The Epoch of Orthodoxy – an interview with Abbot Ephraim of Vatopaidi

[The website of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Dalmatia offers on its English page a translation of an interview with Abbot Ephraim of Vatopaidi Monastery. The translation is a little rough around the edges and I made some grammatical corrections, but it is interesting to read nonetheless. The abbot gives brief answers to a variety of questions. - J.S.]

On the 19th of May this year, a meeting occurred between students of Moscow theological schools and the Abbot of the Athonite Monastery of Vatopaidi, Archimandrite Ephraim. The Vice Dean for Education, Abbot Bassian (Zmejev) received and greeted this respected guest.

This was not the first meeting of this kind, since Abbot Ephraim had already noticed immense interest in Russian people for Athonite spiritual experience.

THE EPOCH OF ORTHODOXY

Today we live in really hard times; man is trying to exist in an extremely boisterous atmosphere – in an obscure and meaningless atmosphere. Modern Europe has nothing much to do with Christianity, since European people received a fake Christianity. The Europeans refuse to believe in God preached by their parents, and their souls find no rest. They are trying to find something deeper. In other words, they are trying to find Orthodoxy. They can learn Orthodoxy from those who properly worship God. The main task of seminaries and theological academies is to witness an Orthodoxy that people are searching for. Studying in theological schools, we have to express gratitude to our Lord, because He made us worthy of finding the school with rich spiritual Tradition; He made us worthy of living in an Orthodox milieu; He made us worthy of having joy in outer freedom, and what is even more important – in inner freedom, i.e. freedom of the heart.

THEOTOKOS – PATRONESS OF MONKS AND ASCETICS

The meeting with Father Ephraim occurred on the feast day of St. Micah, pupil of St. Sergius of Radonezh.

It is well-known that St. Micah was a witness of St. Sergius’ vision of the Most Holy Theotokos. That vision expresses Her special care for monks. On Mount Athos, numberless and very frequent are events when She teaches, comforts, supports and brings brothers to reason. The Most Holy Theotokos is respected as Patroness of all Athonites and all monks in general. That is why St. Gregory Palamas called Her the first nun after Her Son, who is unceasingly praying for us. It is not by accident that She, having recognized the fullness of divine grace, prayed for Mount Athos to become Her Garden. She rejoices to see monks and their spiritual prosperity. The Most Holy Theotokos rejoices to see people labouring for their salvation. Studying of theology calls upon a very cautious attitude toward one’s life, so that we can gain Her protection.

A VIEW OF SPIRITUAL LIFE

As for spiritual life, it is of extreme importance to keep chastity and sobriety, so that our mind can constantly be with God. Only in that way can we keep His Commandments through which our Lord Jesus Christ is being revealed. When we keep His Commandments, the sin is being cast aside and replaced with our thirst for God. When man yearns for God, he is constantly trying to keep the Commandments and to pray. His mind is enlightened with godpleasing prayer; he is starting to see his own sinfulness. Being in that state, the mind does not fall into despair and does not lose its courage, but starts to repent and eradicate sin. Repentance brings grief, which is not melancholy, but joyful sorrow. Man than starts to cry. Those tears are a gift of Holy Spirit. When one has such tears, he avoids committing sins by deed, and then by words or thought. Through contemplation, his mind turns to God. Not only does he see his own sinful life, but he clearly sees the influence of Divine Providence. That is the state when man turns from the beginning degree of faith to the degree of visible faith. Everyone who follows that path will feel the fulfillment of Christ’s promises.

THE CHURCH

The Orthodox Church is not a Church of some ideology, thinking or philosophy. It is the Church of spiritual experience. When a man dedicates himself to God, he yearns only for His Kingdom and His justice, and others will be added.

QUESTIONS OF STUDENTS AND FATHER EPHRAIM’S ANSWERS

About Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi – pupil of Elder Joseph the Hesychast

Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi is a man of God. His mind is so fortified in God that he does not speak about anything which is of this world. Having enormous love towards God, he longs to die.

What is the Difference Between the Monk - Professor Relationship in Seminaries and Theological Schools?

In theological schools there can not be so much obedience, as in monasticism. The dean of a school is not an elder (spiritual father). But students have to respect him and to fulfill his commandments. Unlike monks, students can not have obedience according to his heart. Furthermore, obedience to one’s authority must not be hypocritical; one must not reproach authority in his heart.

