Nicholas Cabasilas on the Heart of Christ

EXCERPTS FROM THE LIFE IN CHRIST by NICHOLAS CABASILAS

Yet we are such wretched material that the seal cannot remain unaffected, “for we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7). We therefore partake of the remedy not once for all, but constantly. The potter must constantly sit by the clay and repeatedly restore the shape which is being blurred. We must continually experience the Physician’s hand as He heals the decaying matter and raises up the failing will, lest death creep in unawares. For it says, “even when we were dead through trespasses He made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), and “the blood of Christ shall purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14). The power of the holy table draws to us the true life from that blessed Heart, and there we become able to worship God purely.

                If, then, the pure worship of God consists in being subject to Him, obeying Him, doing all things as He moves us , I know not how we are capable of being subject to God more than by becoming His members. Who, more than the head, can command the members of the body? While every other sacred rite makes its recipients into members of Christ, the Bread of Life effects this most perfectly. For, as the members live because of the head and the heart, so, He says, “he who eats Me will live because of Me” (Jn. 6:57).

So also man lives because of food, but not the same way in this sacred rite. Since natural food is not itself living it does not of itself infuse life into us, but by aiding the life which is in the body it appears to those who to eat the cause of life. But the Bread of Life is Himself living, and through Him those to whom He imparts Himself truly life. While natural food is changed into him who feeds on it, and fish and bread and any other kind of food become human blood, here it is entirely opposite. The Bread of Life Himself changes him who feeds on Him and transforms and assimilates him into Himself. As He is the Head and the Heart, we depend on Him for loving and living since He possesses life.

This the Savior Himself reveals. He does not sustain our life in the same way as food; but since He Himself has by nature He breathes it into us, just as the heart or the head imparts life to the members. So He calls Himself “the living Bread” (Jn. 6:51) and says, “he who eats Me will live because of me” (Jn. 6:57). [The Life in Christ 4:8]

It follows, therefore, that he who has chosen to live in Christ should cling to that Heart and that Head, for we obtain life from no other source. But this is impossible for those who do not will what He wills. It is necessary to train one’s purpose, as far as it is humanly possible, to conform to Christ’s will and to prepare oneself to desire what He desires and to enjoy it, for it is impossible for contrary desires to continue in one and the same heart. As he says, “the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart knows how to produce nothing but evil” (cf. Lk. 6:45), and the good man that which is good.

The faithful in Palestine, since they desired the same things, “were,” as it says, “of one heart and soul” (Acts: 4:32). In the same way, if one does not share in Christ’s purpose but goes against that which He commands, he does not order his life according to Christ’s heart but is clearly dependant on a different heart. In contrast, God found David to be according to His heart, for he said, “I have not forgotten Thy commandments” (Ps. 119:16, 61, etc.). Since it is impossible, then, to live [in Christ] unless we depend on His heart, and one cannot depend on Him without willing what He wills, let us examine how we may love the same things as Christ and rejoice at the same things as He, in order that we may be able to live. 

[The Life in Christ 6:2]

Latin Influence on the Byzantine Liturgy

When I was attending an Orthodox Church, having walked away from the Roman Church for about a year, there were a few prayers in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that stood out to be on account of their beauty and profundity. One of them in particular had always really moved me, as I found it resonated with my Catholic background. 

After the Institution Narrative, but before the Epiklesis, the priest lifts up the elements and prays thus:

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all.

There exists somewhat of a disagreement between the two Churches pertaining to exactly when and how the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Catholic Church has settled this question dogmatically: it is by the utterance of the Christ's own words "This is my body... this is my blood," by the priest, who stands in the person of Christ, that the bread and wine become that which they signify. For the Orthodox, this answer has never been universally settled, but the common "high point" of the Eucharistic liturgy is usually said to be the epiclesis, where the Holy Spirit is invoked to descend upon the gifts offered. Generally speaking, the words of institution, as well as the priestly blessing, are deemed necessary and important as well, though some have restricted the essential aspect to the epiclesis alone.

