The Nature of True Philosophy According to Saint John of Damascus

Philosophy is knowledge of things which are in so far as they are, that is, a knowledge of the nature of things which have being.

And again, philosophy is knowledge of both divine and human things, that is to say, of things both visible and invisible.

Philosophy, again, is a study of death, whether this be voluntary of natural. For life is of two kinds, there being the natural life by which we live and the voluntary one by which we cling lovingly to this present life. Death, also, is of two kinds: the one being natural, which is the seperation of soul from body, whereas the other is the voluntary one by which we disdain this present life and aspire to that which is to come.

Still again, philosophy is the making of one's self like God. Now, we become like God in wisdom, which is to say, in the true knowledge of good; and in justice, which is a fairness in judgment without respect to persons; and in holiness, which is to say, in goodness, which is superior to justice, being that by which we do good to them that wrong us.

Philosophy is the art of arts and sciences of sciences. This is because philosophy is the principle of every art, since through it every art and science has been invented. Now, according to some, art is what errs in some people and science what errs in no one, whereas philosophy alone does not err. According to others, art is that which is done with the hands, whereas science is any art that is practiced by the reason, such as grammar, rhetoric, and the like.

Philosophy, again, is a love of wisdom. But, true wisdom is God. Therefore, the love of God, this is the true philosophy.

(From The Fountain of Knowledge: "Philosophical Chapters", Ch. 3)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"Why I Abandoned Papism" by Bishop Paul Ballaster-Convolier

Bishop Paul de Ballester-Convallier: A Contemporary Neomartyr of Orthodoxy 
(25th anniversary of his murder: 1984-2009)

Introduction

By John Sanidopoulos

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the death as a martyr of the late Bishop Paul de Ballester-Convallier (1927-1984). As a memorial to him we reprint here a brief version of his book which explains why and how he was converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism.

The article below of the then Hierodeacon Fr. Paul Ballester-Convollier was published in two follow up articles by Kivotos magazine (July 1953, p. 285-291 and December 1953, p. 483-485). Previously a Franciscan monk who had turned to Orthodoxy, Bishop Paul was made titular bishop of Nazianzus of the Holy Archdiocese of North and South America with its seat in Mexico. There he was met with a martyric death.

The news of his murder was reported on the first page of the newspaper Kathemerini (Saturday, February 4, 1984) which says:

THE GREEK ORTHODOX BISHOP PAUL WAS MURDERED IN MEXICO

As it became known from the city of Mexico, before yesterday the Bishop of Nazianzus, Paul De Ballester of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, died. He was murdered by a 70 year old Mexican, a previous military man who was suffering from psychiatric illness. The funeral was attended by Archbishop Iakovos who was aware of the work of the active bishop. It should be pointed out that Bishop Paul was of Spanish origin, was received into Orthodoxy as an adult and excelled as a shepherd and author. The Mexican authorities do not exclude the possibility that his murderer was driven to his act through some sort of fanaticism.

Bishop Paul was a native of Catalonia, Barcelona and studied in seminaries at Athens and Halki. He was ordained in Athens as a deacon in 1953 and as a priest in 1954. His ministry as a priest was first in Constantinople (1954-1959) and then in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (1959-1984). In 1970 he was consecrated titular Bishop of Nazianzus (in New York) with its seat in Mexico. His work there as a churchman, university professor and voluminous author was brilliant and conspicuous, but unfortunately it was sealed with his premature death. He was murdered after the end of the Divine Liturgy in the city of Mexico in 1984. His funeral was attended by Archbishop Iakovos who praised the exceptional work of this vibrant bishop.

Bishop Paul of Nazianzus not only proved worthy of his calling, but also became a witness of Orthodoxy for dying a horrible death while in faithful service to the Church. In a recent visit to Mexico of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 2006, the order was given to Metropolitan Athenagoras of Mexico and Central America to transfer the relics of the late Bishop Paul of Nazianzus to the Metropolis and laid to rest at the monument of this Bishop that lies in the front court of the Cathedral Church of Saint Sophia which was erected by this ever-memorable hierarch.

I have corrected some of the typographical errors of previous translations of this text for it to make more sense and be more readable. 

Why I Abandoned Papism

By Hierodeacon Paul de Ballester-Convallier

1. How It All Began

My conversion to Orthodoxy began one day while I was re-ordering the Library catalogues of the monastery I belonged to. This monastery belonged to the Franciscan order, founded in my country of Spain. While I was classifying different old articles concerning the Holy Inquisition, I happened to come across an article that was truly impressive, dating back to 1647. This article described a decision of the Holy Inquisition that anathematized as a heretic any Christian who dared believe, accept or preach to others that he supported the apostolic validity of the Apostle Paul.

It was about this horrible finding that my mind could not comprehend. I immediately thought to calm my soul that perhaps it was due to a typographical error or due to some forgery, which was not so uncommon in the Western Church of that time when the articles were written. However, my disturbance and my surprise became greater after researching and confirming that the decision of the Holy Inquisition that was referred to in the article was authentic. In fact already during two earlier occasions, namely in 1327 and 1331, the Popes John XXII and Clemens VI had condemned and anathematized any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul during his entire apostolic life was totally subordinate to the ecclesiastical monarchical authority of the first Pope and king of the Church, namely the Apostle Peter. And a lot later Pope Pius X in 1907 and Benedict XV in 1920, had repeated the same anathemas and the same condemnations.

I had therefore to dismiss any possibility of it being due to an inadvertent misquoting or forgery. So I was thus confronted with a serious problem of conscience.

Personally it was impossible for me to accept that the Apostle Paul was disposed of under whatever Papal command. The independence of his apostolic work among nations, against that which characterized the apostolic work of Peter among the circumcised, for me was the unshakable event that shouted from the Holy Bible.

The thing was totally clear to me who he was, as the exegetical works of the Fathers on this issue do not leave the slightest doubt. "Paul", writes St. Chrysostom, "declares his equality with the rest of the apostles and should be compared not only with all the others but with the first one of them, to prove that each one had the same authority". Truly, together all the Fathers agree that "all the rest of the apostles were the same like Peter, namely they were endowed with the same honour and authority". It was impossible for any of them to exercise higher authority over the rest, for the apostolic title that each had was the "highest authority, the peak of authorities". They were all shepherds, while the flock was one. And the flock was shepherded by the apostles in conformity by all.

The matter was therefore crystal clear. Despite this, the Latin teaching was against the situation. This way for the first time in my life I experienced a frightful dilemma. What could I say? On one side was the Bible and Holy Tradition and on the other side the teaching of the Church? According to Latin theology it is essential for our salvation to believe that the Church is a pure monarchy, whose monarch is the Pope. This way the synod of the Vatican, voting together all the earlier convictions, declared officially that "if any one says ... that Peter (who is assumed to be the first Pope) was not ordained by Christ as the leader of the Apostles and visible Head of all the Church ... is under anathema".

2. I Am Addressing My Confessor

Within this psychological disturbance I addressed my confessor and naively described the situation. He was one of the most famous priests of the monastery. He heard me with sadness, aware that it involved a very difficult problem. Having thought for a few minutes while looking in vain for an acceptable resolution, he finally told me the following that I confess I did not expect.

"The Bible and the Fathers have harmed you, my child. Set it and them aside and confine yourself to following the infallible teachings of the Church and do not let yourself become victim of such thoughts. Never allow creatures of God whoever they may be to scandalize your faith in God and the Church."

This answer he gave very explicitly and caused my confusion to grow. I always held that especially the word of God is the only thing that one cannot set aside.

Without allowing me any time to respond, my confessor added: "In exchange, I shall give you a list of prominent authors in whose works your faith will relax and be supported". And asking me if I had something else "more interesting" to ask, he terminated our conversation.

A few days later, my confessor departed from the monastery for a preaching tour of churches of the monastic order. He left me the list of authors, recommending that I read them. And he asked me to inform him of my progress in this reading by writing him.

Even though his words did not convince me in the least, I collected these books and started to read them as objectively and attentively as possible.

The majority of the books were theological texts and manuals of papal decisions as well as of Ecumenical Synods. I threw myself to the study with genuine interest, having only the Bible as my guide, "Thy law is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my paths" (Ps. 118:105).

As I progressed in my study of those books, I would understand more and more that I was unaware of the nature of my Church. Having been proselytized in Christianity and baptized as soon as I completed my encyclical studies, I continued with philosophical studies and then as I speak to you I was just at the beginning of the theological studies. It consisted of a science totally new to me. Until then Christianity and the Latin Church was for me an amalgam, something absolutely indivisible. In my monastic life I was only concerned with their exterior view and I was given no reason to examine in depth the bases and reasons of the organic structure of my Church.

