“…For We Have Done Nothing Good Upon the Earth…”

From the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great

Last Sunday, 29 March 2015, being the Fifth Sunday of the Great Fast, the Divine Liturgy of our Father among the Saints, Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (+379) was celebrated for the last time on a Sunday, the Lord’s Day that is, in this Anno Domini (i.e. “Year of our Lord”) 2015. The next time we shall celebrate it again will be during Holy Thursday and Saturday, and not on a Sunday, that is not until Next Year’s (2016) First Sunday of the Great Fast.

The Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil, chronologically and by use, predates that of Saint John Chrysostom. It was more common in the Ancient Church, at least within the First Millennium, until that of Chrysostom gradually became more popular in Constantinople, late in the First Millennium, and became thereby more widespread in use. To this day, the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom is the most common liturgy used in the Byzantine Orthodox Church, throughout the year, with the exception of when the Divine Liturgies of Basil and Gregory Dialogos replace it. Thus in modern history, most of us erroneously associate the 2 non-Chrysostom Liturgies with the Great Fast (Sundays of Basil, and Presanctified of Gregory on Weekdays), for in the Ancient Church the Liturgies and their use was more flux than nowadays, and there were even more common Liturgies associated with Saint James, Mark, and others. Therefore when we speak of liturgies and their use, we must realize that we are applying our current practices, and not seeing them in light of the historic life of the Church, at least within the First Millennium.

In our day and age, the practice of celebrating the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil (unfortunately) is limited to 10 Times per year and sometimes this is not fully practiced in all churches, because the Paramon (i.e. Preparation/Pre-Feast) of the Nativity & Holy Theophany cannot be celebrated with St. Basil’s Liturgy, that is, when these Feasts fall on a Saturday or Sunday. 

In any case, “nowadays” St. Basil’s is celebrated thusly:

5 Sundays of the Great Fast

Great & Holy Thursday

Great & Holy Saturday

Paramon of the Nativity

Paramon of Holy Theophany

January 1^ST – Feast & Repose of Saint Basil

In essence, since most people come to Church on Sundays, they only would be able to enjoy the glorious liturgy of Saint Basil 5 Times during the 5 Sundays of the Great Fast. To the liturgically illiterate, they recognize the Basilian Liturgy with only one aspect, namely, that it is longer in duration. These would normally complain to the Priest about the duration of the Liturgy. But to the liturgically literate, and more importantly the faithful, that is those who prayerfully follow along with the Priest with their Service Books open in front of them, they instead look forward to these celebrations, and attentively/prayerfully participate in this glorious liturgy.

To many scholars who wish to meticulously dissect the Basilian Liturgy, either to identify it or differentiate from the Chrysostomite Liturgy, they see only two major differences—besides the duration in length—and these would be:

1.     The Longer Basilian Anaphora Prayer, which basically takes the form of Scriptural Salvation History, that is, it summarily retells the whole story from a Biblical perspective of what transpired from Adam to Christ, leading to the Last Supper, and,

2.     The Different Formulae of Consecration at the Epiclesis Prayer, whereas the Chrysostomite uses the term “change” the Basilian substitutes with “show”

But what do scholars know? They only expend countless hours digging through manuals and manuscripts only to summarize their viewpoints in theses and dissertations. In short, they do not live and pray the liturgies, and that is why they fail to see the other distinctive elements in the Basilian Liturgy, that is, other than the 2 pointed above. You see the Divine Liturgy, in the teaching of the Memory Eternal Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, cannot be reduced to a mere text, or else it becomes a lifeless corpse. The liturgy is and must be lived, practiced, by anticipation and with participation, and most importantly, with a prayerful mind and heart. Is it any wonder that he referred to the liturgy of the Eucharist as an "organism"?

The Prayers of the Basilian Liturgy are quite different from those of the Chrysostomite Liturgy: They are much more profound, beseeching in essence, intercessory in supplication, penitential in nature, and in my humble opinion, they point out the real relationship between God and Man, the former as Creator, and the latter as created. The “other” long Prayer associated with the Basilian Liturgy is the one said during the chanting of the Megalynarion, in which supplications are made for all, especially family members (i.e. children, parents, husbands, wives, etc.).

It is not my attempt to present in here a full account of the Basilian Liturgy as I admit I am not a scholar (and I do not wish to be). Doing so would require several books. I am simply a prayerful Priest who wishes to invite people to participate more during the Divine Liturgy, so that they can read along in their minds the same prayers which every Priest says during the Divine Liturgy. But I wish to point out in this reflection a simple prayer said during the Epiclesis (i.e. the “calling upon” the Holy Spirit to do His work). To that extent, it would be most expedient if I provide this prayer in 3 languages, with my own emphases in Bold:

“Because of this, O all-holy Master, we also, Thy sinful and unworthy servants, whom Thou hast made worthy to minister at Thy holy Altar, not through our own righteousness, for we have done nothing good upon the earth, but because of Thy mercies and compassion, which Thou hast richly poured out upon us, dare to draw nigh to Thy holy Altar, and, presenting unto Thee the antitypes of the holy Body and Blood of Thy Christ, we pray Thee and call upon Thee, O Holy of Holies, by the favor of Thy goodness, that Thy Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon these Gifts here set forth, and bless them and hallow them, and show…”

لأجل هذا أيُّها السيِّد الكليُّ قدسه، نجسر نحن أيضاً عبيدك الخطأة غير المستحقِّين، الذين قد أُهِّلنا لخدمة مذبحك المقدَّس، لا من أجل برِّنا، لأنَّنا لم نصنع شيئاً من الصلاح على الأرض، بل من أجل مراحمك ورأفاتك التي أفضتها علينا بسخاء، أن ندنو إلى مذبحك المقدَّس. وإذ وضعنا رسمَي جسد مسيحك ودمه المقدَّسين، نسألك ونطلب إليك، يا قدوس القدِّيسين، أن يحلَّ بمسرَّة صلاحك روحك القدُّوس علينا، وعلى هذه القرابين الموضوعة، ويباركها، ويقدِّسها، ويُظهِر...

“Διὰ τοῦτο, Δέσποτα, Πανάγιε καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ καὶ ἀνάξιοι δοῦλοί σου οἱ καταξιωθέντες λειτουργεῖν τῷ ἁγίῳ σου θυσιαστηρίῳ, οὐ διὰ τὰς δικαιοσύνας ἡμῶν, οὐ γὰρ ἐποιήσαμέν τι ἀγαθὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰ ἐλέη σου καὶ τοὺς οἰκτιρμούς σου, οὓς ἐξέχεας πλουσίως ἐφ' ἡμᾶς, θαρροῦντες προσεγγίζομεν τῷ ἁγίῳ σου θυσιαστηρίῳ, καὶ προθέντες τὰ ἀντίτυπα τοῦ ἁγίου Σώματος καὶ Αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου, σοῦ δεόμεθα, καὶ σὲ παρακαλοῦμεν, Ἅγιε, Ἁγίων, εὐδοκίᾳ τῆς σῆς ἀγαθότητος, ἐλθεῖν τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ Ἅγιον ἐφ' ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα Δῶρα ταῦτα, καὶ εὐλογῆσαι αὐτά, καὶ ἁγιάσαι, καὶ ἀναδεῖξαι…”

The bold text in this prayer is my humble reflection, which is also the title of this blog. This is a Priestly prayer, and therefore it applies first and foremost to the Celebrant, whether he is a Priest or Bishop. But it does not stop here. It likewise applies to the participants, the faithful attendants of the Divine Liturgy itself.

For one thing, in the Orthodox Church, the Priest, unlike in other traditions, cannot celebrate the Liturgy on his own, because he is simply not allowed. The Divine Liturgy is a corporate functions, done with a Celebrant (i.e. Priest or Bishop) present, in the company of the Faithful. In the Orthodox Church, there are no "Individual Liturgies" or "Clergy (alone) Liturgies", etc. In the Orthodox Church you need both: The Faithful present, as well as the Celebrant. This is what constitutes the word "Liturgy" which from the Greek Λειτουργια it basically stands for the "corporate worship/work of the people" of God. Thus, all of the prayers during the liturgy that are said by the Celebrant are in the First Person Plural -- that guarded by Thy might we may ascribe glory -- and so on. The only exceptional prayer in the Divine Liturgy which takes the First Person Singular form is the Priestly Prayer during the chanting of the Cherubic Hymn, because this prayer applies strictly to the Celebrant. But apart from this one prayer, the liturgical function of the Celebrant in the Orthodox Church can be described primarily as twofold: He prays for and with the people.

We turn now to the highlight of this reflection, the Priestly Prayer during the Epiclesis, which says: "For we have done nothing good upon the earth." To the shallow observer, this statement appears futile and destructive, and the best reaction would probably be to simply ignore it. But to the spiritually mature, this is a very profound statement. It is a relational statement, stating the exact relationship between God and man. The two are not at odds, but instead are set in comparison: One is the Creator whereas the other is the created; one is Good, Perfect, and Holy, therefore the other must be in need of these. The two cannot be equal, and will never be. One depends on the other, and therefore this relationship is synergistic (from the Greek, which means working together). Only the spiritually mature can comprehend and understand this statement, and humbly accepts it.

The profundity of this short sentence is preceded by the statement: "Not through our own righteousness."  This at last explains it all. It all has to do with Saint Paul's teaching concerning righteousness, vis-á-vis his Epistle to the Romans. Righteousness, as was understood by the Judaism at the time of Christ, was simply the function of doing good, accomplished by any person. Abraham, they believed, was righteous because he did what was good in the sight of God. Here Saint Paul interjects to reject this notion. To him, Abraham's good deed alone did not justify him. Rather, it was Abraham's obedience to the Almighty which resulted in the good deed hence "it was accounted to him as righteousness." Abraham, therefore, was not essentially good, only his obedient response resulted in the good deed, which became his righteousness.

The same applies to all of us, and not only to Abraham. Are we not, the faithful, children of Abraham? Did not the Theotokos confess this in her Magnificat, saying: "...to our forefathers, to Abraham and his posterity forever"? Did not the rich man, condemned and tormented and separated in Hell as he was, refer to him as "Father, Abraham"? Therefore, applying the teaching of Saint Paul to our own lives, we too must become obedient and faithful as Abraham was, then and only then our deeds can be accounted as righteous, in the sight of God. The good that we do is not innate, because there is nothing innately good in us. Instead, it is a reflection of God's goodness in us. This is how things transpired in the lives of the men and women in Scripture, in the actions of the Prophets, Patriarchs, Apostles, and Saints. None of them was innately good, created perfectly, free from sin and corruption. They all needed God in their lives, and so do we.

The good that we do must always reflect God's goodness in us, and not erroneously be a reflection of us. We must mirror God in our words, in our lives, and in our actions. Apart from God there is no righteousness that can be everlasting, but with God all things are possible. Together, by having faith and becoming obedient to God, we can say like Saint Paul: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

To Him therefore, Christ our True God, be glory forever and ever. Amen.

In Loving Memory of Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko

The last of the “giants” of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (SVOTS) has reposed in the Lord, and the very sad news of his passing has captured my whole mind and entire being. I have had very fond memories of my Alma Mater, but none could have been more vivid than the times spent with its Dean during my 3 years of study in that theological school. It is hard even for me to believe that on the 15th Anniversary of my graduation from SVOTS, I look back at my theological school by means of reflecting on the death of Father Thomas. I consider Father Thomas the “last” of the “giants”, neither to undermine nor to degrade any of the present, past, or future faculty, but on the contrary, my consideration is contextual to Father Thomas Hopko’s own contemporaries, “giants” like Schmemann, Florovsky, Meyendorff, Verhovskoy, and Kesich, all of Blessed Memory, contemporaries of Hopko while here on this earth, and now he is their contemporary in God’s Hands, in the Kingdom of Heaven that is, where the Saints shine like the Stars in Heaven.

Father Thomas was in many ways like them – I admit, I did not know any of them personally, except for Professor Vasselin Kesich, but only through their literary works – and in a few ways he was different from all of the faculty and deans. Father Thomas, to my knowledge, was the only faculty and dean of SVOTS who truly labored as a Priest in Christ’s Vineyard, in the Church that is, for almost a quarter of a century, and then later returned to seminary to teach and be a Professor. Unlike many, he had rightly possessed a good amount of pastoral experience, which made him stand out among his peers. To some of my colleagues who did not appreciate this experience of Father Thomas, they considered his “off the subject discussions” during his class lectures as “boring.” These former colleagues were in no doubt the “scholarly” type, and could not appreciate this aspect of Father Thomas, perhaps, and this is my personal assumption, they had entered the seminary for academic purposes only, not ever desiring to be laborers in Christ’s Vineyard, whether as lay or clergy ministers. On the other hand, my other colleagues, who like myself ended up – by God’s purpose and design, and not ours – as ordained laborers in His Vineyard, we sincerely appreciated this aspect of Father Thomas. Those of us who entered seminary for the sole purpose to prepare for the Priesthood, in many ways thirsted for lectures that Father Thomas offered, because his lectures offered us a unique perspective and personal insight to the ministry.

Father Thomas was of the first a Humble Man: Although he was well-rounded in academics, possessing a vast knowledge of Holy Scriptures, Dogma, History, Hagiology, Linguistics, and Liturgics, his methodology and conduct in any of the classes he instructed were very humble. The “standard policy” during his tenure as Dean of SVOTS was very simple: “If you write any paper in any of my classes, you have to quote the Scripture, and do so correctly and contextually.” He used to instruct us by way of this reminder: “The Bible is the Most Important Book you will have to learn while you are here in seminary. When you go out into the world, you cannot discuss liturgics, or canons, or dogma with the average lay person; most likely these topics will be insignificant to him or her. On the other hand, the Bible is the only thing that constitutes a tangible reference to that person, because the Bible is the only Book that every lay person has access to.” To this day, I humbly admit, I have taken on Father Hopko’s advice, and it has served me well in my 15 years of ministry, both as lay and ordained minister.

Father Thomas was a Humorous Man: He had a real sense of humor. He did not go around quipping jokes all the time, but rather, his jokes were contextual to his lectures. He possessed a keen memory which always amazed me. During the discussion of any joke, he would remember the exact place and time of a real life incident. Whether the situational joke involving his presence took place in Lebanon, Greece, Spain, Russia, or anywhere in the world that he visited, he had a very keen memory of that incident, which brought a spark of joy and excitement to us in class. He did not joke with any of us outside of the classroom, but only in class, which made us appreciate the gentleman in him. One incident happened between me and him which I shall never forget as long as I live. It was during the last week of my third year at SVOTS, and I noticed him sitting at my table during every meal in the refectory, and smiling and having fun with us. I remarked to him my surprise, and told him that this “behavior” was somewhat strange and unseen before, to which he responded in front of my colleagues: “Well, pal, because you will be out of here next week” remarking that I would graduate from seminary.

Father Thomas was a Genuine Man: I say this as a Priest. Outside of the classroom, he possessed the great skill as a personal communicator. He always understood his audience, whether it was a few people, a lot of people, or just one person. I was always impressed by his keen memory of the names of the many people he encountered in his life, whether it was a year ago or decades ago. On one occasion, he showed me a picture taken of him and someone else during his seminary days, while the two were in Greece. He asked me: "Charles, who else do you see in this picture?" I looked intently and thought for a bit, then I responded: "My God, is this Elias Audi?" (now Metropolitan of Beirut). He then informed me that the two had been fellow classmates at SVOTS and spent one summer together in Greece.

In his communication with others, he always realized his context: I remember seeing him with elderly people, communicating to them on their level; and likewise with little children doing the same. But with his students he neither tolerated failure nor “academic condescension.” You see, to Father Thomas, it did not matter whether you were the “scholarly type” or any other type. What mattered to him the most was that you were a human person, a hypostasis in Greek. God put you on this earth for a reason, and whatever that reason is, only God knows it, and only God will show you that reason. When it comes to this understanding, according to Father Thomas, every person has a purpose to fulfill in life. His property of genuineness brings to mind this fact that I vividly remember: Of the 20 or so instructors I had at SVOTS, Father Thomas was the only one who wept in class, more than once, for the right reasons and at the right time, not to make a point, but for the sole purpose to show us that we are only human. As I look back to 15 years ago, I reflect on the shortest verse in the New Testament (“And Jesus Wept” John 11:35), and the only significant person to me who made sense of this verse was in the person of Father Thomas.

He was also genuine in the matter of something that many Americans appreciated the least – speaking in reverse that is – and that had to do with human sexuality. You see, sadly, most of our American sitcom programs use sexuality as a means for comedy, and many Americans, whether knowingly or not, pay attention to these “jokes” and make light of them. Father Thomas, on the contrary, did not like this aspect of modern society. This brings to mind an incident that happened during my first year at SVOTS, 18 years ago. I forgot the exact context, because I was neither present nor involved, but what happened was the following: Some students, on some occasion unknown to me, decided to imitate an American sitcom, and they apparently joked about something that was sexual in nature in some play they did. The next morning the entire student body – we were a large student body back then, amounting to almost a 100 students – was called to an “Important Meeting” to take place in the Hall beneath the Three Hierarchs Chapel. Once we were all assembled, Father Thomas had a grilling to deliver, and he said: “God created sex for a reason, and that is to be glorified in the household of marriage. Sex is not to be made fun of in simile to many of the sitcoms. I am ashamed of the fact that what happened recently constituted a joke on sex. As long as I am the Dean of this seminary, this will never take place again.” And we all left, wondering at what had happened previously, that is, those of us who were absent from that event. In essence, we all got the message.

Father Thomas was also genuine as a Dean of a respected Theological School. He did not tolerate cheating, failure, or misbehavior. I remember that during my 3 years of study (1997-2000) a few students disappeared from campus, only to find out years later that they were expelled from school. Father Thomas was very adamant about Forgiveness Vespers: Each year he boldly and bluntly instructed the entire student body, at the Three Hierarchs Chapel, that all must be present during that evening service, in order to ask for and accept the forgiveness of others. No excuses were ever accepted. Anyone who avoided that service would suffer the consequences from being expelled from seminary.

Father Thomas was a Personal Friend: Last but not least, I shall always remember and cherish this fact. During my first birthday while in seminary, and upon his discovery that our birthdays were on the same day (March 28), the friendship between Father Thomas and me somewhat grew exponentially. He always used to say to me, on our birthdays: “You see, Charlie, God never makes any mistakes. He designed to have our birthdays on the same day so that we can have a special relationship.” It was indeed a special relationship: Every year, for 3 years, I would go to my mailbox on March 28th and find an envelope in there addressed to me. Every envelope had the Dean’s Stationary Card enclosed with a sweet and personal Birthday message. He would always address it as “our birthday” and not “your birthday.” That made me feel very special, and I shall always remember and cherish these 3 birthdays I had at SVOTS. To this day I have preserved these cards inside the Bible case, containing the Bible I possessed while in seminary (Picture of Cards included). On the date of my graduation, I received a final gift from Father Thomas Hopko: I saw a small white box in my mailbox with my name on it. As I opened it, tears started to roll down on my face. It contained a beautiful Russian Hand-Engraved Cross. With it was a small note saying: “Charles: May this Cross be the Only Joy in your life!”

What shall I say to you my Friend, Brother of the Altar, Teacher, and Dean? Is it easy for me to accept this reality? Absolutely not, because I feel like I have lost a father. To say that I will miss you would be a very small thing. I have missed you for the past 15 years, and now I shall miss you the more, but in a different way. You have taught me many things; you have instructed me in many ways; and you have loved me more than I deserve. Before 1997, I was ignorant in theology. All that I know now, and for the rest of my life, I had a good foundation to build on through your labor of love. The culmination of your life, my dear Father Thomas, was “Speaking the Truth in Love.” I shall humbly dare to do so at your passing:

You have paralleled Saint Paul, my dear Father Thomas: You have “fought the good fight, you have finished the race, you have preserved the faith. Finally, there is laid up for you the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to you on that Day, and not to you only but also to all who have loved His manifestation (i.e. His Epiphany).” You have followed in the footsteps of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, and He, not any of us, will tell you today: “Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your Lord.” 

In Arabic, we Orthodox Christians do not say "Good-bye" but "Ela-lliqa" (إلى اللقاء) which means: "Until we meet again."

God be with you, Father Thomas, pray for us at the Throne of Mercy.