www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox sermon at Westminster Cathedral for the week of Christian unity

The sermon preached by Bishop Basil of Sergievo, who
leads the Sourozh diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in Great Britain--
at Westminster Cathedral, London, England.

* * *

In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity begins each year within the period
when, on the Old or Julian Calendar the Russian Church is still
remembering the Baptism of Christ, celebrated on the Feast of Theophany
or Epiphany, the 6/19 January. This gives us an opportunity each year to
look at Christian unity in the light of Baptism – and in particular in the
light of the Baptism of Christ.

Looking again this year at the Baptism of Christ, I was struck by its
relevance to our struggle for unity -- not as a theological event, but as a
human event. What we see here is one man asking to be baptised by
another -- but it is the greater who asks to be baptised by the lesser. John
knows that Jesus is greater than he is. As he himself says: 'I am not
worthy even to stoop down and unloose the lachet of his shoes.' And: 'I
baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Spirit and with
fire.' The texts of the Orthodox service for the feast stress this point: 'The
clay cries out to him who formed him' 'Our Deliverer is baptised by his
servant' And then, echoing the language of St Paul: 'Wearing the form of a
servant, you come forth to be baptised by a servant.'

What is going on here? What does this deliberate self-emptying mean? It
seems to me that Christ is clearly seeking to avoid any rivalry with John.
He does not place himself above him, cite his own greatness and say,
'Move aside, so that I can take over.' He places himself below him and
invites John to be for him what John has been for the other penitents, even
though he himself has no need of baptism 'for the remission of sins'. In
this way, Christ says, we shall 'fulfil all righteousness' -- that is, the
righteousness of God, not the righteousness of men.

What is particularly striking is the way in which John understands what
Christ is doing, and he himself does not seek to set himself up in rivalry
with his master. This is clearly reflected in the Baptist's acceptance that 'he
[Christ] must increase, but I must decrease'. Rivalry is completely absent
from the relationship of John and Christ – on either side.

Is this important? The answer is emphatically 'yes'. If we look at the
Gospels as a whole, we see that criticism of rivalry -- both implicit and
explicit criticism -- is found throughout. It is a major theme in Christ's
teaching. The most obvious example is the story of James and John, the
sons of Zebedee, who come to Christ asking that they be given the right to
sit on his right hand and on his left when he comes in glory. Note that the
rivalry here is not just between James and John and the other disciples, but
between the brothers themselves: which of the two will be given
precedence and allowed to sit on Christ's right hand, thereby outdoing the
other? And needless to say, when the other disciples here of this they
'began to be much displeased' -- since they are rivals for Christ's affection
as well.

We should note that at a very early stage in the development of the
tradition this teaching about rivalry was already being downgraded. Luke
does not include the Markan incident in his Gospel, and Matthew makes a
point of telling us that it was not James and John who approached Christ,
but their mother!

In a lighter vein, we should note the competition between Peter and John
as to who should be first to arrive at Christ's tomb after the Resurrection.
John runs faster and gets there first, but Peter is the first to enter the tomb.
John, however, then goes in himself, and is the first to see and believe.
Were they aware of their rivalry? Probably not.

What, then, is the relevance of all this to the Week of Prayer of Christian
Unity? It is immense. The movement for unity in the Christian Church has
reached the point where we can work together, and are able to hold serious
theological dialogues on the issues that divide us. But I do not believe that
we have realised that behind our disunity lies a huge amount of
unacknowledged rivalry.

As far as one can tell, the primacy of the see of Rome was generally
accepted by the end of the third century, within the framework that
governed the relationship individual dioceses at that time. But the creation
by the Emperor Constantine of a second capitol, Constantinople, the 'New
Rome', at the beginning of the fourth century introduced a new factor into
the equation. The 'New Rome' was adorned by taking statutes and
monuments from the 'Old Rome', and it must have been apparent very
quickly that the 'New Rome' was a serious rival to the 'Old'. It is no
coincidence that the first attempt to fix the canonical prerogatives of the 'Old' Rome took place at the council of Sardica (modern Sofia, the capitol
of Bulgaria) less than twenty years after the establishment of the 'New'.
The original capitol of the Empire was threatened by its upstart rival and
moved to preserve its position.

The next few centuries were marked by intense rivalry between the great
sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, until Alexandria
and Antioch were effectively neutralised by the Arab conquest in the
seventh century. The succeeding centuries then saw the rise of Moscow as
a centre of ecclesiastical life. Perhaps foreseeing the capture of
Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, in 1448 a Synod of bishops
elected a new metropolitan of Moscow without reference to
Constantinople, thereby effectively declaring Moscow to be autocephalous
for the first time. By the first half of the sixteenth century Moscow was
already styling itself the 'Third Rome' in rivalry to both the 'Old' and the 'New' Rome. Its position was then strengthened in 1589, when it acquired
the status of a patriarchal see.