3. The Preposterous Teaching About the Pope

Exactly then, within the bouquet of articles that wisely my spiritual leader had put together, the true nature of this monarchical system, known as the Latin Church, started to unravel. I suppose a summary of her characteristics would not be superfluous.

First of all, to the Roman Catholics, the Christian Church "is nothing more than an absolute monarchy" whose monarch is the Pope who functions in all her facets as such. On this Papal monarchy "all the power and stability of the Church is found" which otherwise "would not have been possible". Christianity is supported completely by Papism. And still some more, "Papism is the most significant agent of Christianity", that is "it is its zenith and its essence".

The monarchic authority of the Pope as the supreme leader and the visible head of the Church, the cornerstone, Universal Infallible Teacher of the Faith, Representative (Vicar) of God on earth, shepherd of shepherds and Supreme Hierarch, is totally dynamic and dominant and embraces all the teachings and legal rights that the Church has. "Divine right" is extended on all and individually on each baptized man across the whole world. This dictatorial authority can be exercised at any time, over anything and on any Christian across the world, whether lay or clergy, and in any church of any denomination and language it may be, in consideration of the Pope being the supreme bishop of every ecclesiastical diocese in the world.

People who refuse to recognize all this authority and do not submit blindly are schismatic, heretic, impious and sacrilegious and their souls are already destined to eternal damnation, for it is essential for our salvation that we believe in the institution of Papism and submit to it and its representatives. This way the Pope incarnates that imaginary Leader, prophesied by Cicero, who writes that all must recognize him to be holy.

Always in the Latin teaching, "accepting that the Pope has the right to intervene and judge all spiritual issues of each and every Christian separately, that much more does he have the right to do the same in their worldly affairs. He cannot be limited to judging only through spiritual penalties, denying the eternal salvation to those who do not submit to him, but also he has the right to exercise authority over the faithful. For the Church has two knives, symbols of her spiritual and worldly power. The first of these is in the hands of the clergy, the other in the hands of Kings and soldiers, though they too are under the will and service of the clergy".

The Pope, maintaining that he is the representative of Him whose "kingdom is not of this world", of Him who forbade the Apostles to imitate the kings of the world who "conquer the nations", nominates himself as a worldly king, thus continuing the imperialism of Rome. At different periods he in fact had become lord over great expanses, he declared bloody wars against other Christian kings to acquire other land expanses, or even to satisfy his thirst for more wealth and power. He owned a great number of slaves. He played a central role and many times a decisive role in political history. The duty of the Christian lords is to retreat in the face "of the divinely appointed king" surrendering to him their kingdom and their politico-ecclesiastical throne "that was created to ennoble and anchor all the other thrones of the world". Today the worldly capital of the Pope is confined to Vatican City. It consists of an autonomous nation with diplomatic representations in the governments of both hemispheres, with an army, weapons, police, jails, currency, etc.

And as a crown and peak of the almightiness of the Pope, he has one more faithful privilege that even the most ignoble idolaters could not even imagine - the infallible divine right, according to the dogmatic rule of the Vatican Synod that took place on 1870. Since then on "humanity ought to address to him whatever it addresses to the Lord: 'you have words of eternal life'". From now on there is no need of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church "into all truth". There is no more need of the Holy Bible nor of Sacred Tradition, for now there is a god on earth based on the infallible. The Pope is the only canon of truth who can even express things contrary to the judgment of all the Church, declare new dogmas which the faithful ought to accept if they do not wish to be cut off from their salvation. "It depends only on his will and intention to deem whatever he wishes, as sacred and holy within the Church" and the decreetal letters must be deemed, believed and obeyed "as canonical epistles". Since he is an infallible Pope, he must receive blind obedience. Cardinal Bellarmine, who was declared a Saint by the Latin Church, says this simply: "If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad".

4. The Answer of My Confessor

Having read all those books, I felt myself as a stranger within my Church, whose organizational composition has no relation to the Church that the Lord built and organized by the Apostles and their disciples and as intended by the Holy Fathers. Under this belief I wrote my first letter to my superior: "I read your books. I shall not contravene the divine warrants so that I may follow the human teachings that have no basis at all in the Holy Bible. Such teachings are a string of foolishness by Papism. From the provisions of the Holy Bible we can understand the nature of the Church and not through human decisions and theories. The truth of faith does not spring but from the Holy Bible and from the Tradition of the whole Church".

The reply came fast: "You have not followed my advice," complained my elder, "and thus exposed your soul to the dangerous impact of the Holy Bible, which, like fire burns and blackens when it does not shine. In such situations like yours, the Popes have pronounced that it 'is a scandalous error for one to believe that all the Christians could read the Holy Bible', and the theologians assure us that the Holy Bible 'is a dark cloud'. 'For one to believe in the enlightenment and clarity of the Bible is a heterodox dogma,' claim our infallible leaders. As far as the Tradition, I do not consider it necessary to remind you that we should primarily follow the Pope on matters of Faith. The Pope is worth, in this case, thousands of Augustinians, Jeromses, Gregories, Chrysostoms...".

This letter accomplished to strengthen my opinion rather than demolish it. It was impossible for me to place the Holy Bible below the Pope. By attacking the Holy Bible, my Church was losing every worthy belief ahead of me, and was becoming one with the heretics who "being elected by the Bible turn against it". This was the last contact I had with my elder.

5. The Pope is Everything and the Church is Nothing

However I did not stop there. I had already started to "skid due to the skid" of my Church. I had taken a road that I was not allowed to stop until I found a positive solution. The drama of those days was that I had estranged myself from Papism, but I did not accost any other ecclesiastical reality. Orthodoxy and Protestantism then were for me vague ideas and I had not reached the time and opportunity to ascertain that they could offer something to soothe my agony. Despite all this I continued to love my Church that made me a Christian and I bore her symbol. I still needed more profound thinking to reach slowly, with trouble and grief, to the conclusion that the Church I loved was not part of the Papal system.

Truly, against the monocracy of the Pope, the authority of the Church and of the episcopal body is not intrinsically subordinate. Because according to Latin theology "the authority of the Church exists only when it is characterized and harmonized by the Pope. In all other cases it is nullified". This way it is the same thing whether the Pope is with the Church or the Pope is without the Church, in other words, the Pope is everything and the Church is nothing. Very correctly did Bishop Maren write, "It would have been more accurate if the Roman Catholics when they recite the 'I Believe' would say 'And in one Pope' instead of 'And in one ... Church'".

The importance and function of the bishops in the Latin Church are no more than that of representatives of the Papal authority to which the bishops submit like the lay faithful. This regime they try to uphold under the 22nd chapter of St. John's Gospel, which according to the Latin interpretation, "the Lord entrusts the Apostle Peter, the first Pope, the shepherding of His lambs and of His sheep", namely, He bestows on him the job of the Chief Shepherd with exclusive rights on all the faithful, who are the lambs and all the others, Apostles and Bishops, namely, the sheep.

However, the bishops in the Latin Church are not even successors to the Apostles, for as it dogmatizes: "The apostolic authority was lacking with the Apostles and was not passed down to their successors, the bishops. Only the Papal authority of Peter, namely the Popes." The bishops then, having not inherited any apostolic authority, have no other authority but the one given to them, not directly from God but by the Supreme Pontiff of Rome.

And the Ecumenical Synods also have no other value than the one given to them by the Bishop of Rome, "for they cannot be anything else except conferences of Christianity that are called under the authenticity and authority of the Pope". It would suffice the Pope to exit the hall of the Synod saying, "I am not in there anymore", to stop from that moment on the Ecumenical Synod from having any validity. If it is not authorized and validated by the Pope, who could impose this authority on the faithful?

6. The Frightful Answer of a Jesuit

I almost gave up on my studies during that period, taking advantage of the hours that my Order allowed me to retire to my cell, to think of nothing else but my big problem. For whole months I would study the structure and organization of the early Church, straight from the apostolic and patristic sources. However, all this work could not be done totally in secrecy. It looked obvious that my exterior life was greatly affected by this great concern which had overwhelmed all my interest and sapped all my strength. I never lost an opportunity to inquire from outside the monastery whatever could contribute towards shedding light to my problem. This way I started to discuss the topic with known ecclesiastical acquaintances in relation to the trust I had in their frankness and their heart. This way I would receive continuously the impressions and opinions on the topic which were for me always interesting and significant.