On Russian Spiritual Chant

Contemporary Russian chant is not ancient. Old unison Russian chant is more prayerful. Byzantine chant is more pleasant and spiritual. But, chant is of secondary importance; the most important is – a clean heart.

On the Jesus Prayer Loudly Uttered

Such practice is being kept on Mount Athos and in the Monastery of Vatopaidi as well. Elder Joseph the Hesychast used to say that in this way the mind can easier accept its meaning. It helps a monk to keep his attention. Uttering of this prayer reduces or completely removes inquietude: “lips simply move your mind”. Then comes the moment when man can not say the prayer with his lips, since it transforms in a more perfect form – prayer of the heart.

On Conflicts between Greek and Russian Monks on Mount Athos

Because of man’s infirmity, some conflicts really did occur. There are some silly Greeks, and silly Russians. As Father Ephraim said, these kind of people collide, but there is love among Russian, Serbian, and Greek people and all inhabitants of Mount Athos. There is real life in Christ also.

What Do Athonite Monks say about the Last Days?

Well, nowadays it is modern to speak about antichrist. Satan attacks from the left and from the right: he advises man either not to take care of the end times, or he tries to convince him that the end of time comes tomorrow. People apt to think about the End Times are afraid of everything, and that can bring only spiritual harm. A great number of such advice is not godpleasing. A true Christian has to take care about the moment of his death – our death is our Last Day. Be devoted to our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Church that keeps the Tradition will inform us about the antichrist, and She is the One that will tell us what to do.

What are Characteristics of a Modern Priest?

Well, his love towards Christ must be endless. Elder Paisios used to say: “If a priest is truly pious and not avaricious, he has eighty percent chance to be successful; but if he loves God, than his chances are one hundred percent guaranteed.”

How Can One Actuate Children to Love Christ?

That can be achieved by condescension, patience and prayer. Elder Porphyrios used to say: “Let us not speak much about God to our children. They can not stand many words. The point is to tell God about our children.” Our youth will have much use from modern monasticism. Regardless of whether one will become monk or not, in a true monastery atmosphere, young people turn to God for a pretty short period of time. They simply think about many things.

On the Spiritual Life in the World

Neither marriage nor monasticism is our purpose; theosis is our purpose. There is no so-called monastic or worldless spirituality. Patristic teaching is one and refers to all. The only difference between the two is the physical relationship that exists in marriage. Everything else is the same. Everyone must face (ascetic) struggle. Everyone can do prayer, services, liturgy, confession and Holy Communion. Asceticism is common for the whole Church. There are families that pray together; they read the Lives of the Saints in their dinning rooms; children seek blessing from their parents; and they kiss their hands. In a word, such families live like monks.

On the Novitiate on Mount Athos

Divine Providence calls someone to become a monk. For that reason novices are being separated, so they can overcome their trials. If monasticism is their way, they stay. Sometimes enthusiasm and outer feelings can induce man to become a novice, but those cannot endure the monastic way of life. A spiritual elder is the one who helps that inward and spiritual progress in a person.

On Holy Communion and Prayers Before Holy Communion

There are some monks that confess every day. Monks receive Communion four times a week – on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. On other days, there is a strict fast – food is prepared without oil; and on Saturdays food is prepared with oil. In our monastery, sometimes even ten liturgies are served every day and every monk knows when he can receive the Holy Communion. In Greece, Holy Communion has nothing to do with Holy Confession. If a man did not commit deadly sins that can not be absolved, then he can receive the Holy Communion. Holy Communion comes from love of the heart; it is straining of one’s heart. A prayer before Holy Communion is the Canon Before Partaking Holy Communion. Indeed, canons do exist, but their fulfillment must not be taken as a law. As for preparation before Holy Communion, there must be no constraint. The same can be said for the fast. A man is obliged to fast according to the fasting period prescribed by the Church; there is no special fasting rule for the receiving of Holy Communion.

On Miracles Nowadays on Mount Athos

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Some time ago a miracle occurred in the Bulgarian Monastery Zografou. Namely, an icon was miraculously taken by the Holy Martyr George to one of the Monasteries churches. But the greatest miracle is – the Church with Her Holy Mysteries.

