I, too, have seen pre-teens so inappropriately dressed that one has to fear what they will wear when they "rebel" as teenagers.

This was one incredible lady! Now, here is an interesting thought. It seems to me that the old deaconesses did more of the true work of a deacon than today's deacons. They may not have had a formal place in the Liturgy, but, if you ask me, that does not seem to have been much of an impediment. She makes me think that it was quite a mistake to do away with the old order of deaconesses. The Church could use a few more ladies like her!

I would agree that Calvin shares part of the blame. I think the Lutherans and Anglicans retained a healthy view of Church history. I consider Calvin to be very close to being a Radical Reformer and I see Zwingli as being a Radical Reformer despite the fact that people tend to classify him as a Reformer. I actually hope to put two more posts up on this subject, one of them dealing with the Zwinglian/Calvinists.

Forsooth and thou mightest just be right, my good fellow. Yet, as the writer of that buffoonery, called the Canterbury Tales, dost attest, it be with a right good will that we should party.

Maybe because it is a different set of glasses. The various Arab professors I had all could equally trace the developments of various parts of the Liturgy. In fact, dare I say it, they were much more aware of it than many who speak glibly of the development of the Liturgy. But, they do not “worry” over each detail of the Liturgy, as to whether it is fully in accord with Holy Tradition or not.

But, let me back up a minute. “Catholic” groups, of whatever stripe, would all tend to say that there was allowable development in the first couple of centuries of Church life. That is, what you see in Acts has changed by the Pastoral Epistles. And, what is perceived in the Pastoral Epistles receives its development during the next century or two. In other words, there is the feeling that the Holy Spirit truly guided. However, in some ways, the Orthodox are significantly more conservative than the West. The reason why the Orthodox insist so strongly on the Church being present with a single bishop is not merely a slap at the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, I am beginning to realize, it is because they hold that the structure of the Church (patriarchates, etc.) belong to pastoral outworking of Holy Tradition rather than to the dogmatic outworking. They still conservatively hold to the oldest perception found in the Early Church, right after the Pastoral Epistles, one bishop equals one Church. Now, mind you, eventually you do have to say that it does appear that the Holy Spirit definitely wanted some certain structure in place. I, again, repeat that there is a place for Providence. But, the Church does have real authority to structure itself. Nevertheless, if a Tsar removes the Patriarch and works with a Synod of Bishops, then the Church just keeps on going. Nothing essential has been destroyed. If a Church, such as the OCA, exists in a bit of an in-between place, insofar as structure, nevertheless, it exists. Nothing essential has been destroyed. But, if a group claims to exist but is not recognized, in general, by the Patriarchates, then it does not exist, regardless of its vaunted apostolic succession.

In other words, though I am still “catching it,” the Eastern view of Holy Tradition is not as juridical and detail oriented as the Western view. Perhaps it is like the old saying. The West looks at the trees and sees all species of trees with a huge variety. The East looks at the forest and sees a forest full of beauty. I do not think it is self-denial nor a closing of eyes. Rather, it is a non-juridical approach. I am explaining myself badly.

Huw, I answered this yesterday, but my reply appears to have been eaten alive by the impersonal web.

The way I was taught, and from what I can absorb from my Arab priest friends, the actual detail of the shape of the Divine Liturgy and the development are not issues that destroy Holy Tradition, because the visible Church's worship is the practical outworking of Holy Tradition. I guess one way to put it is that we received a skeleton that is fleshed out in each generation with the culturally and pastorally appropriate ways to express it. In one way, it reminds me of an icon (what else, right?). Looked at with an analytical eye, an icon is imperfect. You can see the brush strokes, some are scratched, stained with the smoke of years, etc. Nevertheless, they are windows to heaven. So is the Church.

Currently the practical outworking of our worship is leading us towards shorter worship, and fewer feasts being celebrated in the Church. Interestingly enough, the major Patriarchates are not objecting to the changes, although, certainly, there are converts and ultra-orthodox who are. I have watched Arab bishops and priests exercise further economia as necessary without murmur from either congregation or fellow priests. [Mind you, they do not exercise that economia every Sunday, only when necessary.] And, it is obvious that though the skeleton and central parts of the Divine Liturgy are indeed inherited, the entire Liturgy is not to be used as a straightjacket which we must follow in exquisite detail as though it were a juridical document. It is worth remembering that the development of the Divine Liturgy happened among people who culturally were not juridically minded but mystically minded.

Finally, there is such a thing as Providence. It is not all simply human development. That one Patriarch was wrong for declaring that one liturgy as the Liturgy. However, it has become a beloved Liturgy. Having said that, when I was at the St. Stephen's residential, I was interested to find out that several of the Arab priests with advanced degrees are doing increasing research into the Middle Eastern roots, ways, and practices of Christianity, including a study of Syrian Christianity at the time of the Chalcedonian split. Some of the saints of that time wrote some exquisite poetry that has been lost in the general Hellenization and Latinization of the Church.