I found most of these clerics more fanatical than I expected. Even though they were deeply aware of the absurdity of the teaching on the Pope, being stuck to the idea that "the required submission to the Pope demands a blind consent of our views", and in the other maxim by the founder of Jesuits: "That we may possess the truth and not fall in fallacy, we owe it to always depend on the basic and immovable axiom that what we see as white in reality it is black, if that is what the hierarchy of the Church tells us". With this fantastic bias a priest of the Order of Jesus entrusted me with the following thought:

"What you tell me I acknowledge that they are most logical and very clear and true. However, for us Jesuits, apart from the usual three vows, we give a fourth one during the day of our tonsure. This fourth vow is more important than the vow of purity, obedience and poverty. It is the vow that we must totally submit to the Pope. This way, I prefer to go to hell with the Pope than to Paradise with all your truths."

7. "A Few Centuries Ago They Would Have Burnt You in the Fires of the Holy Inquisition"

According to the opinion of most of them, I was a heretic. Here's what a bishop wrote to me: "A few centuries ago, the ideas you have, would have been enough to bring you to the fires of the Holy Inquisition".

However, despite all this I intended to stay in the monastery and give myself to the purely spiritual life, leaving the responsibility to the hierarchy for the deceit and its correction. But could the important things of the soul be safe on a road of superficial life, where the arbitrariness of the Pope could pile up new dogmas and false teachings concerning the pious life of the Church? Moreover, since the purity of teaching was built with falsehoods about the Pope, who could reassure me that this stain would not spread into the other parts of the evangelical faith?

It is therefore not strange if the holy men within the Latin Church started to sound the alarm by saying things such as: "Who knows if the minor means of salvation that flood us do not cause us to forget our only Savior Jesus...? Today our spiritual life appears like a multi-branch and multi-leaf tree, where the souls do no more know where the trunk is that everything rests on, and where the roots are that feed it."

With such a manner we have decorated and overloaded our religiosity, so that the face of Him who is the "focus of the issue" is lost inside the "decorations". Being therefore convinced that the spiritual life within the bosom of the Papal Church will expose me to dangers, I ended up taking the decisive step. I abandoned the monastery and after a little while I declared I did not belong to the Latin Church. Some others seemed prepared until then to follow me, but at the last moment no one proved prepared to sacrifice so radically his position within the Church, with the honor and consideration they enjoyed.

This way I abandoned the Latin Church whose leader, forgetting that the Kingdom of the Son of God "is not of this world" and that "he who is called to the bishopric is not called to any high position or authority but to the deaconate of all the Church", but instead imitating him who "wishing in his pride to be like God, he lost the true glory and put on the false one" and "sat in the temple of God as god". Rightly did Bernard De Klaraval write about the Pope: "There is no more horrible poison for you, no sword more dangerous, than the thirst and passion of domination". Coming out of Papism, I followed my voice of conscience that was the voice of God. And this voice was telling me, "Leave her ... so you may not partake of her sins and that you may not receive of her wounds".

8. In the Bosom of Orthodoxy

Secondly, as my departure from Papism became more broadly known within the ecclesiastical circles and was receiving more enthusiastic response in the Spanish and French Protestant circles, so was my position becoming more precarious.

In the correspondence I received, the threatening and anonymous abusive letters were plentiful. They would accuse me that I was creating an anti-papist wave around me and I was leading by my example into "apostasy" Roman Catholic clerics "who were dogmatically sick" and who had publicly expressed a sympathetic feeling for my case.

This fact forced me to leave Barcelona, and settle in Madrid where I was put up - without my seeking - by Anglicans and through them I came in contact with the World Council of Churches.

Not even there did I manage to remain inconspicuous. After every sermon at different Anglican Churches, a steadily increasing number of listeners sought to know me and to confidently discuss with me some ecclesiological topics.

Without therefore wishing it, a steadily increasing circle of people started forming around me, with most being anti-papists. This situation was exposing me to the authorities, because in the confidential meetings I had agreed to attend some Roman Catholic clerics started to appear who were generally known "for their lacking and weakening faith regarding the primacy and infallibility of the Highest Hierarch of Rome".

The fanatical vindictiveness that some papists bore against my person I saw fully expressed and reach its zenith the day I replied publicly to a detailed ecclesiological dissertation which they had sent to me as an ultimate step to remove me from the "trap of heresy" that I had fallen in. That work of apologetic character had the expressive title: The Pope, Vicar of our Lord on Earth. And the slogan that the arguments in the book ended up with, was the following: "Due to the infallibility of the Pope, the Roman Catholics are today the only Christians who could be certain for what they believe".

In the columns of a Portuguese book review, I replied: "The reality is that due to this infallibility you are the only Christians who cannot be certain about what they will demand that you believe tomorrow". My article ended with the following sentence: "Soon, the road you walk, you will name the Lord vicar of the Pope in heaven".

Soon after I published in Buenos Aires my three volume study, I put an end to the skirmishes with the Papists. In that study I had collected all the clauses in the patristic literature of the first four centuries, which directly or indirectly refer to the "primacy clauses" (Matt 16:18-19; John 21: 15-17; Luke 22: 31-32). I proved that the teachings about the Pope were absolutely foreign and contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers on the issue. And the interpretation of the Fathers is exactly the rule on which we understand the Holy Bible.

During that period, even though from unrelated situations, for the first time I came in contact with Orthodoxy. Before I continue to recount the events, I owe it to confess here that my ideas about Orthodoxy had suffered an important development from the beginning of my spiritual odyssey. Certain discussions I had on ecclesiological topics with a group of Orthodox Polish, who passed through my country, and the information I received from the World Council regarding the existence and life of Orthodox circles in the West, had caused me a real interest. Furthermore, I started to get different Russian and Greek books and magazines from London and Berlin, as well as some of the prized books that were provided by Archimandrite Benedict Katsenavakis in Napoli, Italy. Thus my interest in Orthodoxy would continue to grow.

Slowly, slowly in this way I started losing my inner biases against the Orthodox Church. These biases presented Orthodoxy as schismatic, without spiritual life, a drained group of small churches that do not have the characteristics of the true Church of Christ. And the schism that had cut her off, "had made the devil for their father and the pride of the Patriarch Photios for mother".

So when I started to correspond with a respected member of the Orthodox hierarchy in the West - whose name I do not believe I am permitted to publish due to my personal criterion that was based on those original informations - I was thus totally free from every bias against Orthodoxy and I could spiritually gaze objectively. I soon realized and even with a pleasant surprise that my negative stance I had against Papism was conforming completely to the ecclesiological teaching of Orthodoxy. The respectable hierarch agreed to this coincidence in his letters, but refrained from expressing himself more broadly because he was aware that I lived in a Protestant surrounding.

The Orthodox in the West are not at all susceptible to proselytism. Only when our correspondence continued enough, the Orthodox bishop showed me to read the superb book by Sergei Boulgakov titled Orthodoxy, and the not less in depth dissertation under the same title by Metropolitan Seraphim. In the mean time I had also written specifically to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In those books I found myself. There was not even a single paragraph that did not meet completely the agreement of my conscience. So much in these works as in others that they would send to me with encouraging letters - now even from Greece. I clearly saw how Orthodox teaching is profound and purely evangelical and that the Orthodox are the only Christians who believe like the Christians of the catacombs and of the Fathers of the Church of the Golden Age. They are the only ones who can repeat with holy boasting the patristic saying, "We believe in whatever we received from the Apostles".

That period I wrote two books, one with the title The Concept of the Church According to the Western Fathers and the other with the title Your God, Our God and God. These books were to be published in South America, but I did not proceed with their release so that I may not give an easy and dangerous hold to the Protestant propaganda.

From the Orthodox side they advised me to let go of my simply negative position against Papism, in which I was dirtied, and to shape my personal "I Believe" [Faith or Creed] from which they could judge how far I was from the Anglican Church as well as the Orthodox.

It was a hard task that I summarized with the following sentences: "I believe in everything that are included in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, according to the interpretation of the ecclesiastical Tradition, namely the Ecumenical Synods that were truly ecumenical, and to the unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers that are acknowledged catholically as such".

From then on I began to understand that the sympathy of the Protestants towards me was cooling down, except of the Anglicans who were governed by some meaningful support. And it is only now that the Orthodox interest, despite being late, as always, started to manifest itself and to attract me to Orthodoxy as one who was "possibly Catechumen".

The undertakings of a Polish university professor, whom I knew, cemented my conviction that Orthodoxy is supported by the meaningful truths of Christianity. I understood that every Christian of the other confessions is required to sacrifice some significant part of the Faith to arrive at complete dogmatic purity, and only an Orthodox Christian is not so required. For only he lives and remains in the substance of Christianity and the revealed and unaltered truth.

So, I did no more feel myself alone against the almighty Roman Catholicism and the coolness that the Protestants displayed against me. There were in the East and scattered around the world, 280 million Christians who belonged to the Orthodox Church and with whom I felt in communion of faith.

