Cosmological/Geological Age, Evolution, Physical laws and Biblical time lines

This post is not about presenting a particular view or solution to the issues of the age of the world, evidence of evolution and the timescale recorded in the Scriptures. Rather it is intended to help a discussion on the matter by suggesting various issues that need addressing in attempting to harmonise the physical evidence that we see with the biblical evidence in terms of theological principles. Comments are welcome if they do not accuse others of ignorance, naivety nor betraying the Faith.

Since this is about an Orthodox understanding there are some basic truths that one must hold and that are not open to much debate. The first is that God is the creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. That is the universe cannot be considered to have come into being of its own accord nor by some determination or principle apart from God. Even all the laws of physics and randomness must come from God, so apart from God we cannot explain the existence of the universe. Also, we must be careful not to think of there existing a void or even nothing as a default understanding of existence; one would need to prove that the existence of non-existence can be a legitimate default position. I tend to find that the idea that non-existence exists contradictory. Rather I would argue, particularly as Orthodox Christians, that we start with the default of eternal omnipresent existing existence, that is “I am”, and move from there.

Head coverings

I have been asked to write a post on the wearing of headscarves. The better terminology would be the wearing for head coverings of which a head scarf is one particular form of head covering.

According to St Paul men and women each have an iconic function that is: man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man. This iconic function is seen in the manner of the roles of each, the appearance of each and in the relationships between them. The purpose of the iconic function is to manifest the relationship of God to man and make this relationship tangible in our daily lives. The male iconic image is to portray the governance of God over man and the female is to portray the obedience of man to God. Both govern and both obey since this is the relationship of all with God but between themselves a certain order is maintained that we may participate tangibly with God through such relationships and not merely abstractly with the unseen God. This order is manifest within the different levels of relationship between men and women. Mostly notably within the relationship of marriage where we clearly see elsewhere in St Paul the distinct roles of husband and wife in terms of Christ and the Church. However, there is also a public face in terms of permission to exercise public authority and teaching within the Church, the function of the hierarchy, which is permitted to men but not to women because it is God who governs and teaches us and we do not do these things to each other at a merely human level. Thus the male icon is appropriate for the hierarchy because it portrays the divine but the female icon portraying humanity learns in quietness and remains silent in the congregations. Women can govern and teach in private at home or among other women in a convent because man too shares in the governance and teaching of God to men. A married women is expected to exercise these roles in relation to her children. Women can serve the Church as deaconesses but this is a quiet role for ministry to women and it does not perform the same function as a male deacon in leading the congregation and exercising authority over minor orders.

Head coverings are the principle iconic form in terms of establishing ourselves as icons. This is because the main relationship aspect between God and man is in terms of governance and headship. Thus, the head is covered or uncovered to demonstrate this. Head coverings are asked of women to go with long hair as a free expression of obedience to God. Obedience is not forced of man to God but freely given by man hence long hair in itself, as a natural aspect, is not sufficient but a head covering is asked to be added in addition to show the free submission of man to God. The head covering is not merely for the wearers humility and obedience, it quietly bears testimony before all to lead all to obedience and humility. Because obedience to God is due at all times head coverings are also worn at all times, particularly in the presence of others, even in the home. Head coverings are most important though in relation to God seen when praying and also if prophesying. In these activities men uncover their heads to show the authority of God and also that mankind will reign with God in synergy. Women though remain covered to show the need of our continuing obedience to share one will with God. The symbolism of head covering is also used by male monastics to show their life of obedience, although they at times uncover their heads in recognition of the male iconic role that they also convey. The symbols and actions are also for the angels who also look upon us.

A head covering is supposed to cover the head fully as being completely under obedience to God. Thus, head scarves are appropriately wrapped around the head as are also many eastern forms of head coverings as used in Muslim, Jewish or even Hindu cultures. A small hat on top of the head, particularly one that is decorative, is not as appropriate although better than being without, which in terms of its symbolism is a sign of rebellion against God and of self-will, setting oneself as ruling like God if not done according to the will of God. Just as the relationship between God and man is true in all cultures so too is the requirement of head coverings. The only variation being in the type of material and the cut and shape of the coverings but the use of and minimum extent of the covering is to be applied in all cultures as a uniform aspect of Church culture.