I will agree that, in a West eaten alive by Hegelian and post-modern philosophies, not to mention an excessive orientation towards juridical thinking, every slight perturbation, every slight difference is somehow proof of conspiracies, persecutions, suppressions, etc. But, in an East that never insisted on a sameness of worship, those arguments just seem odd. Yep, we have ended up, currently, with St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy being the celebrated one. And, it is celebrated in a variety of ways, with various litanies being included or excluded, various troparia being included or excluded, with variation in when censings are done (or if), with various local adaptations. With that type of variety, why would various and different beginnings trending towards some uniformity be proof of a lack of Holy Tradition? You know well, from Episcopal teachings, that there were clearly some universals. The sacred meal, the recitation of the story, that He took, blessed, broke, gave, etc. Much of the rest is variety. And, much variety continues to this day.

Well, there was the Elizabethean Settlement, which certainly brought a lasting "peace" to the Great Britain. You know, the famous "middle way?" It was not perfect, but it kept the Great Britain from slipping into a semi-permanent state of civil war. [I am not including Ireland in that settlement.] Mind you, Roman Catholics certainly continued to suffer, but that had more to do with the times and with the fact that the Romans were indeed trying to overthrow Elizabeth, than it did with the astuteness of the Settlement itself. The proof of that Settlement was how quickly people returned to it after the Cromwellian Interregnum. What Obama will accomplish will not be perfect, and there is no way that it could be. But, if it leads to some type of Obamethean Settlement, it might just be worth it.

OK, I will bite. What famous "holy fire" video? I suspect you mean Pascha (Easter) in Jerusalem? Or is there another one. Besides, I like it when you get flippant. Uhm, eh, Huw, uhm, you sometimes make your best and most incisive comments when you are in a fey "devil-may-care" mood.

Yes, I see the counter arguments to which you refer. In fact, I fervently hope that I am wrong on the almah argument as that strengthens the prophecy. I do not disagree that there is clearly testament being spoken of. I am not a pure covenantalist. But, I disagree with translating it always as testament. It is the other extreme from translating it always as covenant. Either extreme commits the error of translating according to one's theology rather than according to linguistic, cultural, and contextual considerations.

Remember, I am not arguing that it should always be translated either covenant or testament, but that it needs to be in context. The problem with Kittel is that he is prior to some of the newer research on the Greek. He is still stuck on the idea that we have to look to classical Greek in order to understand the meaning of the word. That is a major mistake because the Septuagint is NOT based on classical Greek meanings but on Hebrew to Greek equivalents, at the time the translation was done. And, having worked in missions with a Wycliffe Bible translator, I can guarantee you that the equivalents are often not exact. Sometimes, there is no equivalent whatsoever, so that a near-related term (or word) has to be chosen and imbued with the meaning of the original language so that almost a "new" word is created out of the old.

Let me give you one example. The Isaiah verse in Hebrew does not say, "a virgin shall bear a child." Rather, it says, "a young maiden shall bear a child." When the verse was translated into the Septuagint, the word parthenos was chosen. However, the word used in Hebrew was almah which is simply a maiden rather than bethulah, which is more strictly a virgin. In fact, St. Jerome thus replies to one of his critics, Juvianus: "I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a Virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah"! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.)" In other words, an equivalent was chosen that most closely caught the spirit of the verse. And, while it was assumed that a Hebrew maiden was a virgin, the same could not be said about a classical Greek maiden. Thus, it was safer to pick "parthenos." Later St. Luke makes it abundantly clear that this was simply not a pregnant maiden but the result of a holy act of God. She was truly parthenos.

In the same way, diatheke was chosen to translate the Hebrew word, "beriyt." There is no doubt that beriyt in the Old Testament always means covenant. Not only does it mean covenant, but it is used as part of a phrase to "cut a covenant," or "karat beriyt." Thus, the idea of sacrifice is the predominant one, not testament. So, why was diatheke chosen instead of syntheke? Remember, the translators would not have been thinking "testament" at all. Well, again, the most likely explanation is that of the close equivalent. Syntheke carries the idea of a covenant between equals. Diatheke, meanwhile, carries the idea more of something for which one party is responsible. Thus, while it did mean last will and testament after 400 BC, this did not mean that it could not be imbued with additional meanings. Thus, for the Septuagint translator, diatheke allows them to say that this is a covenant (remember they were translating beriyt) that is much more of one party than the other. The New Testament writers grabbed that word and realized that testament was precisely one of the facets of covenant that was present in Jesus' words. Again, it appears that, as with the use of parthenos, the Lord prepared the ground with the Septuagint translators.

"Luther, in his German Bible, displayed amazing insight as he skillfully moved back and forth between Bund ('covenant') and 'Testaments' in his New Testament. (He did, however, consistently use Bund to translate berith throughout his whole Old Testament.) Luther's writings ably explain his methodology. Whenever the diatheke was a mere promise, he used Bund, that is, when the context implied that the fulfillment of a 'covenant' promise, especially in terms of Jesus' death and His work as the God-Man, Luther used some form of Testaments."