the words: "This is my body... eat..." And then we mimicked his moves. "This is my blood... drink..." Again, we, the congregation, mimicked the Pastor's movements. Then he mumbled prayers, we said "Amen, amen..." And that WAS THAT... I remember all this. I just don't remember KNOWING that I had truly been MYSTIFIED. I don't remember having the full knowledge that I have eaten Christ's sacrifice. But what I do remember is the feeling like I was in our high school's stage play witnessing a particular scene pulled out from Mulan.   

And now that I think about it, it's sad that the Eucharist, for mainstream protestants in the Philippines (Baptists, Born Agains, Methodists, etc...), is anything but real, symbolic, and mystical. The Eucharist is reduced into JUST a reenactment of the Last Supper with toasted bread and some cheap, sweet red wine. The Eucharist has been downgraded to a memorial service that seeks to bury it, otherwise, they would have to do that again and again in their services.

"DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME..."

Jesus Christ is Christ Pantocrator. If He were a mere human being, as C.S Lewis once said, He would have been a mad man, a liar, or else, prince of devils then I would have understood the memorial services these protestant churches are making of the Eucharist. In the context of Filipino sentimentality, memorial services are done to commemorate the life of the departed loved one so that remembering his/her death would not be painful. Memorial services, in essence, is about death... If Christ were a mere man, saying the things He said, doing the things He did, he would have been a liar, lunatic, or prince of devils. The Eucharist might as well be a memorial service so he could be buried so easily away from heart's memory...

(Consecrated bread and Sanctified wine)

REAL, SYMBOLIC, AND MYSTICAL

In the Orthodox Church's Holy Tradition, (which has been practiced and taught by Christ Himself to the Apostles, by the Apostles to the Bishops of the time, by the Bishops of the time, to the Orthodox hierarchs and priests of today), the Eucharist is the heart of the Church. The Church is a Eucharistic Community.

When Jesus said 'do this in my remembrance', He didn't command us to create a picnic club for Him wherein we can have communion once a month or conduct a passion play every holy week. He said it with the same effectiveness when He told the rich young man to give away everything he had to the poor and follow Him. 

We cannot downplay the essence and importance of the Eucharist in our Church life. The EUCHARIST is REAL. This is because Christ and Christ's saving power has been manifested in history which means this tradition has been preserved to this day. Otherwise, it's all Myth. The EUCHARIST is SYMBOLIC because it symbolizes our unity with the Triune God and solidifies the faithfuls' membership of the True Church established by Christ since 33 AD. 

The EUCHARIST is MYSTICAL because the physicality of bread and wine has been consecrated by the very Holy Spirit of God through the celebration of the Eucharist. Thus, the bread and wine are hallowed making these a pleasing sacrifice to God since Christ was a pleasing sacrifice for us. When we take the Communion, we become partakers of His divine energies, thus enabling us to be healed both body and soul. The Eucharist is the physical act of "Thy will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven..." 

SYMBOLISM OR INVOCATION?

The Eucharist is both symbolism and invocation. Just like what I have remarked, we cannot minimize the Eucharist as mere symbolism (otherwise Orthodoxy would be a legalistic religion) nor can we hyperbolize it as pure invocation. To be minimalistic is to become protestant and to be very much invoking is to be pagan. To take the former is to remove the Eucharist of any healing power or deification it can bring to a believer when he/she partakes in it. To take the latter is to strip off Eucharist of its holy vestments designed by Christ Himself. There is synergy in the Eucharist being symbol and invocation. For one, we are commanded by God to do this in His remembrance; we must LIVE IT. And in living it through participation in the Divine Liturgy, we ask the Holy Spirit to fill in the symbols (bread and wine) so we can be healed and be deified, that is invocation-- we invite the Bodiless powers into our lives through the Holy Eucharist.

This is the Eucharist. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. 

:D FIN

Photos:

1. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinwK1mnFk8O38Ls5vakFG4Ubq3cgI3541bu1VRv3u9SEff52-uZqcN0jNqGCIonWh3n9uoXhzshlDjngK_l44wrsQm3SUnmPF6rX1aZbjJCYJQ5v6lHXTLGsAeEzo-0Gbz1nzJBwKQZo2U/s320/communionhands.jpg

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Liturgy_St_James_1.jpg

Eschatological But NOT Pro-Death: Debunking An Atheistic Myth

One of the things that really irk me is when somebody tries to point out (no matter how pointless it may be) that religion-- Christianity in particular-- only wants this world to end. That religious persons always point out how worthless life on Earth can be, how sinful human beings have become since the dawn of Adam and Eve, and that the only way for Christians to save this world is to pray to God "Thy Kingdom come..." and believe in God's Son who became a sacrifice to satisfy the injured honor of God when Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of a forbidden tree.