Iconic functions are not merely symbolic as signs to teach of something else but there also establish the appropriate form within which Christ becomes present. Because humanity has form in its material aspect then a particular form is required to ensure the true presence of Christ in an incarnate and tangible manner to reflect the reality of our material condition. The material aspect truly participates in our life and existence and this is confirmed that specific material forms are required for mysteries to be manifest, so that the mystery encompasses both spiritual and material aspects of our existence.

Thoughts?

A concern with Transubstantiation

Recently during a lecture referring to the change of the elements of the eucharist, a concern came to mind regarding the doctrine of transubstantiation. The concern is not whether there is a change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ but the implications of the specific teaching regarding the change of substance:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

This can be understood to mean that while the appearances of the bread and wine (to be understood as wine mixed with water) remain those of bread and wine the substance of the bread and of the wine is no longer that of bread and wine but that of the body and the blood of Christ respectively. In other words it is as if the substance of bread has been replaced by the body and similarly the wine by blood. The bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and become something else. While this supports that the bread and wine have now become the body and blood of Christ, this doctrine raises a concern.

What is this concern? Considering the symbolism of the offering, the bread and wine are not merely offered as bread and wine in and of themselves but are also offered as Christ and as us. They are an offering that is at least symbolically connected to the offering of the Lord’s body and blood and also our own body and blood. Keeping in mind that transubstantiation requires a change of substance becoming something else from before, although appearing the same, if the bread and wine are the types of the body and blood of the Lord then transubstantiation can lead to the idea that the Lord’s body ceased to be what it was at His sacrifice and was transplanted by a body of another substance at His resurrection, even if keeping its appearance somewhat. In terms of the offering being our body then it would appear that for us to become the body of the Lord, that is the Church, we too must cease to be what we are and have a new substance. However, this contradicts that we know that the Lord’s body now is the same that He had from His mother’s womb; it exists in a different mode of existence but it is still the same body of the same substance. We too will be resurrected in the same body but it will be spiritualised and not existing in the same mode as now. If for the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ requires them to cease being what they are then it would also require us to cease being what we are to become the body of Christ. This does not seem consistent with Orthodox liturgical and eschatological theology.

One may argue that our substance is different from bread but the same as the body of Christ so it doesn’t need to be replaced. Only the substance of bread and wine not being that of a human body and blood needs to be replaced by the substance of a human body. Yet, bread and wine are food that sustain our substance, they are made of the same elements and has those things that our body requires to live. Thus, bread and wine don’t have to become something else to sustain our body and blood other than to be processed by our body.

Rather it would be better to say that the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be bread and wine in substance but as having a new mode of existence. Perhaps, as said above, we should not try to see bread and wine as things completely other than body and blood but that Christ can encompass all matter into His body and that He gives us His body and blood as bread and wine as food, although not ordinary bread and wine but that changed to a new mode of existence by the Holy Spirit. This mode of existence unifies the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ because there is no division of matter in this mode, although distinctions can remain. As such, this new bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ, by the power of the Spirit, while deifying us also unites us in one body without destroying the uniqueness of our own bodies. That is rather than replacing our flesh with that of Christ or by simply connecting our body to that of Christ. The common food is appropriated by each of us as the one body of the Lord yet uniquely to each hypostasis.

So, while the reality of the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is preserved by the doctrine of transubstantiation and it is useful to this extent the teaching that the substance is changed to another substance can lead to false ideas about the eucharist and our deification. It is thought best to say that the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ without defining what happens to the substance; consistency with other theology tends to rather support that the substance does not change rather the mode of existence changes.

Any thoughts and/or opinions from the Fathers?

Gospel of righteousness means justification by works?

It is a pressing issue for some studying the Scriptures that on one hand we are given the message that we are not justified by our works and on the other hand that we must obey the commandments of God and do good works for which we will be judged. How are the two compatible?