The accusation of the theological mummification of Orthodoxy had for me no value, because I had now understood that this fixed and stable perseverance of the Orthodox teaching of truth was not a spiritual solidified rock, but an everlasting flow like the current of the waterfall that seems to remain always the same yet the waters always change.

Slowly, slowly the Orthodox started to consider me as one of their own. "That we speak to this Spaniard about Orthodoxy", wrote a famous archimandrite, "is not proselytism". They and I perceived that I was already birthed in the port of Orthodoxy, that I was finally breathing freely in the bosom of the Mother Church. In this period I was finally Orthodox without realizing it, and like the disciples that walked towards Emmaus close to the Divine Teacher, I had covered a stretch close to Orthodoxy without conclusively recognizing the Truth but at the end.

When I was assured of this reality, I wrote a long dissertation on my case to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to the Archbishop of Athens through the Apostolic Diaconate of the Church of Greece. And having no more to do with Spain - where today there does not exist an Orthodox community - I left my country and went to France where I asked to become a member of the Orthodox Church, having earlier let some more time for the fruit of my change to ripen. During this period I further deepened my knowledge of Orthodoxy and strengthened my relationship with her hierarchy. When I became fully confident of myself, I took the decisive step and officially was received in the true Church of Christ as her member. I wished to realize this great event in Greece, the recognized country of Orthodoxy where I came to study theology. The blessed Archbishop of Athens received me paternally. His love and interest were beyond my expectations. I should say the same for the then chancellor of the Sacred Archdiocese and presently Bishop Dionysius of Rogon who showed me paternal love. It is needless to add that in such an atmosphere of love and warmth, the Holy Synod did not take long to decide my canonical acceptance in the bosom of the Orthodox Church. During that all-night sacred ceremony I was honored with the name of the Apostle of Nations, and following that I was received as a monk in the Holy Penteli Monastery. Soon after, I was tonsured deacon by the Holy Bishop of Rogon.

Since then I live within the love, sympathy and understanding of the Greek Church and all her members. I ask from all their prayers and their spiritual support that I may always stand worthy of the grace that was given me by the Lord.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of our Lord" by St. Gregory Palamas

For an explanation of the present Feast and understanding of its truth, it is necessary for us to turn to the very start of today's reading from the Gospel: "Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James and John his brother, and led them up onto a high mountain by themselves" (Mt.17:1).

First of all we must ask, from whence does the Evangelist Matthew begin to reckon with six days? From what sort of day is it? What does the preceding turn of speech indicate, where the Savior, in teaching His disciples, said to them: "For the Son of Man shall come with his angels in the glory of His Father," and further: "Amen I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death, until they have seen the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" (Mt.16:27-28)? That is to say, it is the Light of His own forthcoming Transfiguration which He terms the Glory of His Father and of His Kingdom.

The Evangelist Luke points this out and reveals this more clearly saying: "Now it came to pass about eight days after these words, that He took Peter and John and James, and went up the mountain to pray. And as He prayed, His countenance was altered, and His raiment became a radiant white" (Luke 9:28-29). But how can the two be reconciled, when one of them speaks definitively about the interval of time as being eight days between the sayings and the manifestation, whereas the other (says): "after six days?"

There were eight on the mountain, but only six were visible. Three, Peter, James and John, had come up with Jesus, and they saw Moses and Elias standing there and conversing with Him, so altogether there were six of them. However, the Father and the Holy Spirit were invisibly with the Lord: the Father, with His Voice testifying that this was His Beloved Son, and the Holy Spirit shining forth with Him in the radiant cloud. Thus, the six are actually eight, and there is no contradiction regarding the eight. Similarly, there is no contradiction with the Evangelists when one says "after six days," and the other says "eight days after these words."

But these twofold sayings as it were present us a certain format set in mystery, and together with it that of those actually present upon the Mount. It stands to reason, and everyone rationally studying in accordance with Scripture knows that the Evangelists are in agreement one with another. Luke spoke of eight days without contradicting Matthew, who declared "after six days." There is not another day added on to represent the day on which these sayings were uttered, nor is the day on which the Lord was transfigured added on (which a rational person might reasonably imagine to be added to the days of Matthew).

The Evangelist Luke does not say "after eight days" (like the Evangelist Matthew says "after six days"), but rather "it came to pass eight days after these words." But where the Evangelists seem to contradict one another, they actually point out to us something great and mysterious. In actual fact, why did the one say "after six days," but the other, in ignoring the seventh day, have in mind the eighth day? It is because the great vision of the Light of the Transfiguration of the Lord is the mystery of the Eighth Day, i.e., of the future age, coming to be revealed after the passing away of the world created in six days.

About the power of the Divine Spirit, through Whom the Kingdom of God is to be revealed, the Lord predicted: "There are some standing here who shall not taste death, until they have seen the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" (Mt.16:28). Everywhere and in every way the King will be present, and everywhere will be His Kingdom, since the advent of His Kingdom does not signify the passing over from one place to another, but rather the revelation of its power of the Divine Spirit. That is why it is said: "come in power." And this power is not manifest to simply ordinary people, but to those standing with the Lord, that is to say, those who have affirmed their faith in Him like Peter, James and John, and especially those who are free of our natural abasement. Therefore, and precisely because of this, God manifests Himself upon the Mount, on the one hand coming down from His heights, and on the other, raising us up from the depths of abasement, since the Transcendent One takes on mortal nature. Certainly, such a manifest appearance by far transcends the utmost limits of the mind's grasp, as effectualized by the power of the Divine Spirit.

Thus, the Light of the Transfiguration of the Lord is not something that comes to be and then vanishes, nor is it subject to the sensory faculties, although it was contemplated by corporeal eyes for a short while upon an inconsequential mountaintop. But the initiates of the Mystery, (the disciples) of the Lord at this time passed beyond mere flesh into spirit through a transformation of their senses, effectualized within them by the Spirit, and in such a way that they beheld what, and to what extent, the Divine Spirit had wrought blessedness in them to behold the Ineffable Light.

Those not grasping this point have conjectured that the chosen from among the Apostles beheld the Light of the Transfiguration of the Lord by a sensual and creaturely faculty, and through this they attempt to reduce to a creaturely level (i.e., as something "created") not only this Light, the Kingdom and the Glory of God, but also the Power of the Divine Spirit, through Whom it is meet for Divine Mysteries to be revealed. In all likelihood, such persons have not heeded the words of the Apostle Paul: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love Him. But to us God has revealed them through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God" (1 Cor.2:9-10).

So, with the onset of the Eighth Day, the Lord, taking Peter, James and John, went up on the Mount to pray. He always prayed alone, withdrawing from everyone, even from the Apostles themselves, as for example when with five loaves and two fish He fed the five thousand men, besides women and children (Mt.14:19-23). Or, taking with Him those who excelled others, as at the approach of His Saving Passion, when He said to the other disciples: "Sit here while I go over there and pray" (Mt.26:36). Then He took with Him Peter, James and John. But in our instance right here and now, having taken only these same three, the Lord led them up onto a high mountain by themselves and was transfigured before them, that is to say, before their very eyes.

"What does it mean to say: He was transfigured?" asks the Golden-Mouthed Theologian (Chrysostom). He answers this by saying: "It revealed something of His Divinity to them, as much and insofar as they were able to apprehend it, and it showed the indwelling of God within Him." The Evangelist Luke says: "And as He prayed, His countenance was altered" (Luke 9:29); and from the Evangelist Matthew we read: "And His face shone as the sun" (Mt.17:2). But the Evangelist said this, not in the context that this Light be thought of as subsistent for the senses (let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses). Rather, it is to show that Christ God, for those living and contemplating by the Spirit, is the same as the sun is for those living in the flesh and contemplating by the senses. Therefore, some other Light for the knowing the Divinity is not necessary for those who are enriched by Divine gifts.

That same Inscrutable Light shone and was mysteriously manifest to the Apostles and the foremost of the Prophets at that moment, when (the Lord) was praying. This shows that what brought forth this blessed sight was prayer, and that the radiance occured and was manifest by uniting the mind with God, and that it is granted to all who, with constant exercise in efforts of virtue and prayer, strive with their mind towards God. True beauty, essentially, can be contemplated only with a purified mind. To gaze upon its luminance assumes a sort of participation in it, as though some bright ray etches itself upon the face.