Well, as it turns out, that prayer was actually influenced by Catholicism! Reading up on the debate concerning the Words of Institution, I found and read a great article by Michael Zheltov, entitled "The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought." In addressing this subject and ones related to it, he mentions how the Latin dogma of consecration actually found its way into the Orthodox liturgies for a time.

Another influence, this time unquestionable, resulted in the appearance in the Byzantine rite of a ritual of elevating the discos (paten) and the chalice during the ekphonesis “offering You your own” after the words of institution and before the epiclesis. This ritual is an imitation of the latin elevation of the host and the chalice, performed after the priest has pronounced the words of institution. It was instituted in the West in order to give the catholic believers a chance to participate in the sacrament with their eyes.

In the Orthodox milieu this ritual emerged in early seventeenth-century Ukraine. The rubrics of the printed ukrainian Leitourgika of this time have undergone some reworking. In particular, the revised rubrics instructed the priest to point at the bread and the wine during the words of institution, holding his fingers in a blessing gesture (or just to bless the gifts at this moment), and to elevate the discos and the chalice thereafter (i.e., precisely during the ekphonesis “offering You your own”). This was a clear sign of a strong influence of catholic theology, including the belief in the consecration through the words of institution.

In 1655 these “cryptocatholic” Ukrainian rubrics found their place in the revised Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon. The editions of 1656, 1657 (the first), 1657 (the second), 1658 (the first), 1658 (the second), 1667, 1668, 1676, and 1684, as well as the 1677 edition of the Archieratikon, also contain them. The obvious contradiction between the views held by the Ukrainian editions and the late- and post-Byzantine Greek theological thinking concerning the moment of consecration resulted in a controversy, which emerged in Moscow in the last third of the seventeenth century and which ended only in 1690, when an official refutation of the belief in the consecratory power of the words of institution was promulgated. In the 1699 Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon the appropriate rubrics were reworked, and the prescription to bless the bread and the wine during the words of institution was omitted. Still, the ritual of pointing at the bread and the wine during the words of institution (without holding the fingers in a specific gesture) remained—as did the ritual elevation after their recitation, which is now performed by orthodox everywhere, including Greece, Georgia, etc., although its original meaning is totally forgotten.

It really makes sense. What is the Church offering to God? His own... of His own? This is of course a reference to Jesus, His only begotten Son. But had the Spirit not yet descended upon the gifts, how could the Church be offering to the Father the precious body and blood of the Son? The inclusion of this prayer implies there is a consecratory value in the part which preceded it, namely, the Institution Narrative.

This doesn't serve as an apologia for the orthodoxy of the West's position -- i just thought this was interesting.

A Closer Look: Did Jesus Have Siblings?

The one who first states a case seems right, 

until the other comes and cross-examines. 

Proverbs 18:17

One's mind cannot step forward into the doorway of truth when the door itself remains locked and unopened. The truth of Mary's perpetual virginity is a door which cannot be stepped through while the notion of Christ Our Lord having uterine siblings serves to lock it shut. If it can be adequately demonstrated that these figures, so named to be the Lord's brethren, are not actually Mary's children, then the lock is no longer fastened, and the door is there for those to open it and pass through it.

The Word "Brothers"

Let it first be said: from the Scriptures themselves, it is shown that the word "brother", even when used in reference to family, does not always denote the relationship of sharing the same parent(s). In its ancient Hebraic sense, the word does not exclusively designate those with shared parents, but is also used to refer to more generic, extended kinsman.  We can fashion multiple examples, but let this suffice: In Genesis 13:8, when peacefully dividing land for livestock between the two of them, Abram addresses his nephew Lot by saying "Let there be no strife between you and me... for we are brothers"  (as rendered in: KJV, NAS, ERV, DRA.)

Now, let's turn to the main passage in contention, the one which explicitly mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters:

He [Jesus] came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.”
Matthew 13:54-57

"Are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" This is a good passage to utilize, insofar as the Scriptures actually tells us more about some of these men, besides them merely being mentioned the Lord's brothers. Let's delve into some of their identities, as recorded in the Bible. James and Jude are particularly notable; not only are they counted among the Lord's brothers, they are also numbered among the Twelve. James, for example, is mentioned by St. Paul in Galatians 1:19 as being the Lord's brother, as Paul reports: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Fast-forward fourteen chapters in Matthew's Gospel to the crucifixion and death of the Lord, certain women are counted as those who were present as witnesses, who cared for Him.

There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee.
Matthew 27:55-56

Is Jesus' mother Mary one of the women listed in the passage? It is of reasonable certainty that the Mary being here referred to is not Jesus' mother, given that everywhere else she is mentioned in the Bible, she is explicitly mentioned as "the mother of Jesus" (eg: Jn 19:25.) Being His mother is a pretty noteworthy fact, and, being the most biologically relevant, would therefore be the simplest indication as to who she is. Given that there are quite a few Mary's in the life of Jesus, wouldn't it just be more straightforward to single her out as his mother specifically? Yet this other Mary is identified as "the mother of James and Joseph", not as Jesus' mother.

In Luke's account of Jesus calling the Twelve, it lists that two apostles were named James: James, son of Zebedee (whose mother was also mentioned in Matthew's account,) and...

and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,
Luke 6:15

Here we have it --- James, the brother of Jesus, is NOT the son of Joseph, but the son of Alphaeus! 

This Mary in Matthew 27 is said to be mother to James and Joseph, and James is said to be the Lord's brother, right? Jude was also mentioned as having been the Lord's brother, though this verse did not say that this mother of James and Joseph was also his mother. Yet in the introduction to Jude's epistle, he himself states that he is "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. But who’s related to whom, and in which way? Looking at a different account of the crucifixion narrative, in the Gospel according to John, the list of women is recorded as follows:

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
John 19:25

This Mary, this time explicitely distinguished from Christ's mother, is reported to be her sister. (This very fact that Mary is recorded as having a sister also named Mary actually further vouches for use of word "brother/sister" as applying wider than simply the immediate family. It would be highly unlikely that Mary's parents had two daughters whom were both named Mary.) This means that James and Joseph, her children, were at the most, cousins of Jesus Christ, for their mother was Mary's sister.

You might be wondering: if James the Apostles is this Mary's son, is his father Alphaeus, or Clopas? On the one hand, the exact identity isn't quite relevant, because this has sufficiently demonstrated that this Mary is not Christ's mother, and thus James is not his uterine brother. On the other hand, it is hard not to wonder.

Fortunately, the early Christians had enough pious concern for Christ and his legacy that they actually detailed this for us. An important witness comes from a quintessential work, the Ecclesastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea. We are indebted to Eusebius for taking it upon himself to record the history of the Christian church, from Christ and his apostles up to his own time. In several different places throughout the work, he makes several references to St. James, one of the twelve and the first pastor (bishop) of Jerusalem. In Book IV, chp. 22, par 4, he records

after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was another cousin of the Lord.

This passage even identifies Simon, listed among Christ's brethren in Mt. 13, as being the son of Clopas, and being Jesus' cousin.

Now we turn to a work very late and apocryphal, but only for the sake of clarifying exactly who's mentioned in the Gospels. This text is assigned to an apostolic father, St. Papias. It is from this reference that we are really able to break down the who's-who when referring to the many Mary's in the Bible:

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and (Judas)Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason
(Papias, Fragment #10) emphasis mine)

St. Phillip & St. James (the brother of the Lord)

Some may object by arguing that identifying these brethren of the Lord Christ's brothers as not being his immediate brothers, it somehow betrays the plain sense of the Inspired texts. But it has been shown that this criticism is really unsustainable, because the Bible itself refers to the apostles James and Jude as "the Lord's brothers" and even sets them within familial contexts that include His mother. Yet it is proved, from the Scriptures themselves, that Jesus' mother is not their mother, and, furthermore, that Joseph is not their father. The historic witness of Church tradition actually does furnish us with their exact identity, but even were the testimony of tradition to not be accepted, the Biblical data alone suffices to vouch for us that they are not the offspring of Mary.


. . . And thus, off falls the lock.