The solution to this issue is found in the teaching of deification, which is the key to the gospel message. Deification means union with God which means not only connection with Him but also participating ourselves in the fullness of His life and existence. That is participating in His infinite and eternal life beyond our limited time/space existence. Once this is understood as the promise of God to man we can see why we are called to be perfect as He is perfect and holy as He is holy. That is we are called to live His righteousness which we know and do through obedience to His commandments. However, we also realise that we are unable of our own strength to achieve perfection because we are imperfect, which is why we confess ourselves as sinners. It is impossible for time/space creatures to transcend their condition with its limits and weaknesses by their own strength/energies. Thus, it is impossible to be justified by our works. Obedience to the Law in itself is incapable of saving us. Rather to transcend our condition we must be helped by God, He must give us to share in His energies that we may live as He does. That is we are saved by the grace of God, which sets us free from our limits to participate in His free eternal life. We are not saved by grace to escape from works but to participate in eternal works that transcend our own works. Why does not God just do this for us all and why must we still obey? Because to participate in the life of God means that we must both be unique persons and free. God cannot make us good only of Himself else it would deny our freedom and unique personhood and we would no longer be the ones participating nor would we be living as He lives freely. This is why we must have faith because in this we express our free will to live as God lives. Through faith we own God’s life as our life by obedience and doing His will. This means that we truly share in His life freely of our own will and living His life with Him. He is the only one who is truly free and only by sharing in His freedom, by uniting to His will through obedience, do we also become truly free.

So, deification means that we must live the righteousness of God as our own but our own good works of themselves cannot save us because we cannot transcend our state of life without the grace of God.

Gospel of righteousness

“May reveal to them the gospel of righteousness.” This is a petition for the catechumens during the liturgy.

Also from the first Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

And if forever the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God, and to live in them, it is plain that they remain unwavering and rigid. For Moses, too, the beholder of God, says so in the following words: “To them there is nothing to add, and from them there is nothing to remove”. And the divine Apostle Peter, exulting in them, cries: “which things the angels would like to peep into”. And Paul says: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema”.

The link in both of these quotes is the gospel with righteousness, with keeping the testimonies of God and the way of life, that is living by them.

I understand that this means that the gospel is not merely a message that Christ died for our sins and that we must believe in Him nor is it merely that we must have a particular faith but it is that we must also live a particular life maintaining particular commandments. That is the gospel is Christ and union with Him, deification. This encompasses faith and actions that we may be united to Him in all our life and thoughts. That He can become all in all. That we may conform to His likeness to become what He is Himself. It is a gospel of righteousness, although this does not mean justification by works.

Also, what I see is important from this that St Paul’s comment that one is an anathema for preaching another gospel. From this it seems that teaching heresy is primarily: the preaching of another gospel. This does not mean merely preaching a different Creed as a statement of faith but also about preaching a different way of life because the way of life is also Christ and God. That is if one is to teach contrary to the commandments of God and Tradition of the Church in faith and practice then one is a heretic because one is teaching another Gospel. This is why the Fathers also maintain and teach the sacred Canons as “unwavering and rigid”. This is not to deny the economy of applying them but that one is a heretic to teach contrary to them because such teaching is a false gospel. Those that taught that we must be circumcised were condemned as preaching a false gospel by St Paul that is as heretics. Teaching a false commandment and action is teaching a false gospel as much as teaching falsely about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thoughts?

Life needs order to be life

While watching a TV programme that was discussing the end of the universe, I heard the presenter say that the universe went from order to disorder and that complete disorder leads to lack of life or definable existance. This started me to think that order is important for life and for relationships. That is God does not create things in order, such as the orders of angels, simply arbitrarily for some sense of orderliness but because such order is important for genuine life and relationships. Such order helps to give meaning to relationships and helps one define oneself both as a unique person in relationship to others. Without this sense of order we could lose the ability to know ourselves because we would merge into sameness since knowing ourselves includes how we are distinct from others.

Thus, the modern trend for absolute “equality” may be destructive of our life and relationships. Being all the same order would result in loss of identity. God does order the Church with various ranks of clergy and the laity are ordered into monastics, and men and women. This order is important and we should not try to remove it rather to maintain it. All the ranks of clergy should be maintained, men and women should not try to be the same but remember their distinct order and this should be reinforced by dress, location etc. All this, I am beginning to see, may be most beneficial for providing us our unique identity and means of relating to others that brings us into community as ourself, which is defined both by self-recognition and also community role. We should not complain about our place or order but accept that it what is given by the providence of God. Neither should we despise anyone in another order else we despise our own order and ourselves; we deny our own definition. This is not to suggest a complete rigidity of order but to perhaps not to remove it from society nor Church in particular. Our first priority should be to fulfil the place of our order in God with holy lives and should providence modify our situation then so be it but we should not seek to change it of ourselves for the sake of a “better” order else we may lose ourselves. To seek a different order for piety such as to become a monastic or to get married or the priesthood, is acceptable and good but to seek them because it is a better order, as the end of the decision, does not seem to be appropriate.

