A Lesson For Wives...

Husband Jumps in River to Escape Nagging

Ananova
August 8, 2009

A Chinese lorry driver jumped into a fast-flowing river because he couldn't take his wife's nagging anymore.

Zhou and his wife were on a ferry on the Yangtze River when it all became too much for him, reports the Chongqing Evening Post.

Members of the ship's crew saw the man suddenly run out of his cabin with his hands covering his ears, and shouting: "I can't stand it any longer."

They initially thought he was suffering from an ear injury and went to help him but found he was unhurt.

"While we were still puzzling over the this, his wife ran up and continued nagging him," said one crewmate.

"The husband covered his ears again and said: 'I need a break' before jumping over the side into the rushing river.

"We immediately found lamps to light up the water but found nobody. The possibility of survival can be zero."

However, later that night, police found the man who had managed to swim more than a mile across across the broad river.

"I felt I was dying, but even that's better than my wife's nagging," he reportedly told the police.

The couple were reunited the following morning at the local police station where Zhou's wife promised to give up her habit of nagging him.

---------------------

In related matters: Optimism Appears To Lower Women's Risk Of Death, Heart Disease

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (1/7/1921 – 1/7/2009): A Brief Biography

[The video above is a beautiful ten minute documentary (in Greek) on the life of Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi produced by the fathers of Vatopaidi Monastery. Below is a word for word translation I made to accompany the video. Of special interest is a rare live video of Elder Paisios as well. - J.S.]

Elder Joseph, insignificant according to the world, was born in Drousia, a small village in the district of Paphos on the island of Saints [Cyprus], on July 1st 1921. His mother Evgenia gave birth to her little child when she was seven months pregnant at the Monastery of the Holy Unmerceneries in Giolou on the feastday of these Saints. The mother thought the child had died, yet he lived. The infant received the name Socrates upon being baptized.

Little Socrates was closely raised by his peasant parents living from a young age the hard life. When he succeeded in finishing the fourth grade of Elementary School, he was needed to do field work. Until he was fifteen years old he remained in his village.

In 1936 he followed a divine calling and entered the Sacred Monastery of Stavrovouniou with the blessing of his parents. There he was tonsured a rasophoros monk and given the name Sophronios. He lived ten years in the Monastery and with the urging and blessing of Elder Kyprianos [Cyprian], spiritual father of the Monastery, he departed for the Holy Mountain after a brief visit to the Holy Land.

In the beginning of 1947 he entered the Skete of Saint Anna with certain compatriots who were living the monastic life there, but in the summer of the same year he met with the blessed Elder Joseph the Hesychast. Monk Sophronios understood the spirituality and holiness of Elder Joseph the Hesychast and requested to become his novice. The blessed Elder in the beginning denied his request, but after he received a "notice", he allowed him into his brotherhood.

There in the kalyva of the Precious Forerunner of Saint Anna's he was tonsured with the Great Schema and received the name Joseph on the Saturday of Lazarus (April 11/24) in 1948. In 1951 the brotherhood moved to the hesychastic cells of New Skete near Pyrgos. The blessed Elder Joseph the Hesychast fell asleep in holiness on the day of the Dormition of the Theotokos in 1959. Our ever-memorable Elder Joseph satisfied the deepest desires of his soul near the great Elder Joseph.

Our Elder Joseph lived co-ascetically with Fr. Theophylaktos in the cell of the Holy Unmerceneries of New Skete from 1951 until 1959. Afterwards they moved to the abandoned section of New Skete where he built with his own hands a wooden kalyva where he lived in asceticism another eight years; and in 1967 he moved to the neighboring kalyva of the Annunciation of the Theotokos from which his spiritual brother Elder Ephraim (who became abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Philotheou) along with his brotherhood departed to live in the cell of Saint Artemios in Provata.

At the invitation of Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios and the exhortation of the fathers of the Sacred Monastery of Koutloumousiou our Elder Joseph left New Skete in 1974 and became spiritual father of the Monastery until 1977.

After receiving advice from the blessed Elder Paisios he moved to Cyprus and lived in the Sacred Monastery of the Precious Cross in Minthis. On March 25, 1978 he was enthroned as abbot. There he gathered into his brotherhood the now Metropolitan of Limassol Athanasios and the Abbot of our Monastery Elder Ephraim.