Even the face of Moses was illumined by his association with God. Do you not know that Moses was transfigured when he went up the mountain, and there beheld the Glory of God? But he (Moses) did not effect this, but rather he underwent a transfiguration. However, our Lord Jesus Christ possessed that Light Himself. In this regard, actually, He did not need prayer for His flesh to radiate with the Divine Light; it was but to show from whence that Light descends upon the saints of God, and how to contemplate it. For it is written that even the saints "will shine forth like the sun" (Mt.13:43), which is to say, entirely permeated by Divine Light as they gaze upon Christ, divinely and inexpressibly shining forth His Radiance, issuing from His Divine Nature. On Mount Tabor it was manifest also in His Flesh, by reason of the Hypostatic Union (i.e., the union of the two perfect natures, divine and human, within the divine Person [Hypostasis] of Christ, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity). The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon defined this Hypostatic union of Christ's two natures, divine and human, as "without mingling, without change, without division, without separation."

We believe that at the Transfiguration He manifested not some other sort of light, but only that which was concealed beneath His fleshly exterior. This Light was the Light of the Divine Nature, and as such, it was Uncreated and Divine. So also, in the teachings of the Fathers, Jesus Christ was transfigured on the Mount, not taking upon Himself something new nor being changed into something new, nor something which formerly He did not possess. Rather, it was to show His disciples that which He already was, opening their eyes and bringing them from blindness to sight. For do you not see that eyes that can perceive natural things would be blind to this Light?

Thus, this Light is not a light of the senses, and those contemplating it do not simply see with sensual eyes, but rather they are changed by the power of the Divine Spirit. They were transformed, and only in this way did they see the transformation taking place amidst the very assumption of our perishability, with the deification through union with the Word of God in place of this.

So also she who miraculously conceived and gave birth recognized that the One born of her is God Incarnate. So it was also for Simeon, who only received this Infant into his arms, and the aged Anna, coming out [from the Jerusalem Temple] for the Meeting, since the Divine Power illumined, as through a glass windowpane, giving light for those having pure eyes of heart.

And why did the Lord, before the beginning of the Transfiguration, choose the foremost of the Apostles and lead them up onto the Mount with Him? Certainly, it was to show them something great and mysterious. What is particularly great or mysterious in showing a sensory light, which not only the foremost, but all the other Apostles already abundantly possessed? Why would they need a transforming of their eyes by the power of the Holy Spirit for a contemplation of this Light, if it were merely sensory and created? How could the Glory and the Kingdom of the Father and the Holy Spirit project forth in some sort of sensory light? Indeed, in what sort of Glory and Kingdom would Christ the Lord come at the end of the ages, when there would not be necessary anything in the air, nor in expanse, nor anything similar, but when, in the words of the Apostle, "God will be all in all" (1 Cor.15: 28)? That is to say, will He alter everything for all? If so, then it follows that light is included.

Hence it is clear that the Light of Tabor was a Divine Light. And the Evangelist John, inspired by Divine Revelation, says clearly that the future eternal and enduring city "has no need of the sun or moon to shine upon it. For the Glory of God lights it up, and the Lamb will be its lamp" (Rev 21:23). Is it not clear, that he points out here that this [Lamb] is Jesus, Who is divinely transfigured now upon Tabor, and the flesh of Whom shines, is the lamp manifesting the Glory of divinity for those ascending the mountain with Him?

John the Theologian also says about the inhabitants of this city: "they will not need light from lamps, nor the light of the sun, for the Lord God will shed light upon them, and night shall be no more" (Rev 22:5). But how, we might ask, is there this other light, in which "there is no change, nor shadow of alteration" (Jas 1:17)? What light is there that is constant and unsetting, unless it be the Light of God? Moreover, could Moses and Elias (and particularly the former, who clearly was present only in spirit, and not in flesh [Elias having ascended bodily to Heaven on the fiery chariot]) be shining with any sort of sensory light, and be seen and known? Especially since it was written of them: "they appeared in glory, and spoke of his death, which he was about to fulfill at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:30-31). And how otherwise could the Apostles recognize those whom they had never seen before, unless through the mysterious power of the Divine Light, opening their mental eyes?

But let us not tire our attention with the furthermost interpretations of the words of the Gospel. We shall believe thus, as those same ones have taught us, who themselves were enlightened by the Lord Himself, insofar as they alone know this well: the Mysteries of God, in the words of a prophet, are known to God alone and His perpetual proximity. Let us, considering the Mystery of the Transfiguration of the Lord in accord with their teaching, strive to be illumined by this Light ourselves and encourage in ourselves love and striving towards the Unfading Glory and Beauty, purifying our spiritual eyes of worldly thoughts and refraining from perishable and quickly passing delights and beauty which darken the garb of the soul and lead to the fire of Gehenna and everlasting darkness. Let us be freed from these by the illumination and knowledge of the incorporeal and ever-existing Light of our Savior transfigured on Tabor, in His Glory, and of His Father from all eternity, and His Life-Creating Spirit, Whom are One Radiance, One Godhead, and Glory, and Kingdom, and Power now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Conundrum of the Real Live Preacher

[On July 1st I reported on the visits and impressions of the Real Live Preacher in various Orthodox churches in Texas during his sabbatical (see The "Real Live Preacher" Visits an Orthodox Church...And Loves It!). He says now in a recent interview that the voices in his head representing various eras of church history have left him in a state of confusion regarding his future ministry being unable to reconcile his progressive views on such issues as sin, sexuality, salvation, heaven and hell with the traditional Orthodox view which represents the view of the early Church. The article is reprinted below. -J.S.]

A REAL LIVE MODERN PREACHER

Terry Mattingly
August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON BUREAU: Terry Mattingly's religion column for 8/05/09

The Rev. Gordon Atkinson had few specific goals when he started planning his 13-week sabbatical from his duties at Covenant Baptist Church near San Antonio.

"I knew that I didn't want to be in charge of anything," said Atkinson, long known as the "Real, Live, Preacher" to those who read his intensely personal online journal (reallivepreacher.com).

"Preachers talk and talk and I wanted to get away from that. I didn't want to be a worship tourist, but I thought it would be refreshing to worship in some places where I was the person in the room who knew the least about what was going on."

It helps to know that Atkinson leads an unusual Baptist flock, a "contemplative Christian community" that holds spiritual retreats based on the writings of St. Francis of Assisi and men's fellowship meetings over beer and pizza. Covenant's belief statement stresses that the "fullness of the gospel cannot be contained in any one church."

While proud of his Baptist heritage, Atkinson said the "glory days" when "moderate" and "conservative" Baptists fought to control the old corporate machinery are long gone. Now, many congregations are experimenting with "emerging," "post-denominational" and "postmodern" identities and forms of worship.

Thus, Atkinson began his sabbatical by visiting the radical stillness of a Quaker gathering, a tradition that asks believers to remain silent until God inspires someone to speak. For 30 minutes, every cough, sneeze or stomach growl was audible.

"You have to lose a lot of your shame when you sit in silence with people," he wrote. "These sounds are not disturbing to the time of worship. Not at all. They are the delightful sounds of humans trying to be quiet. And we cannot. ... So even the sounds of people trying to be quiet are a part of the lesson."

A few Sundays later, Atkinson found himself swimming in words and symbols when his family visited an Eastern Orthodox sanctuary.

"It was like they were ripping raw chunks of theology out of ancient creeds and throwing them by the handfuls into the congregation," he wrote. "I heard words and phrases I had not heard since seminary. Theotokos, begotten not made, Cherubim and Seraphim borne on their pinions, supplications and oblations."

The experience, he concluded, was an "ADD kid's nightmare," with the "robes, scary art, smoking incense, secret doors in the Iconostas popping open and little robed boys coming out with golden candlesticks, chants and singing from a small choir that rolled across the curved ceiling. ... There was so much going on I couldn't keep up with all the things I couldn't pay attention to."

His family struggled, but Atkinson had tears in his eyes by the end of the nearly two-hour liturgy. After years of focusing on user-friendly ways to attract people to church, he was stunned to attend a service that -- much like the Quaker meeting -- placed intense demands on all the participants.

It was, he concluded, as if visitors were being told: "You don't know what Theotokos means? Get a book and read about it. You have a hard time standing for two hours? Do some sit ups and get yourself into worship shape. It is the Lord our God we worship here, mortal. ... THIS IS BIGGER THAN YOU ARE."

Atkinson was intrigued and eventually attended Russian, Greek and Antiochian Orthodox churches.

Nevertheless, by the end of his sabbatical this progressive Baptist preacher knew he had a problem. While Atkinson appreciated the symbols, rituals and sacraments he encountered, he also knew that he couldn't accept the doctrines that defined the worship, especially the Orthodox rites.

Simply stated, his views on sin, sexuality, salvation, heaven and hell were too modern. There was "no wiggle room" in the ancient doctrines and, Atkinson concluded, "I just couldn't buy all of it."