Thoughts?

Hierarchal limits: St Cyprian of Carthage

Continuing with the thoughts of the last post and that regarding the eucharist a couple of posts previously, here is a quote from St Cyprian that carries the same line of thought. A quote from St Ignatius of Antioch is included for comparison.

[A]nd they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another. Wherefore, brother, if you consider God’s majesty who ordains priests, if you will for once have respect to Christ, who by His decree and word, and by His presence, both rules prelates themselves, and rules the Church by prelates;

And here is a quote from St Ignatius of Antioch saying the same thing:
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

In both of these we see that Christ is present in the hierarchs and that our union with Christ is ascertained by our union with the hierarchy. The Church is not apart from the hierarchs and so we are not with Christ if we are apart from the hierarchs even if you have been baptised and partakers of the eucharist; if we depart from the hierarchs then we depart from the Church. When we speak of the Church deciding something we speak of the hierarchy deciding such a thing because it is through them that Christ rules the Church and directs her. The Church is not a separate thing that makes decisions, it is Christ who makes decisions through the prelates that is the hierarchy. The hierarchs do not act as intermediaries to Christ but make him directly present to rule in the Church. They do so though in synergy and not as robots, so they can make human errors and speak heresy, if they speak of their own mind and not that of Christ. Hence, they need to be obedient to Him who rules the hierarchs by decree and word and by His presence. St Cyprian is clear here that membership of the Church is through union with the priests of the Church, that is the hierarchy and in particular the bishop. Union with the hierarchy includes and requires participation in the mysteries that they minister, through which were are united with Christ. The mysteries though are for the hierarchy not the hierarchy for the mysteries. That is the role of the hierarchy transcends the ministration of any particular mystery rather than being confined by them. That is why I use the term hierarchy to include all the mysteries with the bishop, presbyters and deacons (including all the priestly orders). The bishop is the head and completion of the hierarchy but one should not think of him isolated from the complete hierarchy including all its mysteries in various rites. Neither are hierarchic relations that unite us to Christ restricted to the Church hierarchy but they also occur in monastic relations, family relations and civil relations, although apart from the Church hierarchy these relations cannot effect union with Christ of themselves.

Why have a posted this? Because it is an important key that solves a number of problems. Firstly, it removes a problem of eucharistic ecclesiologists of the parish eucharists and not one episcopal eucharist, which arose because they hold that the hierarchy is for the mystery and so the bishop only has meaning as head of the eucharistic assembly. They argue that there was a change in theology with the growth of parishes but the hierarchal ecclesiology presented here does not have such an problem. Multiple parish eucharists are as consistent as a single episcopal eucharist. Secondly, it refutes Protestantism because there is no room for independent salvation nor private opinion contrary to the hierarchy. Thirdly, because the bishop is the head and completion of each hierarchy there is no place for a bishop of bishops. Also, the purpose of the hierarchy is to make Christ fully present in every place not one place which undermines the papal doctrine of the vicar of Christ being in one place. Yet, it requires levels of primacy as a structure to unite the priesthood with each other yet without having a single head on earth since this would deny that the hierarchy is to present one Christ in many places and that the Head is not on earth but above. Fourthly, it allows for economy and it is not purely mechanical. Fifthly, it is points to person to person relationships rather than any mechanical reception of mysteries. It maintains the focus on master/disciple relationship and in this regard also maintains the Apostolic foundation both as leaders and disciples and that such relationships are the core of our spiritual life again undermining Protestant thinking and exposing it as heresy. Sixthly, it permits one to speak of the Church in terms of the local church with its bishop, the church in terms of its regional or national presence, the church in terms of its patriarchal presence, which should be transnational/trans-regional, and the universal church since each can correspond to a synodal layer and be defined in terms of this. Universal church does not conflict with local church and even though there is no single head, that is no head of a synod of patriarchs who may call such a synod or hear appeals from a patriarchal synod, there can still be an ecumenical patriarch/pope or two with limited powers, hearing appeals instead of another patriarch and writing pastoral letters to any other local/regional/patriarchal church, to reflect the universal church. Seventhly, it allows each church to be both part and whole, including each parish within the diocese. There is no room for either divided autocephalism that ignores each being part nor for centralist papism that ignores each being whole.