On October 26, 1981 he returned to Mount Athos with his brotherhood and lived in the Simonopetrite cell of the Annunciation of the Theotokos in Kapsala until April 23, 1982, at which time he moved again to the Sacred Monastery of Koutloumousiou. In August of 1983 he lived again in the kalyva of the Annunciation of the Theotokos at New Skete. There his brotherhood grew and on April 23, 1987 at the invitation of the Elders of the Sacred Monastery of Vatopaidi he came to the Monastery with a portion of his brotherhood. In October of 1989 the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to move the entire brotherhood to the Monastery to receive its governance. On April 16/29, 1990 the creation of the Coenobium took place as well as the choosing and enthronement of the first abbot of the Coenobium, Archimandrite Ephraim. Elder Joseph was and remained the spiritual father of Vatopaidi Monastery until his falling asleep, which occurred on July 1, 2009.

Our Elder Joseph continued the spiritual work which he received from his Elder, and lived as a hesychast till the end of his life. He sought obscurity. He did not seek worldly praise or glory. He endured humbly, meekly and without grumbling all scorn, contempt, disgrace, criticism and slander. He had "compassionate pity" and his heart received and forgave all, because he gave room within himself for Christ.

In his sixteen books, which he left us as a spiritual inheritance, he wrote on and interpreted issues relating to "praxis and theoria". He tried to lead monks and laity to Christ and inspired them in the "good fight". He especially emphasized the infinite ocean of God's love and compassion for mankind, who receives the repentant and returning sinner. He uncovered the dangers and deceptions of the eternal enemy of mankind, the devil, especially hitting on the discouragement which in our days comes from him. He spoke with passion about the promises of God, about sonship and deification which those of "sure faith" desire from this present life, but the fullness of which will be given in eternity.

These heavenly goods, of which the Apostle Paul says: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (2 Cor. 2:9), we have the assurance that the blessed Elder is now a recepient.

May we have his blessing.

From the Sacred Monastery of Vatopaidi

(Translated by John Sanidopoulos)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Miracle of the Russian-Georgian Conflict of 2008

Orthodox Cross in Tskhinvali Suburbs Helped Stop Georgian Attack Last Year

Moscow, Russia
August 6, 2009
Interfax

Rector of the Church of Our Lady’s Nativity in Tskhinvali, Fr. Georgy Dzhioyev, told how an Orthodox Cross helped stop the aggressor in one sector of the battle during Georgian attacks against South Ossetia.

The cross was consecrated a few days before the war unleashed and was set at the entry point to the city, the Vesti TV channel has reported.

“When Georgians tried to storm the city, they thrice came up to the cross and thrice turned around. Advance detachments told in their radio talks that holy angels blocked their way when they were coming up to the guard cross,” Fr. Georgy said.

It was not the only sign in the zone of Georgian-South Ossetian conflict that helped stop Georgian militants.

“During the last events in South Ossetia, when the two armies stood off against each other ready to contact battle, Georgians threw back their heads, then turned around and ran from the field. They told that a woman silhouette appeared in the sky above the church,” co-chairman of the expert working group on miraculous signs at the Theological Commission of the Russian Church Academician Pavel Florensky said.

According to him, Russians thought it was the Mother of God while Georgians believed it was St. Nina - the heavenly protector of Georgia.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Rita Wilson: Why I Love My Greek Orthodox Faith

Friday August 7, 2009

In a video interview with Sally Quinn, producer of "On Faith" at The Washington Post, actress and producer Rita Wilson (one half of a Hollywood celebrity super couple with Tom Hanks) shares why she loves the Greek Orthodox faith ("I love my church. I find the Greek Orthodox Church a sort of a wonderfully moderate, accepting faith."), her brief period as a reborn Christian during her teenage years, and what gives her life the most meaning.

Some highlights from the interview include:

When you were growing up, were you always a believer?
I've always been a believer. I always have been.

What do you pray for or about?
I always start my prayers with a prayer of gratitude for all the blessings in my life because without those, you can't really think about anything else.

What is the sense of the divine for you?
In church...in nature...I sense the divine in the goodness that I see in people--their acts of kindness, their acts of selflessness; those people inspire me.

Watch the extended video interview below or here:

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Muslims Abduct Two Christian Coptic Girls in Egypt

By Mary Abdelmassih
7-30-2009
Alexandria, Egypt
Assyrian International News Agency

Mrs. Samira Markos, who lives in Alexandria, sent an appeal to Egypt4Christ advocacy, pleading with them to rescue her daughter from forced Islamization. The mother said that her daughter Amira Morgan (born 9/9/1992) was abducted on 7-18-2009 on her way to work in the plastics factory near their home.