Now he is returning to his Baptist pulpit, while hearing choirs of voices arguing in his head representing many different eras of church history.

"What I don't know how to do is rank all of these voices and decide who has authority," he said. "Who is right and who is wrong? ... And I want to know, where does Gordon Atkinson fit into this whole picture? I know that I can't go back to the old Protestant, evangelical way that I was, but I don't know where I'm supposed to go now. This is a problem."

Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Britain's Secret Mission to Expose Scientology Leader as 'Fraud'

L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, uses his Hubbard Electrometer to determine whether tomatoes experience pain, 1968. Photo: HULTON ARCHIVE

British diplomats compiled evidence 30 years ago that the founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, was a "fraud", according to National Archive papers.

By Alastair Jamieson
August 6, 2009
Telegraph

Whitehall officials discovered the science-fiction writer, who invented a religion now followed by celebrities such as Tom Cruise, awarded himself a PhD from a sham college he had acquired in California.

The information was gathered in secret by workers at the British consulate in Los Angeles on behalf of the government, which feared a libel action following its 1968 decision to ban followers from entering Britain to visit the sect's headquarters in East Grinstead, West Sussex.

The documents show Britain was not alone in probing Scientology. The dossier of evidence, gathered during the 1970s, included the extraordinary claim by an American official that the sect had sent bogus doctors to hypnotise a legal investigator and declare him ‘mentally ill’ to thwart his inquiries into their activities.

The Department of Health files, many of which were classified until 2019, have been released by the National Archive following a Freedom of Information request by The Times.

They include a signed statement by former senior Scientologist, John McMaster, who said Hubbard and others faked ‘qualifications’ in Dianetics, the spiritual ‘science’ behind Scientology.

He said: "I understand it is asserted that L Ron Hubbard was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Sequoia University on February 10, 1953, in recognition of his outstanding work in the fields of Dianetics and Scientology and that the said degree was recorded with the Department of Education of the State of California.

“The position is L Ron Hubbard (and others) acquired premises somewhere in Los Angeles which they had registered as a university called Sequoia and immediately awarded each other doctorates.”

The inquiries were initiated by Whitehall officials who sent an urgent telegram from London to the British consulate in LA.

A reply on April 26, 1977 said: "After exhaustive enquiries we have now tracked down organisation named which was closed down by state authorities in 1971 and all documents impounded. The facts are that it neither has nor ever had approval and its status is not recognised in California ... It is a 'will of the wisp' organisation which has no premises and does not really exist. It has not and never had any authority whatso-ever to issue diplomas or degrees and the dean is sought by the authorities 'for questioning'.”

The archives also show that American officials were investigating the origins of Hubbard’s qualifications. A letter from the California bureau of school approvals about the Sequoia university states: "This institution has never been approved or recognised by this office. Repeated attempts have been made to obtain compliance with the legal requirements. None of these attempts have proved successful."

A further telegram of evidence, dated May 18, 1977 and written by Louis Sherbourne, of the British Consulate-General in Los Angeles, said: "We have now come up against the usual brick wall of missing files and silence, each and every person and organisation treading very warily for fear of a libel or slander action."

Mr Sherbourne added: "United States Internal Revenue Services tried hard to obtain firmer evidence but appear to have failed. A recent attempt to resurrect the enquiry resulted in all the papers from 1939 to 1963 being sent to Sacramento to the office of the State Attorney General.

"By 'an amazing coincidence' the Deputy Attorney General dealing with them was taken ill and after seeing some 'doctors' was retired 'due to his mental health'. My very incensed informant in the California Department of Education is convinced that the 'doctors' were scientologists who hypnotised him into mental ill-health and he feels very bitter but can do nothing about it."

A spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology told The Times that the suggestion Scientologists had hypnotised a deputy attorney general was "simply reflective of how astronomically paranoid they were”.

See also: Scientology's Ugly Truths Revealed

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Panoramic View of Pilgrimage Sites in the Holy Land

On the official website of the Jerusalem Patriarchate known as Romiosini, there is presented an impressive panoramic view of various holy shrines in Israel that I encourage everyone to take a look at:

http://www.romiosini.org.gr/0f5d4c0a.en.aspx

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Protestant Takes A Retreat At Saint Savvas Monastery In Israel

Saint Savvas Monastery

A PROTESTANT STUDENT TAKES HIS RETREAT AT MAR SABBA MONASTERY

MR. TOM MEYER, A STUDENT OF THEOLOGY AT RATISBONNE SCHOOL, REPORTS ON HIS IMPRESSIONS ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE AT ST. SABBAS MONASTERY

Gregorian (4-8-2009) / Julian (22-7-2009)

As 21st century war jets fly over the monastery of Mar Sabbas nestled in the cliff face of the Kidron Valley in the Judean wilderness, little has been altered in the daily life of the monks here over the past 1500 years. I was given the distinct privilege to abide with them in almost every way for three days and three nights, for no Protestants are normally permitted to lodge or worship with them. The foundations of the original ascetic lifestyle remain intact in this cradle of monasticism; no women, no electricity, no running water, no communication with the outside world; the same liturgy, icons and apophatic theology. Since Constantine made Christianity the official Roman religion in the 4th century, the anchorities have been regarded by the Church as "taking the place" of the martyrs, as they daily die to self, guarding their free-will against falling prey to the passions and vices of the soul. Their aim is to be found in John 17:21, to be like Christ who is one with the Father, in the wilderness overcoming temptations with the wild beasts and the Spirit ministering to them. Their central idea is the pillar of Orthodoxy, a theosis, a deification of self, the transformation of man into the image of God. The monks preserve and spread the apostolic faith through worship, liturgy, monasticism, and missions.

As I arrived from Jerusalem on January 1, 2009 I was greeted at the heavily fortified entrance and given a brief tour of the complex by a Russian monk in broken English, viewing the tomb of the desert fathers Sabba and John of Damascus. St. Sabba founded the site in the late 5th century while living in a cave opposite the existing monastery, when in a vision he saw a pillar of fire and found a cave behind it oriented to the east which would become the main sanctuary; today it is called the chapel of Saint Nicholas. The entire site is extraordinarily clean and well maintained with remains visible from the Byzantine period to today. The monks do not use standard Greenwich time but ancient Roman/Byzantine time as in Scripture (....in the 6th hour he was crucified...Luke 23:44...aka noon). The food served to me was to be eaten apart from the 30 monks because I am a Protestant. The food served was a hearty portion of cold stew consisting of no meat but potatoes and vegetables, with bread, salad, fruit and wine. Their daily life consists as follows. The day begins at 2:00 a.m. with a three hour service in the chapel of St. Nicholas. I was permitted to partake in the entire service save the Sacraments. The large cave is shrouded in darkness being only lit by candles with 800 year old icons and the bones of desert martyrs decorating its walls. While at Mar Sabba I finished memorizing the book of Revelation, and it was in this service that I was first able to tell the entire book to myself from heart. The monks are awoken one hour prior to the service by a loud bell ringing 33 times, then again moments before the service starts they are summoned by the sound of a hammer knocking on wood, reminding them of Noah calling the beasts into the ark to save them from doom. As the monks enter the ark of the church their procedure is to individually venerate various icons by bowing to them and kissing them, as well as the 136 skulls of the martyrs. They believe the bones not only retain their story but the Holy Spirit. The service is conducted entirely in Greek with reading from the Septuagint and their liturgy, culminating with the Sacraments. From 5:00 to 8:00 a.m. is a time of prayer and rest save for those who prepare the main and only meal of the day served at 9:00 a.m., save for the weekend when there are two meals served daily. From 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 pm is a time of work and study. From 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. is the evening Vespers service which is a time of prayer, singing and reading that begins in the narthex of the other main chapel, the Church of the Annunciation. The monks would not permit me to venerate the icons and during the service I first had to stand out of the chapel in the entrance way, out of paradise, but on the second day I was kindly invited into the chapel with them. Following Vespers there is a one hour break till the 30 minute evening prayer service starting at 5:00 p.m., which is followed by a time of devotions by the Abbot to his flock of which I was excluded. From 6:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. is a time of prayer, meditation and rest.

The three days and three nights I stayed with the monks was everything I imagined but nothing I expected, for seeing something is different than being told about it. The living conditions would be considered good for desert anchorites. The 110 rooms in the lavra are small 11 feet by 11 feet, but warm and decorated. Each room has one bed, desk, and lamp with three blankets, and a tub of well water to wash their hands and their feet. After the first day I felt very welcome by most of the monks, especially the five who spoke some English and developed a real affinity with them. The monks were very curious about America and its new president and considered these days the birth pangs. I was scheduled to stay seven days but only stayed three, for I based my decision on the unwritten rules of hospitality, not wanting to wear out my welcome, and the fact that I did not want to invade their high holy Christmas services. This was advantageous as they asked me to return to them, and next time to bring some maps of the Holy Land.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Russian Priest Andrei Nikolayev and Family Burned Alive; Officials Blame Victims

A Russian Orthodox cross marks the spot where Andrei Nikolayev, a priest, and his family burned to death in December 2006 in Dalekushi, Russia.