I do not understand the outburst of Naturalist Atheists when they themselves admit that everything on Earth IS DOOMED TO EXTINCTION (Bertrandt Russell). And if the propositions of Atheists are true, that everything on Earth is a product of collocations of Atoms, and we human beings are nothing more but "complex chunks of matter", and that everything we feel and believe in is nothing more but chemical reactions in our brains (Richard Dawkins), and that what we know today is nothing more but a product of genetical impulse to survive (Daniel Dennett), then any person with a rational mind is not rational since: 1. We are dying anyway. 2. We are dying anyway because we are mere chunks of matter. 3. What we believe or know to be true is just a tool for us to survive so we can prolong our lives before dying. Folks, all of these will only make sense if we take the world AS not only a dying world BUT also a hopeless world. I do not see, then, WHAT'S WRONG in wishing for the world like this to end abruptly.

(Atheism: The religious belief in a spontaneous, causeless, sourceless, purposeless, meaningless existence.)

Atheists must know that NOT ALL religions are pro-death. Not Christianity. Not Orthodox Christianity.

Let me go back to the three accusations of Naturalist Atheists, telling that Christianity's eschatology is synonymous with pro-death:

1. Christians would like this world to end because human beings are born sinners and that we are always inclined to do sinful things.

2. Since humans are born sinners, nothing good will ever come out of us, said the Christians, hence the disarrayed state of the world.

3. Since we are evil to the core, having chosen to disobey God, we became God's enemies. Thus God's wrath is upon us, said the Christians.

MISCONCEPTIONS OF ATHEISM'S SWEEPING STATEMENT: THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN AND SATISFACTION THEORY OF ATONEMENT

When Rome separated itself from the Conciliar Pentarchy of the Orthodox Church, declaring herself to be universal pontiff, this Schism produced wide and varying heterodoxies (heresies) unknown to the heresies the Orthodox Church fought against. The errors of Rome produced, I believe, the two most famous heresies: The Doctrine of Original Sin and The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.

The Doctrine of Original Sin was conceived by Blessed Augustine of Hippo, Bishop of Alexandria. Centuries later, toward Medieval times, spawned from Original Sin doctrine, was the The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, formulated by St. Anselm Bishop of Canterbury, England. 

The Original Sin came about after Augustine read the misrepresentation of St. Jerome (Augustine and Jerome are both Western Theologians. Western Theology is the collective term for Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies.), regarding Romans 5:12. Augustine read this verse without the lens of the Orthodox Church Fathers. 

In all fairness, Augustine and the rest of Rome, after the Schism, no longer understood Greek ( the language of the Eastern Fathers), so it is possible that he had never heard of St. john Chrysostom's teachings on Ancestral Sin. And so did Anselm of Canterbury.

Here is what Chrysostom taught:

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains in tact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin: ‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iii]  (1)

Thus, he (Augustine) concluded that not only did human beings inherited sin, we also inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve. He went as far as to conclude that because of this, humans are born totally depraved and therefore incapable of deciding and doing anything good apart from God. 

Fast forward to middle ages when scholasticism produced and retained great western thoughts. In these times lived St. Anselm of Canterbury, a Roman Catholic in England. Of course he would study the greatest minds of Western Theology including that of St. Jerome and Augustine. With the long stretch of Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Rome, very few, if any, Eastern thought penetrated the West. To cut the story short, Anselm developed Satisfaction theory of Atonement. Its bedrock was Augustine's Original Sin. 

Here's why.

According to this theory of atonement, since Adam and Eve consciously disobeyed God, every human being throughout history inherited the sin and guilt of these forebears. By the virtue of birth, a human being is utterly marred (I'm using Calvin's term here) by this Original Sin thus separated from God at birth. (Hence, the practice of infant Baptism by Roman Catholics and some Protestants.) By contrast, the Orthodox Church baptizes babies not because of Original Sin, but because the Children are now welcomed and dedicated to Orthodoxy and God. We Orthodox do not call it Original Sin, but Ancestral Sin-- humans inherit the EFFECTS of what Adam and Eve did, NOT the sin and guilt that Adam and Eve committed and had. 

Since, human beings are separated from God at birth, that separation earns a person the wrath of God (Bear in mind that in this theory, human beings had become God's enemies). And therefore he could never escape God's judgment. God's solution? Since, according to this theory, humans have 1. inherited the sin and guilt of Adam and Eve, 2. become sinners at birth  3. earned God's wrath from the day humans were born, therefore, SOMEONE has to pay the price to appease God and restore humans' communion with Him. And that was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ had to die on the cross so God's wrath wouldn't be upon humans but on Christ alone.

These theologies are in fact heretical in nature. It may sound right for a person without background knowledge on Orthodoxy.

These are heretical because, in Orthodoxy (which predates Augustinian and Anselmian heresies), one will never find not only any conciliar preference about Original Sin and Satisfaction Theory of Atonement but also ANY Biblical reference for what these claim.

THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN VIEW AS HELD BY HOLY TRADITION AND HOLY SCRIPTURES

“Sin spread to all men because all men sinned” (Romans 5:12); and in sinning man brought death to the children who partake of his mortal nature and life. In a sin-bound world, no person escapes, even those who are personally guiltless and innocent, for all are caught up in the sins of the world. (2)

(The verse talks about how THROUGH sin, DEATH entered the world. So the unnatural state of dying, both physical and spiritual, is what WE inherited from Adam and Eve. We DID NOT inherit Adam and Eve's SIN AND GUILT.)

Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-21 shows us that: Death is the result of sin. It is the final victory of the devil, the result of his destructive activity. If man had not sinned, he would not have died. His body may have changed and evolved over great periods of time, but it would not have been separated from his spirit to return to the dust, And man’s soul itself would not have been corrupted, losing power over its body and becoming its slave. This is the meaning of the sin of Adam, that man has emerged on the face of the earth, made in God’s image and inspired with His Spirit, and has chosen death instead of life, evil instead of righteousness, and so through defilement of his nature in rebellion against God, brought corruption and death to the world. (3)    

THUS contrary to Western Theology, Orthodox Christianity (The genuine Christianity) with her Holy Traditions and Holy Scriptures, do not teach the Original Sin and Satisfaction Theory of Atonement. The Orthodox Church views SIN not as something that "offended" God's sensibilities. SIN is more like "missing the target", an illness that needs the most correct cure. Humans were created essentially GOOD, (I think the Creation Story is pretty much detailed about it.) and in Communion with God. But when sin entered the world, humans goodness was not totally lost, but marred, by being separate from God. The human goodness was marred but not defaced or destroyed. Here, God is not an angry deity that needs appeasement. It is through His mercy that He banished our first parents so that they would not become immortal in sin (in Orthodox Theology, we had immortality, so had Adam and Eve not banished from Eden, we would ALL BECOME IMMORTAL IN SIN.). Thus, when SIN ENTERED THE WORLD they became MORTALS. Now, we are destined to die a physical death, and if we are not in communion with God through Christ, spiritual death is what we will have. As it is stated in Matthew 10:28 "...fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (ellipsis, mine)

Therefore, what we inherited from Adam and Eve were not their personal sin and guilt, but DEATH. Since Death IS THE RESULT OF SIN. In Orthodoxy, death IS unnatural, since in the first PERFECT state with God there was NO DEATH to speak of. 

HERE NOW is the second matter: The Salvation Plan.

Contrary to the Atheistic claims that Christianity is desperate for death, in fact, Christianity IS THE ONLY world view that actually gives humans leeway from death!

Satan is not only the father of lies, he is also steeped in jealousy. He is jealous of human beings. In the Bible, humans are more loved by God than His angels! This fact is what amazes me... And what disgusts Satan... So when sin entered the world, so did Death. But the moment Satan and Death entered, Almighty God, sentenced Satan and Death to eternal death by having The Woman's Seed crush the serpent's head by His heel.

As one Orthodox psalm says "having trampled Death BY DEATH..." It is through the voluntary act of The Son that Death IS NOW finally destroyed. That in Him, we shall have eternal life: not just spirits walking around, but with our resurrected bodies, fully in awareness and in Communion with God. As scriptures say:

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. (John 10:17-18) 

Clearly the verse above doesn't talk about an angry deity who needs appeasement by killing his own son so he can make peace with his enemies.  

Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? “Father, save me from this hour?” No, for this purpose I have come to this hour.

Now is the judgment of the world, now shall the prince of the world be cast out; and 1, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to my- self. He said this to show by what death He was to die (i.e. crucifixion). 

The crowd answered Him, “We have heard from the law that the Christ (i.e. Messiah) remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” 

Jesus said to them, “The light is with you for a little longer…” (John 12:27-35, cf. Matthew 16:21-23, 17:9-13) 

Jesus came “for us men and for our salvation” in order to die. (Nicene Creed) He came that through His death and resurrection all men might be raised from the dead for eternal life in the Kingdom of God. This is the Christian faith. 

(HERE I think atheists need to take a double look at Christianity before saying WE ARE PRO-DEATH. Consider the following verses:)

...for the hour is coming when all who are in the graves will hear the voice of the Son of God, and come forth, for those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:25-29) 

This, too, is the apostle’s doctrine. (cf. Acts 2:22-36) 

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (I Corinthians 15:20-26) 

For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 

“Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is thy victory?

O death, where is thy sting?” 

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 15:52-57)  (4)

CONCLUSION

The bottom-line of this blog post are the following: 

1. Atheism is rebellion against Western Theology. Atheists want to disprove God but really, their attacks are against heretic claims that humans are totally depraved and that Christians (allegedly) want this world to end so badly because of that. 

2. IN CHRIST WE ARE NOT DOOMED TO EXTINCTION. There is an afterlife. But it's on how we respond to God's call for repentance and communion with Him that we are saved for Eternity. Physical death IS NOT THE END OF LIFE. 

3. If there are persons pro-death here, these are the Atheists. By denying God because of hatred (hating the "western god" anyway), they have also denied the glaring fact that this world can become a better place, in this life and the next. It's the twisted minds who reduce the world to nothing but material, no matter how noble their writings sound, who are promoting that this life should never have meaning at all. Because after all, we are just dancing in our DNA's music... 

4. The Bible is uncompromising when it says "FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE." John 3:16. The God of the Christians is so involved in human life that He sent His Son to trample down death by Death (on the Cross) so all who will look upon Him will have everlasting life (The Resurrection) 

4. Atheists should be thankful that despite of what they believe, this salvation is available for them also. 

***

So one must never be so proud. We all are going back to dust. But through God's love, we will be able to live with Him in eternity. This is how much God loves LIFE. And we Orthodox must do the same. We must love life to it's fullness here on earth by doing God's will AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.

Through the prayers of your most pure Mother, SAVIOR SAVE US!

FIN

Footnotes: 

1 http://www.omhksea.org/2012/06/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

2, 3, 4 https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

Photos:

1http://scrwmedia.com/ufj/files/2011/05/The-Four-Horsemen.jpg

2 http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/202426/atheism.jpg

3 http://24.media.tumblr.com/c44340de3f50c8da5473b013039dc33c/tumblr_mrciakcDRT1sstdpdo1_500.jpg

The Curious Case of Monk Felipe Balingit (Is A Curious Case of Us All!) (Final)

Dear Clergy and Laity of the Antiochian Orthodox Mission in the Philippines. Reference to the circulating Episcopal decree by Arbsp. Nectarios concerning the excommunication of Felipe Balingit, please be careful in posting any comments if you don't have any complete or back ground information. If you analyze the content of the letter carefully, if your an Orthodox Christians and doing missionary works, and not a member of MHKSEA then your are alluded also as part of the schismatic groups. it was a sweeping statement. -Fr. Kostantine Lautillo, Dean - (From the FB group Filipino Orthodox Christian, posted August 9, 2013)

Blessed is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and for ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. I would like to inform the Public that here in the Philippines there are only 3 True or Canonical Orthodox Christian present. 1. Greek or Ecumenical Patriarchate 2. Antiochian Orthodox Christian, Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East 3. ROCOR/Russian Orthodox Christian, Patriarchate of Moscow (Patriarch Kirill).-- Fr. Lawrence Ang Aleria (Antiochian Orthodox Christian in the Philippines) 

The Reading from the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. (1:10-17)Brethren, I appeal to you, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissension among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispos and Gaius; lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.   

http://stpaulbrisbane.org/BulletinOfEighthSundayAPAndEighthSundayOfMatthewAndAfterFeastOfDormitionToneSeven18August2013.htm

BACKDROP: A Filipino Orthodox Monk Fr. Felipe Balingit, was recently excommunicated by Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia. You can read the original letterhead here: http://www.omhksea.org/2013/08/excommunication-of-a-schismatic-filipino-layman/ 

The Epistle Reading was quite spot on. If there's anything that has brought me CALM, it's the very fact that the Apostles of God strongly detest the PISSING CONTEST that's now infesting Orthodoxy in the Philippines. 

Aside from the personal pronouns used in the Encyclical, the other tell-tale signs tell us just who ALONE got all "butt-hurt" and felt that his eparchy was threatened when other Orthodox Jurisdictions took interest (thank God for that) in spreading the True Faith here in the Philippines. I think the author of such a letter didn't realize that right now the Martyrs for the Faith are turning over their graves. They didn't allow themselves for sacrifice just for this child-like fiasco on the part of the high echelons within the Hierarchy. Certainly, the Apostles didn't preach Christ in jealousy and strife. Why can't our hierarchs do the same? 

The common ground should have been our Common Faith established by Jesus Christ, His Apostles, the Patriarchs, the Saints, and the Martyrs.    

Let us not forget, that already, Philippines is suffering a spiritual crisis brought about by a religion that presented her to Rome as a pleasing sacrifice from Spanish friars-cum-conquerors. As an Orthodox Christian, it pains me to see that Monk Felipe Balingit has become the Scapegoat for personal Vendetta of an Orthodox big man who felt he was being bypassed... This kind of attitude was very un-Christian and was very chauvinistic, very medieval Catholic.

Perhaps Monk Felipe Balingit is a warning for US ALL that nobody, not even a Patriarch OR a Metropolitan, can ever become Pontifex Maximus and thus exercise a decision based on ones whim or an offense taken. AND CERTAINLY, nobody has the right to scapegoat somebody just so he can camouflage his real issues of wanting to "push back" other Canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction that touches his very own eparchate. He didn't have to call them Schismatic group and latched that word on to a man who obviously wasn't going to respond to an infantile attack hiding behind Encyclicals and seemingly important announcements. Monk Felipe Balingit was smart enough not to stoop down on that level. 

The letter's content only backfired when it became obvious to any sharp eyes about the real intention in shaming Monk Felipe Balingit. I think Hierarchs must exercise MORE humility and NEVER drop bombshells, because if they're not successful, they might catch their own.

In the end the encyclical is a rather funny caricature of an injured pride.
In the end, the whole incident just showed who really was more honest and more trustworthy, who really was standing tall and was standing low.

:D FIN



    

  

     

The Curious Case of Monk Felipe Balingit (PART 1)

DISCLAIMER: In the light of the recent "excommunication" of Orthodox Monk Fr. Felipe Balingit, the least I could do to "clear things out" with my mind was to gather insights on the issue; both from secular and religious sources. MUCH AS I WANT TO rebel against bullying displayed by some, however, I WILL TRY MY BEST not to "irritate" a nerve or two of whoever reads this from this side and/or  from the other side. WORDS and CANDOR through which I am expressing my dismay over the incident (OR should I say fragging) MUST not be taken as a collective expression of the Antiochian Orthodox Church to which I belong. I AM my own advocate as I write this, no other persons no matter how involved they are in my life have got nothing to do with this undertaking. 

BACKDROP: A Filipino Orthodox Monk Fr. Felipe Balingit, was recently excommunicated by Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia. For the sake of convenience, I have changed the font style and the size. I have also edited the spacing and for emphasis, added color to high light some vital points from the letter. You can read the original letterhead here: http://www.omhksea.org/2013/08/excommunication-of-a-schismatic-filipino-layman/ 

Ecumenical Patriarchate
Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia

August 7, 2013

Encyclical
of His Eminence Metropolitan Nektarios of Hong Kong and South East Asia
to the Reverend Priests and Deacons, the Monks and Nuns,
the Members of the Orthodox Communities of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and South East Asia



Dear Brethren in Christ,

By the grace of God my unworthiness happens to be the canonical Orthodox Bishop and Metropolitan in this end region of Southeast Asia and for six years I try to properly respond, as much as I am capable of doing, to my most weighty episcopal duties.

As your Bishop and spiritual Father when I see the waves of separation, schism and heresy threatening my ecclesiastical Eparchy I have to take measures and no to remain neglectful and indifferent.

I regret to inform you that the following individual, who resides in Philippines,
Felipe Balingit pretends to be an Orthodox Monk and Clergyman, participates at the services of schismatic groups, creates new schismatic groups and thus he excommunicated himself and abandon the Orthodox Church-the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I consider him as stranger to the Body of the Orthodox Church and I inform you that he has no the right to call himself as “Orthodox Christian” and to participate in the Holy and Sacred Sacraments of the Orthodox Church.

If any laity or clergy join him he shall have no partnership with us or with the Orthodox Church in general. I pray for his repentance and his return to the Orthodox Church.

My beloved Brethren,
Beware also of all those who come to Philippines and try to do missionary work without the Hierarchical blessing of the Canonical Orthodox Metropolitan. Beware of those who come to you and preach and celebrate the Divine Liturgy without to have my written permission and blessing. Beware of those “who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but within are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15) Their purpose is to divide the Church and the Orthodox faithful as their motives are the destructive passion of the controlling spirit and the “virus” of ethno phyletism.

May the Lord Jesus Christ save you from the injuries of the adversary and keep you as a good seed for all kinds of virtues and keep you all in true faith with good works and obedience to your Canonical Bishop and to your Spiritual Mother, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

+Metropolitan Nektarios
of Hong Kong and South East Asia

INTRODUCTION: Long before I converted to Orthodoxy (July 28, 2013), I had read a good deal of Church History, Saints, and the how-it-should be dones, in the Orthodox Playbook that made me convince that Orthodoxy was and is indeed 33AD. But my knack for the nostalgic, for the romantic, and for the classic, had my eyes glossed over what Grigorios Papathomas called a modern ecclesial heresy. (3)

What is Ethno Phyletism?

According to Wikipedia: Phyletism or ethnophyletism (from Greek ἔθνος ethnos "nation" and φυλετισμός phyletismos "tribalism") is the principle of nationalities applied in the ecclesiastical domain: in other words, the confusion between Church and nation. The term ethnophyletismos designates the idea that a local autocephalous Church should be based not on a local [ecclesial] criterion, but on an ethnophyletist, national or linguistic one. It was used at the Holy and Great [Μείζων Meizon "enlarged"] pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople on 10 September 1872 to qualify “phyletist (religious) nationalism,” which was condemned as a modern ecclesial heresy: the Church should not be confused with the destiny of a single nation or a single race.^[1] 

In other words ecclesiastical racism: in which nationality trumps ecclesiology... A BIG NO, NO.

Going back to the encyclical, there are four accusations against Mr. Felipe Balingit: 1. Mr. Felipe Balingit allegedly PRETENDS to be an Orthodox Monk. 2. Mr. Felipe Balingit allegedly creates schismatic groups. 4. He allegedly celebrates Divine Liturgy with SCHISMATIC GROUPS. 3. He allegedly has committed the modern heresy of Ethno Phyletism.

Let's deconstruct the letter: the first accusation, notwithstanding the salutations, tells any astute reader that Mr. Felipe Balingit HAS NEVER BEEN an Orthodox Monk. I was like who are you kidding? Were the writers behind the encyclical trying to deceive people into believing that Felipe Balingit tonsured himself? OR could this be a clear indication that the case of Felipe Balingit has never been brought to any synod?

The second accusation has got to do with Schismatic groups: WHAT exactly is the name of the Schismatic group Monk Felipe Balingit created? Just who exactly are these people? If they are REALLY schismatics, WHY NOT DROP A NAME? Why be cryptic? Why associate THEM with Mr. Balingit? WHAT'S THE ANGLE? 

The third accusation, that Monk Felipe Balingit celebrates Divine Liturgy with Schismatic groups: Are there documentations of said activities? If there are, then where are those? Are the Divine Liturgies, in which Monk Felipe Balingit is allegedly connected to, even AUTHENTICALLY separatists in essence and in nature? 

The fourth accusation: Ethno Phyletism is, if I may use the crassness of this word, BULL.

Here's why. 
Just before the encyclical ended, Met. Nektarios lovingly warned others of getting involved with other Orthodox groups NOT BLESSED BY HIM (Met. Nektarios). 
Something tells me, that, if my hunch is correct then, this letter is not only an encyclical announcing Monk Felipe Balingit's excommunication, BUT ALSO a warning that those Orthodox Jurisdictions WHO ARE NOT "GREEK" must have their paws OFF the "territories" of the Greek Patriarchate; those who welcome other jurisdictions (I can't remember the proper term for other Orthodox Churches who are not under the Ecumenical Patriarchate) COULD suffer the same fate already being endured by Monk Felipe Balingit.   

I congratulate whoever is the author of such a letter. He failed to notice that his rabid parallelism caused not clarity but speculation as to where the accusations ACTUALLY COME FROM. The encyclical only deepened wounds already stabbed at the Filipino Orthodox Community. So, instead of devotion to the Orthodox faith, it has caused further division (Oh the irony of accusing Mr. Balingit of this SIZZLES!).   

And although Monk Felipe Balingit has already been welcomed to ROCOR, and although I do not see Monk Felipe Balingit expressing personal dismay to anyone IN PARTICULAR, well, the damage has been done. 
I cannot help but think about the humiliation the monk had to endure when his excommunication went "viral". 
I cannot help being indignant over quick judgments from people who are obviously swayed by the CAPRICIOUS and MALICIOUS wordings of the Metropolitan's Encyclical.

WORSE, I cannot help but remember how one Orthodox Christian put the whole mess in this way: "A PISSING CONTEST between Greek Patriarchate and [other Patriarchates]..." WHICH tells me, if the case of Monk Balingit is a case of BULLYING and SCAPEGOATING or not. 

Stay safe. Stay tuned. Until next time.

Through the prayers of the Saints, the Church Fathers, The Theotokos, Savior save us!



Footnotes:
1. Biblegateway.com 
2. and 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism#cite_note-1
and
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2013/08/hong-kong-metropolitanate-continues-to.html

Better Than Selfie-- THE ICON CORNER

 [I]n Orthodox spirituality, [there is] no separation between liturgy and private devotion."-- Bishop Kallistos Ware

 (Russian woman in prayer)

"Rejoice always, pray without Ceasing,..."-- 1 Thessalonians 5:16-17 NKJV   (Ellipsis, mine)

"7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they[a] were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed. 12 And they brought the young man in alive, and they were not a little comforted."-- Acts 20:7-12 NKJV 

(A boy in UK with an Icon in his home.)

At the dawn of Christianity, early Christians met in "House Churches" to participate in the Eucharist. The EUCHARIST, as stated in Acts 20:7-12, is the heart and soul of the Divine Liturgy, and was celebrated by the Apostle Paul, an early Church Father. This Holy Tradition of "House Churches" and the Divine Liturgy are very much alive in Orthodox Catholicism today. The practices led to Icon Corners-- a place for small worship in the homes of Orthodox Catholic faithfuls.
In Orthodoxy, the houses of faithfuls are consecrated, thus an Orthodox house must have an Icon Corner.

An Icon Corner is an integral part of an Orthodox household; a center of a family's worship. It can be a part of a room where a single faithful can pray on her own together with the saints and angels in heaven. It may consist of Icons of The Theotokos, Christ Pantocrator, or your personal Saint, or Angel. If the Icon Corner is for the whole family (this may also be like the Icon Corner of a single person), the corner may compose of Icons of the Evangelists, Church Fathers, personal Saints of each family member, etc.

What is the rationale for having an Icon Corner? From Wikipedia:

 An icon corner is normally oriented to face east. It is often located in a corner to eliminate worldly distractions and allow prayer to be more concentrated. Here is where the icons that the family owns should be located, normally including at least icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Patron Saint(s) of the family. An oil lamp normally hangs in front of the icons. The careful trimming of the lamp to keep it burning at all times is interpreted as symbolic of the attentive daily care faithful Christians should take over their souls. Relics of saints (if the family possesses any) and a Gospel Book and a blessing crosswould be kept there, as well as incense, holy water, palms and pussywillow from Palm Sunday, candles from Pascha (Easter), and other sacred items, as well as a personal Commemoration Book (containing the names of family and loved ones, both living and departed, to be remembered in prayer).

One maxim I remember very well: A FAMILY THAT PRAYS TOGETHER, STAYS TOGETHER. And this is much better with an Icon Corner. Better be with the Saints, the Theotokos, and Christ in a solitary corner than be with JUST yourself pictured on facebook.

:D FIN


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_corner    

1. ^ Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Penguin Books, London, 1964, ISBN 0-14-020592-6), p. 310.

http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/worship/prayer.htm

Anger, Pride, and God's Antidote

"'Be angry but do not sin'; do not let the sun go down on your anger and give no opportunity to the devil" (Ephesians 4: 26-27).

Tonight, alone with my laptop, I now have a chance to give myself a pep talk. I always do this as part of my nightly Reflections. After all as an Orthodox Catholic, it's something the Bible and the Church Fathers would have anyone do if she fears she's falling into sin.

I am a very proud person. I am ashamed of it. And part of that PRIDE is anger, sometimes irrational anger that accumulates to rage. It is only by the grace of God that I have been kept in control of my own emotions. I have to admit too that my pride stems from my unfailing short-comings as a person; my insecurities have been overbearing that most of  the time I have to maintain a facade of a carefree, intellectually superior person. I do have a knack for the Geeky, but that's just as far as it goes; the rest are general information. 

Am I being brutal to myself? Of course. There's no other option for me but bitter honesty. I have nothing to offer other people; in short, I'm a bland, uninteresting person that cares too much for her soul and for the others. They could care less if I really cared.

I guess, as I study deep the Orthodox faith, that if we are to get close to God, we have no other choice but for ourselves to be stripped naked by Him. All our pretexts and pretensions, through the loving Act of God, are thrown out of the window until we finally realize that our nakedness is what God is after... Just like when Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed.  

Now what is anger? The Bible talks of Righteous anger but it is the domain of God. Christ talks of anger as equal to murder. The Church Fathers teach that Anger is an unnatural trait of human beings. Here is a helpful quote: 

"Anger's true origin lies within us, in our own passions. Saint Nilus the Ascetic says that anger is akin to gluttony; both result from our craving for personal physical pleasure and psychological self-satisfaction. When these yearnings are thwarted, however trivial the desired object may be, we become angry.

Even more frequently, anger springs from injured pride. Saint Maximos says, "whatever a man loves he clings to, and in order not to lose it rejects everything that keeps him from it." Although Saint Maximos recognized "self-love" as "the mother of the passions," he accuses it of being the particular cause of "anger, irritation, rancor, and so on." The Scriptures too link anger with pride, as we see in Proverbs 29:22-23: "A man of wrath stirs up strife, and a man given to anger causes much transgression. A man's pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor." 

Undoubtedly, Anger is rooted on Pride. The feeling of anger makes us susceptible into believing that we could be MORE than other people; we could be more than ourselves, we could be MORE than God. Anger is a shell of self deceit, it doesn't really help our well- being. One might say, "But isn't anger, a natural emotion?". Well, my answer must be based on what the Church Fathers and what the Scriptures tell us: in our fallen state, anger has become natural, but this wasn't so in the original design of God on mankind.

What should be done then? God has given us the antidote against anger and pride. In Orthodoxy, it is through prayers, meditation, reflection and participation in the Divine Liturgy celebrated in His Church. It is through these that we melt whatever armor of deceit and pride we have built for ourselves. God's antidote REQUIRES our active participation in His Holy Mysteries, until, step by painful step, we are stripped right to the soul and all anger and pride fade away.

LORD JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, HAVE MERCY ON ME, A SINNER...

Quoted from: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/misc/cozby_anger.htm

Take Heart! Christ Is With Us: The Orthodox Priesthood (Final)

NOTE: This blog post isn't written to malign anybody. My purpose is to share my budding knowledge about Orthodoxy and how the Priest is an Icon of Christ. I am not a theologian nor am I a "faith defender"-- I just want to share the beauty of The Apostolic Succession established by the Apostles themselves in accordance with what Christ taught. 

***

Recently, while updating my Facebook account, I came across a page that I liked. The page posted on its news-feed a YouTube video of a certain Baptist preacher who insulted some of his congregation in his mid-sermon. He said some things like "You're one of the sorriest church members I have! You're not worth 15 cents!"  and "You won't get this in any other church! (meaning his "hissy fit" as one YouTuber put it)". The preacher even said that he "felt better" after doing such.

Click the link to watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8iSAPKI2w8

Personally I think what the preacher did was something I could not consider a "pastoral care" (again I'm drawing this from the fact that I have encountered and was baptized by an Orthodox Priest, I'm drawing from my experience and what I've witnessed). Much as I want to be really annoyed at the person I can't help but think "I can't blame him; that's probably what he learned in his seminary"-- therefore I can't hold him accountable, but surely, he IS to be held accountable for leading the people to Christ; obviously he didn't receive the Grace of Ordination-- which makes it dangerous since one has no right to "claim" souls for God unless he is a successor of the Apostles.

I can't imagine an Orthodox Priest doing SUCH. Not even in a million years.

A priest is an agent of grace; a funnel through which God's mercy can flow (paraphrasing Abbot Tryphon of Ancientfaithradio.org). Why is that? What MAKES a priest? The Abbot tells us that the Priest is to become a living sacrifice for the people.

Click the link to hear Abbot Tryphon: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/morningoffering/the_priest 

A priest, especially an Orthodox Priest, must not treat the Holy Office begrudgingly.

(Coptic Orthodox Priest)

HOLY ALTAR VERSUS THE PULPIT:

The Altar of God is Holy. A man in vestments IS NOT SUPPOSED to make it into a PULPIT. And I believe this is one of the starkest contrasts of Orthodox Priesthood and "other ministries". An Orthodox Priest cannot bring "personal" issues in his sermons and then feel good about it. The Divine Liturgy he celebrates is where God's presence IS present. He must not desecrate the Celebration by turning the whole thing into a personal crusade to wipe off "persons building their own kingdoms." (Only God can wipe them off from existence, not the Priest.) And the sharing of the Gospels is not to be bridled with angst and self-righteousness seasoned with acid attacks against individuals who are obviously "hurting" on the inside.

The Altar is not to be made a CHEAP pulpit where one can stand behind or around it and say: "Hey, listen to me! Don't you dare doze off; I'm important!" 

THE PRIEST AS AN ICON OF CHRIST:

(A Priest kneeling before the Altar)

What does the image of Christ look like? This is best answered by engaging with someone who received the Grace of ordination; someone who can trace his discipleship back to the apostles who had seen Christ up-close and personal... Namely an Orthodox Priest. But being an icon of Christ does not a guarantee him "feeling better". He must remember his black cassock-- a sign of humility. Being dead to the world, he must lead the congregation to repentance and communion with God through the Divine Liturgy. He has no right saddling up on a high horse. He must not read the Gospels through his own eyes but he must do this with constant prayer and constant reading of the works of the Holy Fathers. His "job"-- as one Orthodox Christian lady in our church put it once-- is to pray...
This is not to say that he mustn't admonish his congregation to repentance-- but to call out names on persons, rub to their faces their weaknesses as if he do not have his own, and to say in the end that he "feels better" after doing so, is definitely NOT the work of an Icon of Christ.
The Priest, to set him apart from the rest, is to be cloaked with humility at all times. This has been passed down from the apostles to the present day Orthodox Priests and I feel GREAT about that.

:D FIN         

Note: Photos are not mine.