The point I wish to make today is that the scandal of Christian disunity has
been largely driven, I am afraid, by the 'scandal' of unseen or
unacknowledged rivalry. Why unseen? Because it is the very nature of a 'scandal' - in the New Testament sense - that it is unseen. The Greek word skandalon means 'stumbling-block', something that trips you up as you
walk along. And the reason that one is tripped up is that the stumbling-block, the skandalon is not perceived. If it were perceived, we would step
over it or go around it.

Church leaders -- and Church members as well -- need to become aware of
their propensity to become rivals of one another. We need to take Christ's
teaching about rivalry seriously. For Christ the answer was for each of to
become the 'servant' of the 'other', just as he himself became a 'servant' of
John the Baptist at his baptism, having become man in the first place in
order to be the 'servant' of us all.

Against this background the famous 34th Apostolic Canon, which belongs
to the canonical tradition of both East and West, assumes particular
significance. The canon specifies that in every region the bishops of that
region 'should know the one who is first among them, and recognise him
as their head, and to do nothing outside their own diocese without his
advice and approval […] but let not [the first] do anything without the
advice and consent and approval of all.' The effect of this canon -- and its
purpose -- is to bring any rivalry between bishops out into the open and
then to bring it under control. This canon is the very foundation of the
conciliar structure of the Church, which is essential for fostering and
maintaining its unity. Its implementation is not only a way to incarnate the
teaching of Christ about rivalry, but of praising God the Holy Trinity. The
canon in question ends with these words: 'For thus will there be concord,
and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit.'

Part of what Christ has revealed to us is the extent of our fallenness, in
particular, our inclination to enter into rivalistic confrontation with one
another, both as individuals and, in the end, as Churches. Let us try to
recognise this -- and modify our behaviour accordingly.

I love the way he sees the impediment to unity as 'rivalistic-confrontation'.

I have always thought that the Patriarchs (including the Patriarch of Rome) are like estranged siblings!

Any thoughts?

Alice

Leave it to the Orthodox in England to see things in a more objective manner. I say this because as an Orthodox, I have become so tired of listening to certain idea's of an 'American' Orthodox Church. Certain people within the Orthodox Church, condemn ethnicity within the Orthodox Church, and yet want to impose yet another ethnicity on us. This time they want it to be an American ethnicity. I can't help but feel, it is only to help foster their triumphistic tendencies.

Our Lord's Church is universal, and it's time we recognized the sinfulness within our nature. It is that sinfulness that keeps Christianity separated, for so many cannot accept something as being 'correct' unless it is similar to what we ourselves are.

In other words, we adore anything that is part of our own make-up. As Christians, that is a scandal.

Zenovia

Absolutely beautiful...objectivity in my own isle, in the mother Cathedral of my own country. Brotherhood between Peter and Andrew, how blessed. I am almost tearful to have read what His Grace had to say.

God grant that such men as this will fill our priesthoods in the age to come.

Dear Myles,

I'm sorry, I forgot to recognize that you are writing from the U.K.!

Welcome!

I'm fascinated by the lives of the British saints et al.

I'm also a member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr to which Catholics belong as well, as you know.

(I've written an Eastern liturgical service to Charles that the Anglicans here sometimes use, but moreso in private).

I wanted to ask you about Mildenhall.

I live on "Mildenhall Road" - and I understand that Mildenhall was once home to a shrine of the Mother of God (that I suppose was destroyed during the Reformation).

Would you know at all about anything connected to this shrine?

I'm setting up an outdoor shrine to "Our Lady of Mildenhall" here at home - a restoration of sorts!

Good to have you here!

(p.s. I'm also a Canadian monarchist, please don't hold that against me . . .)

Alex

Dear Alex,

Please forgive me, but I'm an ignorant 'American', and an Orthodox to boot, so I don't know who King Charles the Martyr is.

Can you fill me in? Thank you.

Zenovia

Dear Alice,

Thank you for posting that exceptional sermon. See! We Orthodox, do have present day saints, that are capable of emptying themselves.

Zenovia

Alice,

Thank you for that very interesting post.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Alice,

I'm printing this one out so that I may (re)-read many times during the Great Fast - excellent! What a very interesting overview; I like the mention of what "scandal" means and his analysis of what's at the core of our problems with one another. It brings to mind St. James Chpt 4.

A similar thought has been on my heart regarding Lord's words concerning "who is the greatest" and that His Kingdom is not ruled the way the Gentiles rule. Esteeming our brothers/sisters better than ourselves. The greatest is the servant of all. I am still in awe of our Blessed Lord's example of washing the disciples feet! And we are to do the same for one another.

In Christ's love,

Woody

Dear Zenovia,

Certainly!

King Charles I ruled Britain from 1600-1649.

He was very "High Church" and considered himself to be a Catholic and regarded the RC Church and Orthodoxy as Catholic Churches in accordance with the Anglican branch perspective.

He also styled himself the defender of the "orthodox Church of England."

When he was given the names of candidates for bishoprics by Archbishop William Laud, he asked Laud to identify who among the candidates was "High Church" by placing an "O" beside their names and a "P" for "Puritan" beside the others.

He was very pious, even though he tended to make administrative errors. The Puritans revolted against him in a civil war that he lost.

He was arrested and tried and found guilty for treason. The Puritans wanted him to denounce the role of bishops in the Church and he refused, saying that the Catholic Church is founded on bishops etc. On this, Charles refused to move.

He was beheaded on January 30th, 1649 and was honoured as a martyr by his supporters - the royal families of Europe mourned him and Tsar Alexey IV was among the first to call him "Charles the Martyr."

When the monarchy was restored in 1660, parliament declared Charles a saint and martyr and his day of martyrdom as a fast-day (removed in 1859).

His society is mainly Anglican, but there are Catholic and Orthodox members as well (there is an icon of him written by an English Orthodox monk).

There are converts to both RCism and Orthodoxy who continue to privately venerate "Saint Charles, King and Martyr."

The convert to Catholicism, Ronald Knox, actually petitioned Rome to formally canonize King Charles and also King Henry the Sixth as saints - something also supported by John Henry Newman.

The Society of King Charles the Martyr, to which I belong, also has a pamphlet with an article by a RC priest who is a member, and who argues Charles should be canonized by Rome as well. Catholics do participate in the annual services for King Charles (as did Ronald Knox even as an RC) and privately honour him.

Some Protestant detractors have said that Charles converted to RCism before he died, but that is unproven. His son King Charles II did so on his deathbed, and his other son, James II became a rather staunch Catholic and there was a movement for his canonization, as his body was found to be incorrupt. Charles' grandmother, Mary, Queen of Scots, has also had a movement to canonize her a Catholic martyr (at one time, this was handled by the Jesuit Order) and there is a society devoted to her that used to have services on February 8th, the day of her beheading.

Alex

A Canadian Monarchist? God Bless you Alex, God Bless you. Our monarchy may well have hijacked an essential part of the Western Patriarchy, destroyed our shrines and desecrated the bodies of many a saint. But for all that I do love it as an instution. Whatever wrongs individuals have committed, the monarchy itself is a tribute to how tradition and love for the common good independent of republican constitionism can bring about just and fair government.

I truly, truly dislike the very idea of the EU constitution. Not simply because its irreligious but also because Britain has never needed such a thing. Our system of King-in-Parliament has maintained peace in this land for centuries. We had one revolution and realised how wrong it was. Why then should we be forced to take upon ourselves constitutions written by men who deliberately legislated against tyranny because of their own experiences of tyrants i.e. the French revolutionary secularists?

Anyways, enough politics and back to the Church. From what I know the shrine of Our Lady of Grace in Ipswich, which I think is the one you are referring to exists now only as part of an Anglican parish church several miles from the original. The first shrine today is but a plaque. The new shrine though, from what I've heard, does contain a modern replica of the original Italian statue that once stood in the first shrine and this was inagurated and blessed under the eye of representatives of both the Catholics and Orthodox on 10th September 2002.

Charles I had a great grandson, and claimant to the Crown of the United Kingdom, who was a Cardinal of the Roman Church- Henry Benedict Mary Clement Cardinal Stuart of York (d 1807). Cardinal Stuart of York laid claim the Crown after the death of his brother, Charles Edward Louis Philip Casimir Stuart (d. 1788), the so-called "Young Pretender" and "Bonnie Prince Charlie".

Dear Myles,

Thank you for that information!

I was once chairman of our Toronto branch of the Monarchist League of Canada

It is always so NICE to come across someone here that truly does appreciate monarchy!

What was that you were saying about the Filioque?

That it should remain in the Creed?

Of course it should!

God Save The Queen!

Alex

Queen Camilla?

Dear Charles,

Camilla will never be Queen, as you should know.

I was referring to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada

Alex