By Tom Lasseter / McClatchy Newspapers

DALEKUSHI, Russia — The fire consumed the priest's body, charring bones and flesh, and raged for hours. The bodies of his wife, Oksana, and their children, 10, 7 and 5, lay close to Andrei Nikolayev's corpse in the ashes of their simple gingerbread house in the Russian countryside.

A government investigator suspected arson, and many observers blamed the family's deaths on drunks who broke into churches looking for icons to sell for vodka money. It was rumored that Nikolayev, worried that his church wasn't safe from burglars, kept money and relics at his home, townspeople said.

Some two and a half years after the December 2006 fire, no one has been arrested or charged. Russian officials, without citing any evidence, now blame the victims.

Nikolayev had been on a mission to save a small corner of his country from population decline, alcoholism and other ills. He was 32 when he died about a month before the Russian Orthodox Christmas holidays.


Acquaintances said that Nikolayev, who'd arrived in the mid-1990s to serve Dalekushi and nearby villages separated from each other by hayfields and connected by dirt roads, was determined to make a difference. He'd grown up in Kuvshinovo, about 16 miles to the west, where workers at the paper mill earn a few hundred dollars a month.

His church, Holy Trinity, a once-grand neoclassical building flanked by sets of white columns, was falling apart. Opened in 1836 on a feudal estate, with lush landscaping and ponds, the church near Dalekushi was converted to a Communist Party youth camp in the 1930s, then used as a milk-processing plant, a recreation center and finally as a storehouse for fertilizer.

Nikolayev began raising money to repair the building. His sermons implored villagers to stop drinking. It wasn't a popular message.

Less than two months before his death, Nikolayev sat before a TV studio audience in Moscow with his shoulder-length brown hair and goatee, wearing a black robe with a large gold cross. TVTs, a channel controlled by the Moscow city government, had invited him to talk about the dangers of alcoholism.

Nikolayev said he'd fought off seven robbery attempts at his church.

"I had to defend it — forgive me — with a rifle in my hands," he said.


Footage showed him walking past the ruins of his old house near Dalekushi, which had been burned to the ground about a year earlier — by drunks, Nikolayev told friends at the time. If he hadn't taken his family on an outing that night, the priest said, his wife and children would have been killed.

"It's very difficult to live in this village," he told the audience. "It's especially difficult if you are a priest and you have a family. . . . I have always been terribly concerned about my family."

A senior federal fire inspector said the blaze that incinerated the Nikolayevs was probably arson. After national, and then Western, news media reported the story and its suggestion of Russia's decline, officials clammed up. Unnamed officials started blaming an electrical problem or murder-suicide by Nikolayev.

When a McClatchy reporter visited Dalekushi, the government administrator in charge, Alexander Volkov, said: "The priest burned down his own house from the inside."

However, Vera Davidova, a neighbor, said that on the night of his death, Nikolayev was out in the road in front of his house, happily waiting for his children to get home from a market.

The spokeswoman for the regional investigative committee of the prosecutor's office that's handling the incident, Karina Beketova, had no comment. She didn't say whether there's an ongoing inquiry.

Like others in the village, Davidova wouldn't speculate about who might have killed the priest. She did mention that a lot of poor people needed cash for alcohol.


One woman who knew Nikolayev when he was studying to become a priest said that he'd recently confided that his family had been getting threats.

Asked who was responsible for the intimidation campaign, and perhaps for the priest's death, Zinaida Zhirnova said: "Everyone there gets drunk, so it's hard to know who was threatening him."

See also:

Rural Russia Dying of Poverty, Neglect and Alcoholism

Russia In Decline: Gallery

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Documentary of Saint Herman of Alaska

A very interesting glimpse into the story of Saint Herman of Alaska and the intercultural exchange between Russia and Alaska in the 18th and 19th century. There is also excellent footage of places associated with the life of St. Herman. This film won the 2007 Goldie Award Winner - Best Use of Video and the 2008 Fairbanks Film Festival - Jury Prize.

The Relics of St. Herman of Alaska(1 of 3)


The Relics of St. Herman of Alaska(2 of 3)


To view Part 3 you must request a copy of this documentary at the following email address: seanbledsoe@yahoo.com

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Feast of the Procession of the Venerable Wood of the Cross From August 1 - 14

In the Greek Horologion of 1897 the derivation of this Feast is explained:

"Because of the illnesses that occur in August, it was customary, in former times, to carry the Venerable Wood of the Cross through the streets and squares of Constantinople for the sanctification of the city, and for relief from sickness. On the eve (July 31), it was taken out of the imperial treasury, and laid upon the altar of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia (the Wisdom of God). From this Feast until the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, they carried the Cross throughout the city in procession, offering it to the people to venerate. This is the Procession of the Venerable Cross."

Throughout the period of the Dormition Fast beginning on August 1 through the 14th we simultaneously celebrate the Feast of the Procession of the Venerable Wood of the Cross. Unlike the September 14 observance, this commemoration is considered to be a minor feast in comparison and significance, but it does have the bringing out of the Cross and veneration by the faithful like the September feast. It is the first of three "Feasts of the Lord" in the month of August, the other two being the Transfiguration (August 6) and the Icon of Christ "Not Made by Hands" otherwise known as the Holy Mandylion (August 16).

It should be noted that in the Russian Orthodox Church, this feast also celebrates the Baptism of Russia which occurred on August 1, 988. In the "Account of the Order of Services in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Great Church of the Dormition", compiled in 1627 by order of Patriarch Philaret of Moscow and All Rus, there is the following explanation of the Feast: "On the day of the Procession of the Venerable Cross there is a church procession for the sanctification of water and for the enlightenment of the people, throughout all the towns and places." Knowledge of the day of the actual Baptism of Rus was preserved in the Chronicles of the sixteenth century: "The Baptism of the Great Prince Vladimir of Kiev and all Rus was on August 1."

It is customary to have a crucession (a procession headed by the Cross) and celebrate the Lesser Blessing of Water on August 1. Because of the blessing of holy water, this holy day is sometimes called "Savior of the Water." The Greeks perform this ceremony on the first of every month, but the Russians do it on August 1 specifically to commemorate the baptism of the Russian people. There may also be celebrated on this day the Rite of Blessing New Honey, for which reason the day is also referred to as "Savior of the Honey".

According to Saint Nikolai Velimirovich in his Prologue explanation of this feast, he adds a few additional significant meanings to this feast:

"This feast was instituted by a mutual agreement of the Greeks and Russians at the time of the Greek Emperor Manuel and the Russian Prince Andrew in commemoration of the simultaneous victories of the Russians over the Bulgarians and the Greeks over the Saracens [in 1164]. In both of these battles, crosses were carried by the armies from which heavenly rays shone. It was therefore instituted that, on August 1, the Cross be carried first to the middle of the Church of the Divine Wisdom [Hagia Sophia] and after that, along the streets for the people to venerate as a commemoration of the miraculous help of the Cross in previous battles. This was not an ordinary cross but the true Honorable Cross which was kept in the church of the imperial court. On July 31, the Honorable Cross was carried from the imperial court to the Church of the Holy Wisdom of God and from there it was carried along the streets for the consecration of the earth and the air. Finally, on August 14, it was again returned to the church of the imperial palace."

Though there are some truth to the words of St. Nikolai concerning the origins of this feast in Russia, in actuality this feast dates much earlier for the Romans of Constantinople. This is clarified by Bulgakov who describes this miraculous event that happened at the same time between two Orthodox armies as a seperate feast from the older Procession of the Venerable Cross. In fact, we know that the origin of the Feast of the Procession of the Venerable Cross goes back to the 9th century or earlier. Russia began to celebrate it at the beginning of the 15th century. The commemoration of the mutual victories of the Russian and Roman armies with the aid of the Cross dates back to the date of the actual battle in 1164.