Egypt4Christ sent one of its members in Alexandria to verify the mother's plea and met with one of the family relatives who corroborated the story. "At 10 o'clock of the same morning someone called me and asked if I was Amira's mother. He introduced himself as Sheikh Mohammed, and said that my daughter is fine and will convert to Islam," the mother said. "When I cried and begged him to let me have my daughter back, he said he would let me see her again after her conversion to Islam, and ended the call. I tried calling that cell phone back several time, but there never was a reply."

The mother went to El-Sennin Mosque in her neighbourhood at 1.30 PM, after the Muslim noon prayers, and asked a bearded man emerging from the Mosque regarding Sheikh Mohammed, he laughed and said they have more than fifty Sheikh Mohammeds.

"When I started to cry at the Mosque entrance, one of them came to me and said 'Listen, mother of Amira, I am warning you not to report the abduction to the police or do anything, the price will be your son Meena (9 years old) being slaughtered in front of your own eyes. I am not threatening, I'm talking seriously.'" He further said "Listen, your daughter Amira will convert to Islam next Friday, and we are now preparing her for that. Now go home and stay indoors until everything is quietly over."

After getting this message, Samira said that she was filled with terror, went home quickly and took her son Meena and escaped from the whole region, to somewhere unknown.

Samira Markos lives in Alexandria alone with her two children, Meena and Amira; her husband has been working in Libya for the last ten years.

"All the Muslims in our neighbourhood know about the abduction. I could not get hold of my husband, and even my Christian friends have abandoned me as they are afraid of the Salafis who are in complete control of the region." Salafi is the name of a movement or sect in which Muslims try to imitate their Prophet Mohamad in every aspect of life. Salafism emphasize the laws and punishments of Islam, and has been equated by some with radicalism and terrorism.

Another episode of Coptic female abduction took place on 7-22-2009, also in Alexandria, when 18-year old Ingy Basta went to repair her cell phone in the Nozha Airport area, and was never seen again. Her father reported the case to the police on 23/7/2009 but she has not been found yet. Ingy was be engaged on Sunday 7/26/2009 to a Coptic man.

Egypt4Christ believes that Ingy was abducted by the same Muslim group which operates in the Nozha Airport area of Alexandria. On 28/5/2009 their Imam falsely accused a Coptic young man of stealing the donations box from the Zawiya corner (prayer room) of El-Nour Mosque, after he refused to convert to Islam. Maged Saad was found innocent of this theft by the court.

Ms Rasha Nour, Head of Egypt4Christ warns that the Alexandria Governorate has become full of intolerance towards Christians, which could lead to a sectarian strife at any time because of the "gangs of Islamization," who fill all the neighborhoods in Alexandria. "Those gangs are headed by a group of Sheikhs who are backed by the police authorities, but mainly the State Security in El-Faraana, downtown Alexandria," says Rasha. "One of these is Sheikh Hassan Saber Khalil who is well known to all the police officers. There are other Sheikhs whose names we reserve and will expose if needed."

The first to report (AINA 7-18 2009 http://www.aina.org/news/20090718111414.htm) on the lucrative business of the 'brokers' of Islamization of Christians, was the independent Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr (the Dawn) in its May 19 2008 issue, citing the city of Alexandria as an example. Al Fagr reporter Tamer Salah-el-Din highlighted how the operation, which is funded by Muslim businessmen, is carried out with the collusion of State Security and Mosque sheikhs. The 'trading rates' cashed by brokers for each Christian male and female conversion to Islam, at the time of writing this report, was 7000 Egyptian pounds for males and 6000 for females. The rates for Coptic girls fluctuate depending on how good-looking she is and her family's social status.

See also the following links to show these threats are serious:
-Muslim Burns a Young Copt Alive and Murders His Father Because of a Rumor!!!
-U.S. Copts Association

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Wild Interview With Troy Polamalu

Troy with his newborn son Paisios, named after Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

[I mean "wild" in a good way. Troy Polamalu, the star safety of the NFL Championship winning Pittsburgh Steelers, continues to not give his sports fame his top priority in interviews. Instead he continually takes every opportunity to speak about what really matters in his life: being a witness for his Orthodox faith and a model husband and father. It is really refreshing to hear one of America's greatest sports figures speak from his heart, which is not only with his family but also on Mount Athos and the various monasteries of his spiritual father Elder Ephraim here in America. I will only post the first two pages of the interview, but the entire thing deserves a read here, as well as a prior post I made here. - J.S.]

The Mane Man

By Gina Mazza
Pittsburgh Magazine
August 2009

On this sunny So-Cal day, Pittsburgh Steelers safety Troy Polamalu graciously postpones his morning workout to ruminate about not just football - but life and what's most important in it. I narrow our chat to three topics.

Football is a given: How was this year's Super Bowl experience versus XL? Tomlin versus Cowher? Goals for the coming season?

Fatherhood is new in Polamalu's life since the birth of his son, Paisios, named after a beloved contemporary Greek Orthodox monastic, Elder Paisios, on Oct. 31, 2008. Has daddy-dom been life-changing? Will he encourage his son to play professional sports? How's that beautiful new mom doing?

And last but not least: Faith. In order to properly meet Polamalu where he lives, this is the requisite, the grounding force that gives meaning to everything he does, every play he makes. Polamalu's evident gratitude to the one who made him is marbled throughout our talk - from his training regime to his travels to Mount Athos, a monastic site in Greece, a place he calls "heaven on earth."

While he has a reputation for being one of the NFL's fiercest players, Polamalu would prefer "Tasmanian angel" over "Tasmanian devil" because his ball game is about glorifying God. "Football is part of my life but not life itself," he says. "Football doesn't define me. It's what I do [and] how I carry out my faith."

Whether shooting a Coke Zero commercial or running up the sand hills on Manhattan Beach to train - which he's probably off to do after this interview - Polamalu, 27, is refreshingly modest and introspective, choosing his words as precisely as he picks his spots on the gridiron. He's intense when the occasion calls for it, and reveals with ease the depth of his character while philosophizing about matters outside the huddle. At the same time, there's a lightness about Polamalu that gives you the impression that he's not taking himself or his high-profile lifestyle too seriously.

Even after the Steelers gave him the biggest contract in team history, more than $30 million, extending him through 2011, nothing major has changed in the Polamalus' lives. They're still in the same house. He still trains with the same trainer. The number of commercial endorsements has increased as his popularity has soared, but Polamalu is cautious not to let this encroach on family time. The Polamalus live simply and quietly.

On Fatherhood

Has becoming a father changed your life?
I think becoming a parent encourages people to change their lives, but even before I was a father, I had an interest in bettering myself as a husband and as a person. The intensity is greater when you have a child, but I've always tried to be conscious of myself. In that sense, not much has changed in how I view my life. Obviously there's another member of our family. The cool thing is that I'm able to bring my son when I work out, so training takes a lot longer!

Eight months old and already training?
Yeah, he sits and watches me. I think it's important for a child to see his parents work. One day, God willing, he'll be able to see a nice house, a nice car, good food - things that I didn't have growing up. It's important for him to realize that these things are obtained first of all through the grace of God but also through hard work. I come from [a childhood] where I would put every condiment imaginable on my cheeseburger just so I could feel more full. There's value in that struggle. Parents don't want their kids to experience that, but honestly I want my kid to experience that. I think parents have a tendency to give their kids everything they didn't have. In turn, they grow up lacking important qualities - like courage and perseverance. If you grow up with any type of wealth or anything that is just given to you, you [may] lack these qualities. But first of all, it's most important for Paisios to have a spiritual foundation.

You view your parental role as being a role model spiritually as well?
As a parent, I don't want to talk out of both sides of my mouth; I don't want to act a certain way and be another way. Not everybody has a material struggle, but everyone has a spiritual struggle. So with my son, it's important for him to first understand the spiritual struggle and, as a result of that, know how to [deal with] the physical struggles that he has in his life - whether it's dealing with not enough or too much of something.

So it's a matter of being an example?
I think talking is overrated. Anybody in the world can talk about doing anything. The hardest thing is to do it. It's important for my son to understand, for example, why we pray, why we go to church. It's important for him to grow up in an atmosphere of watching us do it, to understand that nothing is given to you in life. Everything must be worked at in order to be obtained - whether it's something material or it's salvation.

If Paisios had the calling to become an Orthodox priest and not a fullback, you'd be elated?
Of course. Obviously the [athletic] pedigree is there in my family and my wife's [and] people give me a hard time: "Troy, man, what if your son's not a good athlete, or he grows up and he's not big?" But I say, "How big do you need to be in order to be a priest?"

You're not saying, "I want my son to grow up and be an athlete."
No, not at all. I would like him to play sports because there are important lessons to be learned through sports - those qualities of perseverance, courage, hard work and ethics.

How is your wife, Theodora, adjusting to being a mom?
Oh, she's the best. It's given me a whole new perspective on my wife. Obviously, she's had a lot of responsibility in dealing with me and my inadequacies. But now, to watch her wake up every night and feed him . . . you know, as a mother, you kind of give up your whole life. Obviously, I'm able to still do what I do. I play football. I do things that surround football. I get to train.

Some dads are naturals and others don't know how to react once the baby is home. Do you feel comfortable in this role?
Oh yeah. I want to feed him, play with him, do all those fun dad things. We go swimming in the ocean. He's crawling, but he's not surfing yet.

Do you do diapers?
Oh, I hand him off to Grandma for that.

What is your greatest wish for your child?
Without a question, my greatest wish would be for him to understand the spiritual struggle and to be a pious Orthodox Christian. That's what I want for myself, as well. Sometimes parents want their children to be what they never were. And that's one thing that I am gracious for Paisios to have: that he's able to grow up in the Orthodox church around monastics and priests that I was never able to experience as a kid - to grasp that, not take it for granted and really culture that.

Do you and Theodora still find time to garden, even with your new addition?
Yes, we're growing tomatoes, broccoli, sunflower seeds, oregano, basil, sage, peppermint.

Still growing orchids?
I've tried but I don't have enough patience for orchids. They're so sensitive. Here's what happened recently: It's funny, I spent all last year trying to nurse this orchid to health. Finally spring comes along and I thought, I give up, I'm putting it outside. A month later, I come back to Pittsburgh and guess what? I look outside and it's blooming like crazy! I can't do what only God can do.

Polamalu with his wife, Theodora, and their son, Paisios, on the field at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Fla., after the Steelers won Super Bowl XLIII.

On Faith

How would you define the spiritual struggle you referred to earlier?
It's the struggle of good and evil, and with that comes the struggle with greed, jealousy, materialism, sexual morality, pride, all these types of struggles that we face every day, in every second of the day.

Your faith continues to evolve. In the past few years, you formally converted to Greek Orthodox. Where do you worship?
My wife and I go often to a Greek Orthodox monastery in Saxonburg [Nativity of the Theotokos], a monastery in Arizona, and several parishes in Pittsburgh. We like the monastery because it's most serene there and we can talk to the monastics. To see their daily struggles really fascinates me.

What intrigues you about the monastic life?
For me, faith is to be simple in this way. If anybody believes in God and believes in the Holy Bible, how can you be in any grey area? I'm talking about myself here, how can "I" think one way and do another way? To me, Christianity is very black and white. Either you take it serious or you don't take it serious at all. The monks' example to me is that they take salvation seriously in every facet of their lives. This is a model for me as a Christian and for my family on how to live our lives.

Can you give an example of what inspires you?
There are so many, and I don't mean to imply that everybody needs to live like a monk in order to be saved. For the Greek Orthodox monks, examples would be: they wear beards to cover their face so they're not vain; they don't have mirrors because they don't want to look at themselves from being vain; they wear black because black is humility; they seldom talk because they don't want to be proud or arrogant; they keep their eyes down because they don't want their eyes to wander; they pray constantly.

The struggle between good and evil is very materialized with them. A lot of people have an understanding of this but it's really just an oral proclamation that there is good and evil. To the monks, it's hard as rock. It's something they grasp daily. This is what I see in them and it amazes me: they've taken their struggle so seriously and in turn there's so much grace in it. When you sit down with these monks, so much peace and love exudes from them.

Their faith is their passion. It makes me wonder if some day you might have that same calling.
I don't think that everyone is meant to be a monastic. There are people who are meant to be married and those who are meant to be monastics. However, they are examples to us of how to live a pious life.

On my own spiritual path, I've felt at times that there's a certain allure to that serene, sequestered lifestyle.
Yes, but I think it's an understatement to say that their struggle is more intensified because their path is more intensified. There are tons of stories about these monks who have physical battles with these demons that fight them. It's like, oh my goodness. In turn, they live in God's grace so much that you think, no way, how can they have such angelic lives? Like the monks on Mt. Athos in Greece - this place is heaven on earth, there's so much grace there. For 1,500 years, this place has been devoted solely to Christian spirituality. It's untouched. Not even women are allowed there.

This is the place you visited two summers ago while on a pilgrimage?
Yes. There's an amazing monk who lives in Arizona - Abbot Ephraim, my spiritual father. He's the epitome of Mt. Athos brought to America.

What's the most important thing you've learned from him so far?
That you cannot have an experience of God without humility.

Read the rest here.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

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