Baptismal Membership

There is an opinion among, at least some, Orthodox scholars at present that the limits of the Church can be defined in terms of baptism. Within this limit it is proposed that some division can exist, such as between Roman Catholic and Orthodox, and that we can still speak of the divided parties as Church. Thus, because most Christian groups/denominations/churches perform baptism they are all in some manner in the Church as distinct from non-baptised who are outside the Church. In practice this is the reasoning supporting marriage between those who are baptised even if they are of different creed and one of the partners would nevertheless be excluded from the eucharist of the other’s church.

It is agreed that baptism is the means of entry into the Church and that the members of the Church are identified as those that have been baptised, which permits them to gather with the other members in the eucharist. However, is the act of wetting someone with water while saying a particular formula in itself what baptism is? Is the Church defined as those people who have had undergone such an act? If so then once one has undergone that act then can they cease to be members of the Church regardless of faith and morals and choice?

The Church is the body of Christ, with Christ as the head. It is not merely the collection of those having participated in a particular form of ritual or believing a particular doctrine, although these may be marks of those in the Church, that is the Church is not a collection of those having certain marks and in particular of having one mark isolated from the others, which is the implication of the opinion stated initially. Rather the Church is those who form the body of Christ, that is those who are united with Christ, who is a living person. Those united to Christ come into the life of the Trinity as sons of God having the Spirit rest upon them that is they become deified.

Baptism brings us to membership of the Church because of a number of features in baptism. Considering baptism in water. Firstly, the water must be sanctified, it is not merely any water but that upon which hovers the Holy Spirit. Secondly, the triple immersing and coming out of the water unites us with Christ and the Son of God through his death and resurrection and three day burial thus identifying us as sons of God. Thirdly, the triple immersing into the three distinct names of the Trinity each invoked with an immersion, Father, Son and Holy Spirit brings us into the life of the Trinity. This is baptism in water but this in itself is insufficient because we must be born of water and Spirit, so one also requires the anointing of Chrism blessed by a bishop to symbolise the baptism of the Spirit and thus that the Spirit rests upon the baptised and confirms that he is both a son of God and has come into the life of the Trinity with God as his Father. The correct expression of faith is also another requirement of baptism that the person believes into the name of Christ; that they freely and willingly accept Christ and participation in the life of the Trinity. And another requirement is that of the baptiser, a bishop or presbyter, because is God who gives new birth to the baptised not man thus the bishop/presbyter manifests the Father in terms of the baptism so that the baptised in generated as son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit who rests on the baptised as a son of God. The whole Trinity in various symbols is manifest in the baptism. The bishop/presbyter are also the focal points of union with Christ, that is the baptism is the means for a person to enter a relation with Christ who is present in the bishop/presbyter and also that it is Christ who sanctifies the waters for baptism. It is this relationship that identifies one as a member of the Church, and this relationship can only be established through baptism. Thus, when one speaks of membership in the Church via baptism it means not only the application of water with a formula but a relationship with a hierarchy that confers the baptism as a gift to bring the baptised into relation with the hierarchy, through whom Christ is present and so the baptised enters relationship with Christ and into the life of the Trinity. Also, if Chrism is not that from the bishop then there is no baptism in Spirit and so the person who has been immersed in water with the appropriate formula is not born again of water and Spirit and so not yet a member of the Church.

If Christ is not present in the baptiser then the baptism is not of God and it is not one that brings the baptised into a relationship with Christ nor into the life of the Trinity, so the baptism is of no effect and does not permit entry into the Church. Baptismal membership is dependant on who baptises and not only the other symbols of baptism.

So, baptism as a means of showing the limits of the Church cannot be separated from showing the limits of the Church in terms of the hierarchy, which also defines legitimate eucharistic gatherings. This later limit is based on a mutual sharing of one faith/tradition, tracing ordination to the Apostles, and mutual recognition. It is quite wrong to speak of some form of Church membership by baptism that includes those of separated hierarchies, particularly where this is due to difference in faith/tradition. One separating from the hierarchy appointed by Christ and the Apostles is no longer united with Christ and so no longer with the Church, even if they were properly baptised. That is why marriage is only to be between people of the same faith, and whether one has a form of baptism within a group of differing faith is irrelevant to this issue, the canonical test is orthodoxy not baptism. The form of baptism conducted outside the union of faith only has relevance to the economy of receiving converts.

Is the Eucharist episcopo-centric not presbytero-centric?

Is the Eucharist episcopo-centric not presbytero-centric? This is the view expressed by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) as found in his article: “Ecclesiological Presuppositions of the Holy Eucharist” in The One and Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church and the World Today (Sebastian Press, 2010). He derives from this that a Presbyter serves in the name of the local bishop that the parish Eucharist is a problem because it does not have all the orders of the Church present because it does not include the bishop and so it must be seen as an extension of the bishop’s one Eucharist. This is in turn follows the logic that at the Eucharist there is the presence of the whole Church and a gathering of the faithful in one place with the bishop. The parish system is thus a distortion of the pure model of one congregation of the faithful in each place gathered around the bishop. Presbyters in this model seem to become vicars of the bishop, who is the required president of every Eucharist. Parishes are only parts of the community of people in one place but also part of the structure. So, is this correct?

The arguments for this view are quite strong and one can find support for them in the patristic literature. However, the results do not seem to properly reflect all the patristic evidence. For example St John Chrysostom describes the presbyter as a true president and teacher of his parish equal with the bishop in all but the power of ordination (Homily 11 on 1 Timothy). Also one can question the notion that a parish is somehow incomplete as a gathering of the Church without the physical presence of the bishops and that this must be somehow actualised. (If this is so on the grounds of all orders being present then the absence of each of a deacon, sub-deacon, reader, chanter, monk etc will also be a problem even if the bishop is present.)

Coming together in one mind and speaking with one mouth

I have grown to understand that this quote of Christ is very important in terms of the mysteries of the Church: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Why is this so? Because the mysteries of the Church make Christ present, which is seen foremost in the Eucharist. Christ becomes present in the the coming together of people into the His name, which means that the mysteries are realised by the Holy Spirit when the conditions of coming together into the name of Christ are fulfilled together with being of one mind, that is unanimously agreeing with each other into unity. That it is a condition for the fulfilment is that the gathering is not one in the name of Christ where the people are gathered together already assuming the name of Christ, but into that the gathering meets conditions that allows it to be identified by the name of Christ. It is the result of the gathering in unity. This is not exclusive of coming together in the name of Christ nor does it imply that those gathering are not already in the name of Christ but that the coming together of the gathering manifests Christ’s presence in a particular manner as fitting for that coming together.

This is foremost seen in the Divine Liturgy where the people gather together around the icon of Christ, the priest, “according to all and for all (κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα)” that Christ has commanded in various symbols, and “in one mouth and one heart” the people consent with the priest by their “Amen”, thus uniting themselves in unanimous agreement so that Christ becomes present among them by His Spirit and transforms the congregation and gifts into the body of Christ. It is also true in the councils of Bishops that when they come together in unanimous consent in conformity with the Tradition of the Church, that is with the teaching and practice of Christ, then Christ, by the Spirit, becomes present in the council and the judgement of the council becomes His judgement and His judgement becomes that of the council, particularly in terms of binding and loosing. This is also true in marriage when husband and wife are of one mind with each other in conformity with the teaching and practice of Christ then Christ becomes present with them. In the ordination of a Bishop this is also seen with all the Bishops of the region needing to agree with the Metropolitan/Patriarch to the ordaining of the new Bishop then at least two or three come together to ordain, to symbolise this but ideally all should be there and the official minimum is now three. The ordination needs to be in conformity with Tradition hence the promise of obedience of the candidate to the Creed and to the canons. A priest should also be ordained with the consent of all the priests of the diocese and be of suitable life to be a true icon of Christ. In both these cases the people’s consent to the ordination is appropriate. However, where there is discord or not a unanimity of mind or failure to conform to the teaching and practice of Christ, that is coming into His name then the mystery is not effected. Thus, such a Liturgy, Council, ordination and marriage does not make Christ present; although God in His mercy overlooks many minor disagreements, sins etc due to our weaknesses.