To better understand the origins and rubrics of the celebration of this feast among the Romans of Constantinople, I refer you to the following information provided within the excellent article by Holger A. Klein titled Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople. He writes:

"The Persian invasion of Syria-Palestine in 614 and the Arab conquest of Jerusalem in 637/38 resulted in a number of important relic translations during the reign of Emperor Herakleios (610-641) and changed Constantinople’s status as a repository of sacred relics for centuries. As suggested by the Chronicon Paschale, the relic of the Holy Lance, Sponge, and the True Cross from Jerusalem were recovered from the Persians during the fall of 629, transferred to the capital, and exhibited for public veneration in the church of Hagia Sophia for several days. While Emperor Herakleios, according to some sources, triumphantly returned the relic of the True Cross from Constantinople to Jerusalem and exalted it in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on 21 March of the following year, the unexpected loss of the Holy City to the Arabs soon necessitated the relic’s transfer back into the capital, where it was now safeguarded by the emperor and kept inside the confines of the imperial palace.

"The forced relocation of the ‘larger part’ of the relic of the True Cross from Jerusalem to Constantinople and its presumed deposition in the imperial palace not only ensured the Empire’s safety and prosperity for the future, it also re-affirmed the emperor’s role as the guardian and protector of Christianity’s most sacred treasure. While a smaller portion of the relic, associated with Constantine the Great and set in a bejeweled processional Cross, had already been used in imperial processions in the beginning of the sixth century, and is known to have preceded the imperial army on military campaigns during the reign of Emperor Maurice, it was the alleged return of the True Cross from Jerusalem that effectively transformed Constantinople into a ‘New Jerusalem’ and the imperial palace into a locus sanctus at the heart of the Empire. The possession of the True Cross not only reinforced the emperor’s divine mandate but also rendered him the most important distributor of relics of the True Cross in the Christian world, a position future emperors would eagerly exploit in building political alliances with Christian rulers and potentates in Western Europe.

"Where the relic of the True Cross from Jerusalem was originally kept cannot be determined with certainty. In the second half of the seventh century, when Bishop Arkulf visited Constantinople on his way back from the Holy Land, a portion of the relic was, at least for the time of its public veneration during Holy Week, kept inside Hagia Sophia in a 'very large and beautiful chest [...] to the north of the interior of the building.' Arkulf’s testimony has often been considered as an indication that the main relic of the True Cross had, by the seventh century, been entrusted to the care of the Patriarch. Judging from later accounts, however, it is more likely that the relic of the True Cross from Jerusalem and the so-called ‘Cross of Constantine’, first mentioned by Theodore Anagnostes, were both safeguarded inside the imperial palace, presumably in the skeuophylakion, and removed only temporarily for specific liturgical and ceremonial functions. As recorded in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos’ Book of Ceremonies [10th cent.], important relics of the True Cross were still kept in the skeuophylakion of the imperial palace during the tenth century and taken out on specific feasts and occasions. One such feast was a six-day-long festival celebrated in mid-Lent that included a public display and veneration of the relic of the True Cross inside Hagia Sophia and a related imperial ceremony performed in the palace.

"According to the Book of Ceremonies, celebrations started on the third Sunday of Lent in the skeuophylakion of the imperial palace. Between the third and sixth ode of Orthros [Matins], the 'three glorious and life-giving Crosses', were removed from the treasury, embalmed by the protopapas, and taken to the Nea Ekklesia, to be venerated by all. After Orthros was concluded, the Crosses were taken to the gallery of the church, where the clergies of the Nea and the imperial palace jointly intoned the troparia of the Crucifixion. At this time, the emperor and his co-emperors were given the opportunity to venerate and kiss the precious and life-giving relics. Then, the three Crosses were separated from each other. Accompanied by the clergy of the Nea, a deacon carried one of them back down to the main level of the church to be displayed for further veneration. The second Cross was taken over by the papias of the Great Palace, who, accompanied by the palace clergy, the protopapas of the church of St. Stephen, and the diaitarioi of the palace, carried it in festive procession through the Heliakon [of the Chrysotriklinos] and from the Chrysotriklinos into the Lausiakos, where it was displayed for the veneration by members of the senate. The Cross was then taken to the Church of the Protomartyr Stephen in the Daphne palace, where it remained over night. On the following day, the papias took the relic to Hagia Sophia, where it was displayed for veneration by the faithful during the rest of the week. The third Cross never left the gallery of the Nea. After none on Friday, when public venerations had ended at Hagia Sophia, the papias and the clergy of the Nea brought the respective Crosses back into the palace. Finally, between the third and sixth ode of Orthros on Sunday, the protopapas and the skeuophylax returned all Crosses to the skeuophylakion.

"What is striking about this description is not only the fact that, by the tenth century, three Crosses of the glorious and life-giving Wood, were kept in the skeuophylakion of the imperial palace, but also that these relics were employed in a complex ceremony that involved their display in three distinct locations within the imperial palace – the Nea Ekklesia, the Lausiakos, and the Church of St. Stephen – as well as in the church of Hagia Sophia.

"Another, closely related ceremony involving the True Cross is described in the Book of Ceremonies for the week before and the two weeks following August 1. Once again, the ceremony started between the third and sixth ode of Orthros in the skeuophylakion of the palace. After the relic was embalmed, it was taken to an unspecified church within the imperial palace, where it was displayed for veneration by the emperors. The relic was then taken to the Lausiakos, where it was set up to be venerated by the members of the senate. Afterwards, the Cross was taken to the church of St. Stephen, from where it was carried through each of the quarters of the capital to 'cleanse and sanctify all places and houses of the God-guarded and imperial city; and not only the buildings, but also the walls of the city and its suburbs.' When the relic returned from its journey on August 13, it was first brought to the Chrysotriklinos and placed on the imperial throne. Then, the papias, accompanied by the protopapas and the clergy, took the relic through the rooms of the imperial palace to cleanse and sanctify them as well. For a short while thereafter, the relic was kept in the oratory of St. Theodore, before the papias carried it back to the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos after Vespers. Here, the relic was received by the skeuophylax of the palace and returned to the treasury between the third and sixth ode of Orthros."

Apolytikion
O Lord, save Your people, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victories to the Orthodox and over their adversaries; and preserve your habitation by virtue of Your Cross.

Kontakion
As You were voluntarily raised upon the Cross for our sake, grant mercy to those who are called by Your Name, O Christ God; make all Orthodox Christians glad by Your power, granting them victories over their adversaries, by bestowing on them the invincible trophy, Your weapon of peace.

HYMN OF PRAISE TO THE HONORABLE CROSS OF CHRIST
by Saint Nikolai Velimirovich

(for the Feast of the Procession of the Venerable Cross)

The Honorable Cross of Christ
Before it, all honorably prostrate,
By the power of the Cross of Christ
From temptation, we are redeemed.
The Holy Cross is mightier than the demons
And from every earthly king,
From sickness, the Cross saves
And from the assaults of barbarians.
Prince Andrew, by the power of the Cross
Enslaved lands, saved;
King Manuel, by the power of the Cross
The Saracens, gloriously destroyed.
From the armies of pagans,
From the tyrannical conquerors,
From all evils demonstrated that
The power of the Cross is mightier.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Troubling Aspects of Catholic Marian Apparitions

Below are a few links which reveal the troubling aspects of the various Marian apparitions of the Latin Church, especially those of Medjugorje which is even opposed by the Vatican, and why Orthodox Christians should avoid them and not give devotion to them. Various perspectives are given and I do not necessarily endorse every view point, but the information is valid to help form your own conclusion regarding these events which are fundamentally opposed to Orthodox Marian devotion. Especially consider the fact that the Medjugorjian visions occurred on the same Hill of Vision that was the site of a massacre of Orthodox Christian Serbs by Roman Catholic Croats in 1941. Consider also the visions of Fatima and Lourdes are a direct attack on Orthodox teachings of the Virgin Mary and that of Fatima especially seeks justification to bring Papal authority to the Russians and other Orthodox formerly living under Communist conditions.

Visions Outside the Church

The Marian Apparitions: Divine Intervention or Delusion?

Journey to Medjugorje

Mary-Making in Herzegovina: From Apparitions to Partitions

The Myth of Medjugorje

Marian Apparitions and the Yugoslav Crisis

Medjugorje, Successful Satanic Cult

THE TRUTH ABOUT MEDJUGORJE

Globalization and Medjugorje

Medjugorje -- A False Apparition

Medjugorje Deception or Miracle?

Politicizing the Virgin Mary: The Instance of the Madonna of Medjugorje

The Medjugorje Hoax

The Troublesome Priest of Medjugorje

Vatican Denounces Group's Claim of Seeing the Virgin Mary More than 40,000 Times as 'work of the devil'

The Appearances At Fatima And ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THE FATIMA APPARITION

The Vatican and Russia

Former Soviet Country Celebrates Lourdes Apparitions (This is unfortunate!)

The Most Holy Mother of Jesus (This also is unfortunate, along with a creepy "Agni Parthene" being chanted in the background)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr