Archbishop Elias Zoghby’s Vision of Christian Unity


by Father James K. Graham

Reprinted with permission from the Winter 2008 edition of Sophia, the magazine for the Melkite Eparchy of Newton.

The works of recently-reposed Archbishop Elias Zoghby, former Patriarchal Vicar in Egypt and Sudan, and retired Metropolitan of Baalbek, especially the essays collected in A Voice from the Byzantine East [1] and the monograph Tous Schismatiques [2], provide a vision of Melkite ecclesiology solidly based in the Eastern Tradition, representative of the thinking of the Melkite Fathers of Vatican II, and consistent with contemporary Orthodox ecclesiological thought.

Archbishop Elias bases his ecclesiology in the first millennium of undivided, but diverse, Christianity. During that period, he says, the Churches founded by the Apostles grew and evangelized the known world, developing liturgically, theologically, and ecclesiologically according to the particular needs of each geographical location and also according to their unique historical-cultural-political situations. A basic agreement on the essential content of the Christian faith, derived from the Scriptures and the teaching of Jesus and the disciples and their successors, and articulated for the universal Church at the seven Ecumenical Councils, united all Christians, despite their wide geographic dispersal and their many divergent local practices.

The Great Schism of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople came as the culmination of intensifying conflict between the two Churches, two cultures, and two political systems. The Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) aimed at reuniting the separated Churches, and despite the increasingly institutionalized condition of schism, both councils bear witness to a consciousness of some kind of continuing communion, for the bishops of both East and West convened and voted.[3] This sense of communion without administrative uniformity, at least tolerant of each other’s differences, but still agreeing on the essentials of the Christian faith, forms the foundation of Archbishop Elias’ proposal for reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in our time.

Even in Tous Schismatiques, which advances his notorious plan for immediate intercommunion between the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and its separated sister the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Archbishop Elias does not provide more than an outline of how the Catholic and Orthodox Churches should realize their reunion. Let us sketch that outline.

1) “The rapprochement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches requires a new formulation of the doctrine of Roman primacy. This formulation must be grounded in the common tradition of the first thousand years of Christianity.”[4]

2) “Only the union of Latins and Orthodox on the level of equality can bring together the apostolic tradition in its fullness and make Catholic unity complete. [Orthodoxy] must, therefore, share equally in the government of the reunited Church, just as must the Latin Church, under the primacy of Peter, of course.” [5]

3) The “East-West Christian dialogue should be accompanied by an even greater effort at the decentralization that was begun at the Second Vatican Council, and in the Orthodox Churches it should accompany an effort of extremely qualified centralization around Peter’s successor and in the framework of traditional collegiality.” [6]

4) “All of the Churches ought to be governed by their own bishops; Eastern Christians have never conceived of Church government in any other way… The pope and his coleagues must not be entrusted habitually and normally with the government of all the Churches.” [7]

5) The Pope cannot “exercise, normally and habitually, in the Eastern Patriarchates, the role he exercises in the Latin Church in his capacity as Patriarch of the West.[8]

6) “In recalling, with theologians and ecumenists, that the faith is essentially the same in the Roman Church and in Orthodoxy, we understand that doctrine elaborated after the schism by one of the two unilaterally, that is, in the absence of the other, cannot be part of what is essential in this faith.” [9]

7) Thus, doctrine and discipline defined at the General Councils of the West after the Schism oblige only the Latin Church, and definitions made at Orthodox synods after the Schism oblige only the Orthodox Church. [10]

8) “It is our understanding of Church history and Tradition that the Church is to be governed by the bishops who are in communion with the Pope, but not exclusively by the Pope to the exclusion of the Episcopate.” [11]

9) There can be no practical progress toward resolution of the problem of primacy and reconciliation of the Churches “as long as the actual government of the Catholic Church has not been wholly and uncompromisingly transferred from the hands of this minority [the Roman Curia] to those of the pastoral Episcopate, the only agent truly responsible for the Church of Jesus Christ. [12]

10) In ruling his diocese of Rome and the dioceses of Italy whose metropolitan he is, the Pope “ought to be assisted by his local clergy.[13]

11) “The responsibilities of ruling the Latin Patriarchate of the West ought to be assumed by the Latin episcopate or their delegates near the Holy Roman See, assembled in Patriarchal Synod around the pope in the exercise of his powers as Patriarch of the West.[14]

12) “Where the whole Church is concerned, the responsibility for its administration ought to fall upon the universal Catholic episcopate (or the representatives commissioned by them) to coordinate, under the worldwide primacy of the Pope, the life and activities of the entire Church.[15]

13) In order to make reunion with Orthodoxy possible, as well as to adapt to the free and democratic conditions of the modern world, the Roman Church must return to the synodal type of Church government that even it lived under in the first Christian millennium. This means national or local church “government by genuine Bishops’ Conferences with real power,” not merely consultative or advisory bodies. [16]

14) Episcopal authority must be reaffirmed and restored because it comes directly from Jesus Christ Himself, who founded the Apostolic College in accord with Divine will. “Christ gave the ‘presidency’ of the Apostolic College to Peter only after having entrusted all the Apostles with a clear cut, well-defined mission. The leader of the Apostles was designated, then, to be head of a College which had already been constituted, a College already enjoying authentic and inalienable powers.” The Pope is the first bishop in the Church because he succeeds Peter, who was “a member of this College when he received the mission of strengthening his brethren. [17]

15) The rights and privileges of the Patriarchs must be recognized, respected, and revitalized, for “the Patriarchate is the only genuine guardian of each Church’s patrimony and one of the only checks on the spread of heterodoxy”.[18] In the Christian East, the Patriarchs are the agents of the episcopate, members of it and chosen by it. Archbishop Elias quotes Archbishop Peter Medawar as saying that the patriarch is “the most eminent guardian of the deposit of the faith, “having “major responsibility for its true and integral diffusion… He is the official spokesman of his Church and of its peoples in all circumstances… In conformity with the ancient law, the patriarchs have the right and even the obligation to carry the burden of governing the Universal Church together with the Holy Father and to do so in a more outstanding and formal manner than the other bishops.[19]

16) The reinterpretation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome should be based on the Eastern understanding of his position as primus inter pares, which is sacramental rather than juridical. That is, the pope is first among equals because he, the patriarchs, and all the bishops are equal by virtue of sharing the fullness of priesthood, which is episcopacy. This understanding does not exclude the possibility that the pope, like the patriarchs, may have certain powers that other bishops do not have, [20] but these powers come from the rank of his see among the dioceses of Christendom, not from his personal succession to Peter,[21] and they originate in canonical custom and legislation, not in divine institution or essential doctrine of the faith.[22]

17) Referring to the Third Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, Archbishop Elias writes that “if the role of the Church of New Rome entails a veritable responsibility, witness, and diakonia in the service of the unity of Orthodoxy, one cannot be dealing simply with primacy of honor or precedence when one speaks of the Bishop of Rome, recognized by Orthodoxy as the first among all bishops.” [23]

18) In the reunited Church, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, so extensively elaborated by the Latin Church, would complement local autonomous episcopal collegiality, so zealously safeguarded by the Orthodox Churches. Excessive decentralization, the strength that has considerably weakened the Orthodox, would counteract excessive centralization, the weakness that has inordinately strengthened Rome.[24]

19)”Thus we would say that these rights reserved to the Bishop of Rome must be defined by mutual agreement of the Roman and Orthodox Churches. Since this matter must not in any way become a part of the essential deposit of faith required for canonical communion, it must be settled by the reunited Churches.” [25] This statement, of course, reflects Archbishop Elias’ conviction that the shared faith of the first millennium suffices for restoration of communion.

20) In fact, he says, “it is easier to agree on what concerns God than on what concerns men, knowing churchmen and their powers and privileges? Reaching accord on doctrine will be easy once we reach accord on the division of powers.” [26]

21) In matters of doctrine, the shared faith of the first millennium suffices; everything else is different non-essential formulations and elaborations of the same essential truths. And, since doctrinal formulations can never fully express the truth of what we believe, much less the truth of the Mystery of God, it is wiser to avoid dogmatic definitions as far as possible. “If one is obliged to do so‹which should be very infrequently after the stabilization of the depositum fidei‹one should do so with Christian modesty, and without a priori exclusion of other formulations that could be equally legitimate and maybe even more adequate… Revealed truth can be formulated in different ways and in different contexts. Factors such as cultural, historical, and other situations can influence these formulations without changing the Truth, which always remains the same.” [27]

22) Just as differences in doctrinal expression need not stand in the way of communion, so also differences in ecclesiology can be accommodated. “Until the 11th century, Rome and Orthodoxy each had its unique ecclesiology, at least germinally, and unity was not broken. One can conceive of these two different ecclesiologies in the Church without questioning the Faith and without altering communion.” [28]

23) We can even regard these differences as necessary for the wholeness of the Church, because “the Catholic Church, that is the Universal Church, can only consist of the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church reunited, since neither of them can claim to possess the whole Christian patrimony, spiritual, ascetical, liturgical, patristic, or doctrinal.” [29] The wholeness of the Church is legitimate diversity in essential unity.

24) Archbishop Elias conceives of Church unity in terms of East and West, and favors preservation and developement of the legitimate diversity of worship forms, theological expression, and church governance suited to peoples and countries. Jesus Christ is incarnated in each race, and each race shows forth in its own way the image and likeness of God. Thus, its expression of Christianity must be locally developed, not imported. [30] In this context, he seems to regard the re-entrance into Catholic communion by the churches of the Reformation and their descendants as a matter for the Western Church to deal with. [31] However, as expressions of legitimate diversity they figure in his larger vision of Christian unity: “no Church or group of believers however humble it may be, should be compelled to accept union by assimilation or disappearance… Indeed, we envision the true unity of the distant future to include several different rites in which almost everyone can find a home: an Anglican Catholic rite, a Presbyterian Catholic rite, perhaps even a Jewish Catholic rite, and many, many more; with some of them containing even smaller subdivisions.” [32]

25) Therefore, achieving the reunion of the Christian Church requires dedicated, humble, sacrificial effort on the part of all Christians, who should feel the pain of separation and who suffer from, as well as sometimes contribute to, its sinfulness.[33] However, the Church of Rome, since it is the head of the Churches, bears special responsibility for healing schism and restoring unity. This is its God-given mandate; this is the proper exercise of its primacy. [34] Fulfilling this role will require major changes in Roman self-understanding, a process begun at Vatican II, accompanied by fundamental changes in Roman dealings with other Christians, for “every attempt at unity centered in a pyramidal Church, built around an absolute juridical authority, and founded on submission to the Pope, instead of on co-responsibility with the older brother who is in Rome, would be doomed to failure.” [35]

However we may respond to this vision of Church unity – and as an ideal it has great appeal – our task here is to discover in it resources for fulfilling the ecumenical vocation of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, if we can. Let us begin, as we must, by flatly calling it a fantasy that ignores most of the secular and ecclesiastical history of the Christian age. Yes, the Churches should re-unite on the basis of the common faith of the first millennium, should accept legitimate diversity in worship and doctrine and discipline, and should govern themselves synodally under the benign primacy of the Bishop of Rome, first among equals, presiding in the service of charity. But at this time, and for the foreseeable future, such reunion seems at best highly improbable.

Nationalism, pluralism, colonialism,imperialism,and dogmatization of local customs and theological opinions contribute to the unlikelihood of reunion on these terms, as do centuries of carefully nurtured misunderstandings and even enmities. If the Churches truly hope one day to achieve reunion, they must strive diligently to resolve these misunderstandings and to heal these enmities, not simply at the level of international theological dialogue, not even at the level of the hierarchy or of clerical formation, but at every level of church life.

Agreement on theology by theologians has no meaning until the parishioners in church on Sunday can affirm it and apply it in their daily dealings with other Christians. As long as Catholics define themselves essentially as being “under the Pope,” and as long as Orthodox define themselves essentially as not being “under the Pope,” both sides ignorant not only of others’ faith but of their own, theological dialogue will remain so much wasted breath and reunion will remain a beautiful fantasy.

What, then, can Melkites learn from Archbishop Elias’vision? They can, and should, recognize its basic validity – it expresses our authentic understanding of the Church. It should be taught and nurtured in church schools, in homilies, in adult education classes, in regional and national clergy-laity conventions, in deacon training programs, in seminary curricula, in continuing education of clergy, in the Patriarchal Synod. It should become intimately and integrally part of the meaning of “Melkite.”

As this happens, we must also share our conviction that this vision authentically points the way to human achievement of God’s will that His people should be one with Him. Such sharing will involve more than words – though words, written in church bulletins, pastoral letters, episcopal statements, ecumenical documents, educational materials, popular magazines, and scholarly journals, will carry great weight.

Such sharing will involve acting according to our belief – individuals, families, parishes, dioceses, the entire patriarchate must seek cooperation with fellow Christians, repudiate inauthentic forms of worship and teaching and governance, and do whatever expresses our authentic vision: ordain married men, expunge latinizations, elect our own bishops, restore true monasticism, and adapt our heritage of Holy Tradition to the demands of life in the secular, pluralistic, technological, God-hungry world of the 21st century.

Often people contribute to making themselves invalids. They completely accept limitations placed upon them by circumstances or accidents, even further handicapping themselves by not daring to try actions that will challenge them but will not defeat them. Such people make themselves victims. They call themselves realistic. In effect, they deny God’s will and power. They defy God to heal them, without making any attempt to cooperate in their own healing.

Other people make every effort to overcome their handicaps or limitations. They constantly strive to reach farther or to walk longer or to stand longer by themselves. Such people make themselves victors. Others call them idealistic, but they too call themselves realistic. Consciously or not, they acknowledge God’s healing power and His willingness to cooperate with us when we try to cooperate with Him.

Melkites (and, indeed, all Christians) must stop acting like invalids, victims of circumstances and dependent on what others do to or for us. We cannot be like the paralytic, lying by the pool for 38 years waiting for someone to put him in the water. We must be like Zacchaeus, willing to climb up a tree – perhaps even to go out on a limb – to overcome our limitations. The Lord will recognize us, reward our efforts, and bring salvation to our house.

 

Father James K. Graham is the pastor of St. Elias the Prophet Melkite Church, San Jose, CA.

 

1. Archbishop Elias Zoghby, A Voice from the Byzantine East, trans. R. Bernard (West Newton, MA: Diocese of Newton Office of Educational Services, 1992; original French edition, 1970).

2. Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Tous Schismatiques? (Beirut: Heidelberg Press-Lebanon, 1981). An English translation is available from the Diocese of Newton Office of Educational Services. Citations in this essay are based on that translation, revised by James K. Graham. Page numbers refer to the French edition.

3. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.39.

4. Zoghby, Voice, p.71.

5. Zoghby, Voice, p.56.

6. Zoghby, Voice, p.57.

7. Zoghby, Voice, p.69.

8. Zoghby, Voice, p.70.

9. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.51.

10. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.51.

11. Zoghby, Voice, p. 75.

12. Zoghby, Voice, p.74.

13. Zoghby, Voice, p.110.

14. Zoghby, Voice, pp.110-111.

15. Zoghby, Voice, p.111.

16. Zoghby, Voice, pp.144-145.

17. Zoghby, Voice, p.83.

18. Zoghby, Voice, p. 104.

19. Zoghby, Voice, p. 118.

20. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.47.

21. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.59.

22. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.47.

23. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.48.

24. Zoghby, Voice, pp.56-57.

25. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.47.

26. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.109.

27. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.17.

28. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p.29.

29. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 14.

30. Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 63.

31. Zoghby, Voice, p. 86.

32. Zoghby, Voice, p. 104.

SEPTEMBER 11… MY SPIRITUAL RESPONSE

In Fr. Groeschel’s video, SEPTEMBER 11… A SPIRITUAL RESPONSE, formerly available on EWTN, he talks about the way the buildings came down as some kind of a miracle. There are two possibilities here. That it was. Or it was not. In either case, it was NOT natural. So lets either remember it as a miracle or admit the alternative.

Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son in atonement of the sins of rogue elements in government, executing the murders of 9/11 in order to start of a cycle of violence that we now daily witness.

 

Eastern Prayer for Civil Authorities.

Be mindful O Lord, of our elected leaders, (Name), of all civil authorities, of our armed forces, of the city in which we dwell, and of every city and country place; grant us peaceful times, that we may lead a calm and tranquil life in all holiness and peace; for You are holy, our God, and we render glory to You, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and always and forever and ever. Amen.

Lebanon’s “Clash of Civilizations”. A Message for Our Time?

There is a another angle one can view what many are calling the present or pending “clash of civilizations”. One that a faithful Catholic should consider, or any Christian for that matter. Considering the historical record, Lebanon has been there and done that. Pope John Paul II is quoted as saying that Lebanon is “more than a country; it is a message.” But why and how? From antiquity to her civil war in the last part of the 20th Century, Lebanon can resonate in the hearts and minds of present-day Christians facing an uncertain future. To gauge, and even alter our course in history. For in Lebanon, the Holy Spirit of God is at work.

Many in the west have a limited view of this region, associating Lebanon with her drawn out civil war of over 25 years. To orient the reader, Lebanon is located just to the north of Israel, and is situated between the geographic east and west. Lebanon is know in history as the crossroad of civilizations. Lebanon was visited by Jesus Himself , preaching and healing in Sidon and Tyre (Mathew 11, 15). Since the time of the apostles, Lebanon has been predominantly Christian.

 

Some of us may be familiar with a recent Saint in the Catholic Church. St. Charbel Makleuf, of the Maronite rite. The Maronites were founded in the 5th Century by the Syrian monk and hermit St. Maron, a contemporary and correspondent of St John Chrysostom. The Maronites established themselves in the mountains of Northern Lebanon. From here they resisted attempts by the invading Islamic Caliphs to absorb them, eventually earning their tribute. The Maronites fought along with the Crusaders in the 11th through 13 Centuries. In this period the Maronites sought union with the Latin Patriarch in Antioch, but formal union with Rome did not occur until the 16th Century, enabled by Jesuit missionaries. Maronite monasteries and convents were instrumental in preserving Arabic and Syriac manuscripts, even helping to oppose the Turkish empire’s attempt to obliterate the arabic language. The first printing press in the middle east was imported by the Maronites in 1610. Maronite scholars played a leading role in a renaisance of middle east literature, even on Islamic history, in the 19th and 20th century. After the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, the Maronites were the primary force in forging the republic that is now Lebanon.

In antiquity, the region that includes present day Lebanon was under the governance of the first Christian Church, the Church of Antioch. Antioch sits just above Lebanon geographically. This Church was founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas, and their first bishop was none other the the Apostle Peter, before he left to Rome. The Church of Antioch produced St. Ephrem the Syrian (4th Century), Doctor of the Catholic Church, and St. John Chrysostom (5th Century), Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church. Together with the sister Churches of Alexandria in Egypt and Jerusalem, these Byzantine Churches preserved the sacraments for 2000 years. Nearly annihilated by the first Moslem invasion, the Byzantine Church in Lebanon survived subsequent invasions through a spirit of cooperation. Not so during the Crusades, as politics won over theology, and the victors replaced the Byzantine with the Latin, driving out the Byzantine faithful. The Byzantine churches were rebuilt after the Crusades were driven out by the Islamic Mamelukes. In this era and during the subsequent four centuries of Ottoman rule (1516-1920), politics favored the east over the west, and the autonomous Christian Churches were encouraged to ground themselves to Constantinople. Lebanon was different. By the 1700’s, a movement had begun to unite with the Church with Rome, while preserving the eastern liturgy. In John 17:23 Jesus prays: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. In 1723 the Byzantine Bishop of Sidon requested communion with Rome. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church became official and the Church of Antioch divided. While the remaining Orthodox continued to form three autonomous churches, the Melkite Catholics were unique in being scattered in the regions of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria while under one Patriarch (Antioch). The ensuing Melkite era is known for missionary and educational works through out the middle east, but not without resistance and even persecution, and even from the Orthodox. In Lebanon this was rare; here the seeds were being sown for the republic of the 20th Century.

 

In the 1950’s Lebanon became a shining star in the middle east, with peaceful coexistence between Moslems and Christians. A republic with democratic principles. The emergence of prosperity attracted powerful financial interests however. The culture began lending itself to materialism and unbridled commercialism. The moral culture suffered; a culture of corruption and even secularism incubated. Nationhood and patriotism lost their true meaning. Lebanon’s civil war lasted over 25 years, a war that the majority of the population did not want and that was largely manipulated, on both sides, by outside forces with their own agendas. Eventually this lead to a seduction of both Christian and Muslim sides, leading in events that neither side can look back at without shame. As a result of the civil war, the Christian census nearly halved from 60% to 35% (mostly from exodus). A strong movement promoting unity between Melkites and Orthodox was also halted by Lebanon’s “clash of civilizations”.

This history may so far resonate with readers, that Lebanon is a message for our time. But there is more.

There was a light that emerged from the period of civil war, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Part Four of the Catechism, “Christian Prayer” was written by a Melkite priest living in Lebanon during the civil war. Here is what then Cardinal Ratzinger said about how Fr. Corbon, who lived amidst the terror, was chosen to be associated with the Catechism:

“After having resolved to add a distinct fourth part on prayer to the first three, we looked for a representative of Eastern theology. Since it was not possible to secure a bishop as author, we settled upon Jean Corbon, who wrote the beautiful concluding text on prayer while in beleaguered Beirut, frequently in the midst of dramatic situations, taking shelter in his basement in order to continue working during the bombardments.”

 

So we can say that in a time of anguish, during a clash of civilizations, a priest of an eastern Catholic rite composed the part on prayer in the Catechism. One of the most inspired texts of our time and a fixture of our faith. According to Reverend Cassian Folsom 0.S.B, a teacher at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Saint Anselmo in Rome, from an original publication in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April 1996, Fr. Corbon’s hand also appears in another part of the Cathechism:

“However, the sub-section entitled The Liturgy: Work of the Holy Trinity (CCC 1077-1112) bears the unmistakable mark of Fr. Corbon, and reflects the single most important insight of his book, The Wellspring of Worship, namely, that the liturgy is essentially Trinitarian in nature.”

Here comes another message for us from the clash. Fr. Folsom goes on:

“The action of the Father as the source and goal of the liturgy (CCC 1077-1083) is commonly understood, and the work of the Son in the liturgy (CCC 1084-1090) is even more familiar … The action of the Holy Spirit, however, is more hidden, more mysterious, and for that reason less known, and less frequently the object of theological reflection.

For that reason the section on the work of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy (CCC 1091-1109) is remarkable for bringing to light an aspect of the Church’s pneumatological [of the Holy Spirit] tradition, formerly hidden from a large majority of Catholics. Even from the very practical point of view of length, this section is longer and more fully developed than the sections on the Father and the Son, precisely because this element of the liturgy has been largely overlooked by the Western Church in the past. Here the hand of Fr. Corbon is clearly in evidence.”

 

In Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen, Section 6, we read: “Certain features of the spiritual and theological tradition, common to the various Churches of the East mark their sensitivity to the forms taken by the transmission of the Gospel in Western lands. The Second Vatican Council summarized them as follows: “Everyone knows with what love the Eastern Christians celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the Eucharistic mystery, source of the Church’s life and pledge of future glory. In this mystery the faithful, united with their Bishops, have access to God the Father through the Son, the Word made flesh who suffered and was glorified, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And so made ‘sharers of the divine nature’ (2 Pt 1:4) they enter into communion with the most holy Trinity”.

Indeed, as descibed in Fr. Corbon’s book, the liturgical expressions in the eastern churches (and increasingly in the english version of the Latin Rite) emphasize the epilcesis or “calling down” of the Holy Spirit. According to the eastern traditions, the epiclesis is the vehicle of a mighty synergy between God and man. Centered in the liturgy, man then lives out this synergy by consenting to it in prayer.

In these sections of the Catechism, we read:

CCC 1091: The desire and work of the Spirit in the heart of the Church is that we may live from the life of the risen Christ. When the Spirit encounters in us the response of faith which he has aroused in us, he brings about genuine cooperation. Through it, the liturgy becomes the common work of the Holy Spirit and the Church.

Later we read (CCC 1099) that “the Holy Spirit is the Church’s living memory”.

With a possible world war between east and west looming, or a clash of civilizations, western Catholics may want to pause and take a deep breath in considering their role in forming history. Pope John Paul II would often describe the Catholic Church as needing to ‘breath with both lungs’. With this reminder and elaboration on prayer, and this mystical understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit, we can become more fruitful for God.

In a recent Zenit article (March 22,2006), Michel Aoun, interim Lebanese leader, talks about the role of apostolic Christianity in the resolution of the clash.

“For us, the expression “Maronite” is no longer the exact term; there is much more talk of “Christians” in general. We regard the rites as secondary traditions, because we are all Christians for Christ,whether Maronite, Greek-Catholic, Melkite, etc.”

He then goes on to say:

“Christians have brought about the unity of Lebanon; they were the only ones who cohabited with the different Muslim groups, when coexistence among the different Muslim groups did not exist.

They have a historic role, which is to live their mission, to be an element of understanding, a federalizing element of the people of Lebanon in its different components. Playing this role, they can, I believe, recover their function in the republic and participate in politics and in the socioeconomic construction of the country.”

Lebanon is presently being taunted again. The threat of a world wide clash is knocking on her doors. Perhaps as a sign of an age to come in the world, Christian religious fervor in Lebanon this time is flourishing, as are monasteries and seminaries. They cannot keep up with the demand from new candidates. A whole generation has been let down by their parent’s culture and are seeking answers in the Truth of the Ages.

A Joppa Story

This small story unfolded during our trip to the Holy Land in 2004. It was in the town of Joppa, the town of Jaffa in present day Israel. It is the town of the readings from Acts of the Apostles. It had the port through which the cedars from Lebanon were were brought in to build Solomon’s temple.

 

Here also is the Vatican’s embassy to Israel. There is a beautiful Franciscan church there near the house of Simon the Tanner (from Acts 10:6-15). It is called the Church of St. Peter.

 

When on pilgrimage there in 2004, there was a beautiful tall Jewish girl outside the church waiting to get in with us. She had just rode over on her bike from nearby Tel Aviv. It seemed to me that she came there regularly by the way she acted. While waiting she struck up a conversation with our handsome young driver, an Orthodox Christian Palestinian. I could not hear the conversation very well. She was talking about a personal decision she was trying to discern. They also talked about the prospects of peace. We went in and they stayed outside talking. The church was beautiful inside too and had a painting of Peter’s ecstasy and vision of the linen sheet with “all manner of fourfooted beasts” over the altar. When we came out the two were still talking. She sounded sad but hopeful. They then exchanged numbers, she went in, and we left.