On Russian Saints who are Venerated on Mount Athos

Well, there are many of them that are venerated on Mount Athos: St. Paisios Velichovsky, St. Sergius of Radonezh, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Maximus the Greek (who lived in Vatopaidi), St. Luke of Simferopol, Righteous John of Kronstadt. On Mount Athos there are numerous relics and icons of Russian Saints.

On Iconography – monastic or lay work

Generally speaking, iconography is a monastic occupation; according to condescension, the laity can also be iconographers. An iconographer must fast, must pray and keep vigil. Of course, iconography is not forbidden for pious lay people. There are many lay persons who work in Vatopaidi; for example, they do the wood carving. All in all, there is one thing that is important; and that is to have the fear of God.

About Archimandrite Sophronius Saharov

Father Sophronius is absolutely a man of God. Some Athonite monks like to call him the ”new Gregory Palamas”. As for Father Sophronius, my personal experience witnesses that he was a blessed man, full of divine grace.

On St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

In Vatopaidi Monastery, the works of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov are read. St. Ignatius is a man of prayer, soberness; in a word, he is a ”complete Athonite monk”. We can say that, because Mount Athos is not a place; it is a way of life. Therefore, everyone can be called an “Athonite monk”.

http://www.eparhija-dalmatinska.hr/

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Secret History of Satan

By W. Scott Poole
October 30, 2009
Religion Dispatches

The Devil created by American culture is made in the image of American culture; our beliefs about Satan are part of a theological narrative that has shaped religion, pop culture, and even, in some cases public policy.

Ten Questions for W. Scott Poole on Satan in America: The Devil We Know

What inspired you to write Satan in America? What sparked your interest?

I’ve joked that I wouldn’t have had to write a book about Satan if my parents had let me go see Ozzy back in 1985. I’m not sure I’m entirely kidding since I grew up in the 1980s when, as I describe in the book, the culture was seized with what scholars call “the satanic panic.” Evangelicals’ insistence that dark powers are at work everywhere in the culture has always had a huge fascination for me, and this book gave me the opportunity to trace the background of that fascination.

What’s the most important take-home message for readers?

I hope readers come away with two things. First, that American popular religion and popular culture have tended to influence one another in very strange, but very real, ways. The 1973 film The Exorcist has had enormous influence over how everyone from Pentecostal “deliverance ministers” to Roman Catholic priests understand exorcism. Billy Graham, in a famous sermon in 1974 where he insisted that demonic presences lived in the very celluloid of the film, went on to describe demonic possession in exactly the same way the film had done.

Second, I hope to point out that America’s historic sense of its own innocence and righteousness, and the concomitant belief that its enemies represent the demonic Other, helps explain our historic obsession with Satan. The book’s examination of the strange byways of American belief about the Devil is really a brief filed against the whole notion of American exceptionalism, the idea that we are somehow exempt from the terror and the moral complexities of history.

Is there anything you had to leave out?

Yes. In fact, my original conception was a book almost twice as long. My publisher felt, obviously, that a three-hundred-page book would be much more accessible than the almost six hundred pages I envisioned. This means I didn’t get to spend as much time on Satan in American literature as I had hoped (though there are long sections on important figures like Hawthorne and Twain).

I think that I probably would have also, in a longer book, spent even more time on folklore, especially urban legend. I did manage to include a discussion of the Jersey Devil that connects those stories to misogynistic assumptions about women and their bodies. Readers will also find a discussion of the Proctor and Gamble legend that still gets recycled, the bizarre rumor that an unnamed P&G executive appeared on a talk show (at one time the claim was it was The Phil Donahue Show, later it became Oprah) and asserted that P&G gave part of their profits to the Church of Satan. This falsehood has circulated for a couple of decades and really has only abated in the last few years. There are lots more of those urban legends out there and I wish I had had the space to fit them, and an analysis of them, into the book.

What are some of the biggest misconceptions about your topic?

Darren Oldridge, a major scholar of the European witch hunts, published a book recently called Strange Histories that details some of the more peculiar beliefs held by people in the medieval and Renaissance periods and tries to explain them in their historical context. He says at one point that the book is not to be read as a “freakshow of misconceived opinion.” I feel the same way about my work. I’m fearful that it will be read by some educated liberals as simply a catalog of bizarriana rather than a study of a theological narrative that has shaped American religion, pop culture, and even, in some cases public policy.

The book makes the case that a significant number of Americans believe in the same Devil believed in by Puritan preachers and 19th-century evangelists. This cannot be dismissed. Its essential to understand why this is so, what historical conditions gave rise to this phenomenon and what does it tell us about the United States.

Did you have a specific audience in mind when writing?

I had several groups in mind, all of which I think will be interested and challenged by the book. For example, I am fascinated by the growing number of pop culture addicts who want to examine how their interest in fantasy, science fiction, horror, and the fantastic in general connects to theology, popular religion, and the sacred more generally. There is a real and growing audience out there for this approach as evidenced by Gary Laderman’s book Sacred Matters, Joseph Laycock’s very interesting study Vampires Today, and sites like John W. Morehead’s Theofantastique that examines the borderlands between theology, horror, and the sacred.

I also aimed the book at scholars of American religion in general. I think that they will find it useful to pair the book with some of the new cultural studies of Jesus in America by Stephen Prothero or Richard Wrightman Fox. I think that scholars of American religion will find that looking at beliefs about the Devil opens up a new way of seeing old topics, from the Great Awakening to the twentieth-century decline of mainline churches.

Are you hoping to just inform readers? Give them pleasure? Piss them off?

All three. The more you learn about how the Devil has been used in American history, the more pissed off you will be. I really try in the book to argue that beliefs about the American Devil are linked to constructions of true womanhood; true religion and fervent patriotism have ended in hatred, oppression, marginalization and persecution. This stuff should piss you off and if it doesn’t, to paraphrase the old saying, you are not paying attention.

I do think that those who enjoy and consume vast quantities of pop culture will get a lot of pleasure out of this book (while they are possibly getting pissed off as well). Fans of everything from the blues to Buffy the Vampire Slayer will enjoy the weird angle on their favorite cultural obsessions.

What alternative title would you give the book?

I wanted to call it American Satan: A Secret History. I thought this conveyed the sense that this is a cultural history rather than a theological work of some kind (its my great fear that some will think the book is the latter). My publisher really pushed for the title change and I understand why—it’s striking and conveys the sense that the Devil created by American culture is made in the image of American culture.

How do you feel about the cover?

I do love the cover. I hope readers note that there is a Highway 666 that runs through several western states. Not surprisingly, hosts of urban legends have grown up around it.

Is there a book out there you wish you had written?

Definitely Stephen Prothero’s American Jesus: How the Son of God became a National Icon. I obviously love this kind of national history, and it amazes me is how he manages to write not only a history of Jesus in American culture, but really a new kind of history of American religion that is challenging enough for scholars but also accessible to undergraduates and the general public. It’s an amazing work. Frankly, anything Prothero has ever written would be my pick.

What’s your next book?

I plan to continue my collaboration with dark powers. In fact, I am, hopefully, not yet done with Satan. I am in very early talks with an accomplished documentary filmmaker about turning the book into a film or perhaps a documentary series. It’s too soon to pass along any details, but I am hopeful.

For my next book, I plan to examine the role of the monster in American history and try to consider what American beliefs about monstrosity tell us about things like American conceptions of sexuality, disease, religion, and race. I’ve given some thought to focusing primarily on popular culture—maybe a focus entirely on film.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Egyptian Christians Fear More Muslim Violence

November 1, 2009
By Mary Abdelmassih
Assyrian International News Agency

Egypt (AINA) -- Egyptian security forces have intensified their presence in the Upper Egyptian town of Dairout, in anticipation of a recurrence of Muslim violence against Christians. Copts expressed their fear over leaflets entitled "These have to Die!" which are being distributed to all Muslims in Dairout and neighborhoods, enticing them to "burn, vandalize and clean the country of these evil immoral infidels."

Reports from Dairout, 313 km south of Cairo, confirm that Christian Copts are afraid to leave their homes and have stayed indoors since violence against them erupted on October 24, 2009. This collective punishment of Copts was caused by an illicit sexual relationship between a Muslim girl, Hagger Hassouna, and the Christian Romany Farouk Attallah. It was rumored that he sent videos of them intimately together to cell phones in Dairout before fleeing. This prompted the Hassouna family to kill his father, Farouk Attallah, on October 19, 2009, in revenge. Four of the Hassouna killers were detained by prosecution, leading to Muslim riots against the Copts (AINA 10-27-2009) .

According to Wagih Yacoub of the Middle East Christian Assosiation (MECA), Muslim-owned businesses are now displaying stickers with 'Allah Akbar' (Allah is Great) to differentiate between them and Coptic-owned businesses, as a form of pre-planning for a forthcoming wave of Muslim violence.

Handwritten leaflets (Arabic) have been circulated among Muslims in Dairout for the last two days; they call on Muslims to unite to take revenge for their religion and honor, claiming that Hagger Hassouna is innocent and that she was forced into vice, and "all Jews and Christians should come to learn that Muslim honor is precious." The fliers state that Muslims are the masters of the world since beginning of times until the present day, and entices them to "burn and vandalize and clean the country of the evil immoral infidels."

It also calls on Muslims to take revenge for the "rings of prostitution" which are the churches and in particular the church in the village of Ezbet Hanna. Those specifically named to be killed are Reverend Pavlos of the Church of the Virgin Mary, Coptic lawyer Gamal Youssef, two brothers who own an optometry practice, and a Copt who owns a beauty saloon and photography shop.

Muslims are asked to die for their honor and they will be rewarded with eternal paradise. "Do not say it is a matter of just a girl, no, it is a public and a serious issue, it is the biggest issue, it is Islam's issue." A transcript of the the leaflet (in Arabic) is published on Copts United website.

A video that surfaced yesterday entitled "Revenge for Honor," showing a half-naked girl, assumed to be a Copt, is being distributed all over Dairout on cell phones. Ezzat Aziz of Copts United reported on the contents of the video of the assumed Coptic girl by saying "Details of the video shows the fear experienced by the girl as four Muslim men were undressing her." According to Aziz the video seemed to have been shot in a secluded house and the girl was threatened to get undressed and was begging her captors to let her go as she was tired. She was half-naked, but refused to take off the rest of her clothes. The men repeatedly asked her if she "knew the Dairout Girl."

Comparing the videos, Aziz said that the first (of Hagger Hassouna) shows "a girl who knew what she was doing" while the second (of the assumed Coptic girl) was of "a girl forced to undress." Aziz did not say whether the Coptic girl was named in the video, but he mentioned that the four men forcing her to undress proudly gave their full names.

Coptic websites have refused to publish the video of Hagger Hassouna, saying it would be incompatible with Christian ethics.

On Saturday, October, 31 the four Muslims accused of killing Farouk Attallah are expected appear in court again. A repeat of the Muslim mob violence which took place on October 24 is anticipated should prosecution extend their detainment once again.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Truth about the Disappearing Honeybees

26 October 2009
by Marcelo Aizen and Lawrence Harder
New Scientist

A movie called Vanishing of the Bees opened in cinemas across the UK earlier this month. It's a feature-length documentary about the "mysterious collapse" of the honeybee population across the planet - a phenomenon that has recently attracted a great deal of attention and hand-wringing.

The idea that bees are disappearing for reasons unknown has embedded itself in the public consciousness. It is also a great story that taps into the anxieties of our age. But is it true? We think not, at least not yet.

First, the basics. Pollination by bees and other animals - flies, butterflies, birds and bats - is necessary for the production of fruits and seeds in many wild and cultivated plants. More than 80 per cent of the planet's 250,000 species of flowering plants are pollinated by animals.

Agriculture is a large-scale beneficiary of these pollination services, so claims that pollinators are in decline have triggered alarm that our food supply could be in jeopardy, that we may be on the verge of a global "pollination crisis".

Claims of such a crisis rest on three main tenets: that bees are responsible for the production of a large fraction of our food; that pollinators are declining worldwide; and that pollinator decline threatens agricultural yield. Numerous scientific papers, many media stories and even a European Parliament resolution in 2008 present each of these as an uncontested truth. But are they?

Our analysis of data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reveals a different perspective on the pollination crisis - one that is less catastrophic than that depicted in the movies (Current Biology, vol 18, p 1572, and vol 19, p 915).

The first tenet - that bees are responsible for the production of a large fraction of our food - is simply untrue. Pollinators are important for many crops, but it is a myth that humanity would starve without bees.

Pollinators are important for many crops, but it is a myth that humanity would starve without bees

About 70 per cent of the 115 most productive crops, including most fruits and oilseeds, are animal-pollinated. These account for nearly 2.5 billion tonnes of food a year, about a third of global agricultural production. However, few of these crops depend on animal pollination completely, owing largely to their capacity for self-pollination.

On top of that, production of many staple foods does not depend on pollinators at all: carbohydrate crops such as wheat, rice and corn are wind-pollinated or self-pollinated. If bees disappeared altogether, global agricultural production would decrease by only 4 to 6 per cent.

What of pollinator decline? Claims of global bee disappearance are based on collections of (often extreme) regional examples, which are not necessarily representative of global trends. These examples tend to come from parts of Europe and North America where little natural or semi-natural habitat remains.

Stocks of domesticated honeybees, the most important crop pollinator of all, have also decreased considerably in the US and some European countries in recent decades. However, these declines have been more than offset by strong increases in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Indeed, the number of managed honeybee hives worldwide has increased by about 45 per cent in the past five decades.

There have also been scare stories about "colony collapse disorder" and the spread of Varroa mites in the US and Europe. Again, these are real phenomena, but they are short-term blips rather than the driving forces of long-term trends. Instead, the long-term declines seem to be consistent with the economic dynamics of the honey industry, which seems to be shifting to developing countries in search of cheaper production.

Finally, does a low abundance of pollinators significantly affect agricultural productivity? It is true that a lack of pollinators, especially bees, can limit the yield of many crops and wild plants. It is also true that the yields of many pollinator-dependent crops have grown more slowly than that of most non-dependent crops. However, contrary to what we would expect if pollinators were in decline, the average yield of pollinator-dependent crops has increased steadily during recent decades, as have those of non-dependent crops, with no sign of slowing.

Overall, we must conclude that claims of a global crisis in agricultural pollination are untrue.

Pollination problems may be looming, though. Total global agricultural production has kept pace with the doubling of the human population during the past five decades, but the small proportion of this that depends on pollinators has quadrupled during the same period. This includes luxury foods such as raspberries, cherries, mangoes and cashew nuts. The increased production of these crops has been achieved, in part, by a 25 per cent increase in cultivated area in response to increased demand for them.

This expansion may be straining global pollination capacity, for two reasons. Demand for pollination services has grown faster than the stock of domestic honeybees, and the associated land clearance has destroyed much of the natural habitat of wild pollinators.

The accelerating increase of pollinator-dependent crops therefore has the potential to trigger future problems both for these crops and wild plants. These problems may grow as decreasing yields of raspberries, cherries and the rest prompt higher prices, stimulating yet more expansion of cultivation. So although the current pollination crisis is largely mythical, we may soon have a real one on our hands.

Marcelo Aizen is a researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina

Lawrence Harder is a professor of pollination ecology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

St. Hilarion of Meglin and the Bogomil Heretics

St. Hilarion of Meglin (Feast Day - October 21)

Saint Hilarion, Bishop of Meglin, was born of eminent and devout parents. His childless mother had long prayed to God that He grant her a child, and in accordance with her prayer, the Most-holy Theotokos appeared to her and comforted her with the words: ``Do not grieve, you will give birth to a son and he will turn many to the light of truth.'' When Hilarion was three years old, the hymn, ``Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth!'' was constantly on his lips. He was well-educated, was tonsured a monk at age eighteen, and founded a monastery based on the Rule of St. Pachomius. In 1134, he was consecrated Bishop of Meglin by Eustathius, Archbishop of Trnovo. St. Hilarion led a great, nearly lifelong struggle against the Bogomils and the Armenian heretics. However, by his spiritual learning and unequaled sanctity he put them all to shame, and drew many of them to Orthodoxy. He reposed peacefully, and took up his abode in the Kingdom of His Lord in the year 1164.

St. Hilarion of Meglin's lifelong struggle and contribution to the Orthodox church was against the Bogomils. In refuting their teachings, Hilarion said:

"You are not Christians at all, since you are hostile to the Cross of Christ the Savior. You do not acknowledge the One God, you slander the teachings of the Old Testament venerated by Christians. You deceive people by hypocritical meekness while full of pride. True piety is not possible in those who do not see their own heart's corruption, but by those who ask God's grace with prayer and humility. Evil thoughts, envy, vanity, greed, lies are not the deed of some evil thing within man to be conquered by mere fasting. These vices are the fruit of self-love which demands rooting out by spiritual efforts."

At one time, the leaders of the Bogomils met with Hilarion and began to debate with him about faith. The Bogomils taught that God created the spiritual world and that the devil created the material world. To this, Hilarion replied to them that in Holy Scripture it is written: "For God is the King of all the earth" (Psalm 47:7) and also "The earth is the Lord's and all its fullness" (Psalm 24:1). The Bogomils claimed that the Old Testament is of the devil. To them, the Saint replied: ``If the Old Testament indeed proceeded from the devil would Christ have said, 'Search the Scriptures … they are they which testify of Me' (John 5:39), and would He have acknowledged as the greatest commandments those about love toward God and one's neighbor which, at one time, were given through Moses?'' The Bogomils also claimed that the body of Christ was brought from heaven. To this, St. Hilarion replied to them that had it been so, then the body of Christ would have felt neither hunger nor thirst, nor weariness nor suffering, nor would it have been susceptible to death. The Bogomils then expressed their disapproval of the sign of the Cross which Orthodox Christians use. The Saint replied to them: ``And what will you do when the sign of the Son of Man, His Cross, appears in the heavens, and when all nations of the earth who do not believe in the Cross will weep?'' And he also said to them: ``How is it that you say that all evil is from evil material, and meanwhile you do not reverence that Wood by which the whole material world was sanctified?''

Because of Hilarion's prayers and exhortations, many of the Bogomils abandoned their teachings and converted to Orthodox Christianity.

It is noted in the thirteenth century Markianos Code, Codex 524, that during his burial service, myrrh streamed continually from his eyes and that he later appeared on many occasions in visions to the monks of the monasteries to strengthen them in their monastic duties.

The transfer of the relics of St. Hilarion, Bishop of Meglin, to the Bulgarian city of Trnovo, occurred between 1204-1206, by the Bulgarian Tsar Ioannis Asanis to the Church of the 40 Saints. Prior to this event, the body of the saint rested in the city of Meglin.

Apolytikion to St. Hilarion in Tone 8
The barren wilderness thou didst make fertile with the streams of thy tears and by thy deep sighing thou hast given fruit through thy struggles a hundred-fold. Accordingly, thou hast become a star for the universe, sparkling with miracles. Therefore, O righteous Father Hilarion, intercede with Christ God to save our souls.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodoxy and Halloween: Separating Fact From Fiction

"Man should not be upset about the blasphemies of the devil, but only about his personal sins, and to hope in God's boundless mercy, for where hope in God is absent, the devil's tail is present."

- Elder Paisios the Athonite

Below are some quotes from various Orthodox Christian websites concerning the "satanic panic" over Halloween, though they all pretty much say the same thing and offer the same distorted information:

From the website of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist:

"Orthodox Christians cannot participate in this event at any level."

"Halloween has its roots in paganism, and it continues as a form of idolatry to worship Satan, the angel of death."

"The Orthodox Christian must understand that taking part in these practices at any level is an idolatrous betrayal of our God and our Holy Faith. For if we imitate the dead by dressing up in or wandering about in the dark, or by begging with them, then we have willfully sought fellowship with the dead, whose Lord is not a Celtic Samhain, but is Satan the Evil One, who stands against God. Further, if we submit to the dialogue of "trick-or-treat," our offering goes not to innocent children, but rather to Samhain, the Lord of Death whom they have come to serve as imitators of the dead, wandering in the darkness."

"The Halloween festival was the proper night for sorcery, fortune telling, divination, games of chance, and Satan worship and witchcraft in the later Middle Ages."


From the website OrthodoxChristian.info:

"Be warned: Halloween is not what it appears to be! Its seemingly innocent manifestations represent a memory of an ancient celebration deeply rooted in paganism and demonology and continues to be a form of idolatry in which Satan, the angel of death is worshipped."

"From an Orthodox Christian viewpoint, participation in these practices at any level is idolatrous, and a genuine betrayal of our God and our Holy Faith. To do so by dressing up and going out would be to wilfully seek fellowship with the 'dead' whose Lord is also known as Satan, the Evil One, who stands against God. Or, to participate by submission to the dialogue of 'trick or treat' is to make offering, not to innocent little children, but to the lord of Death, whom they unknowingly serve as proxy for the 'dead'."

"Even if Halloween was good, clean, innocent fun, to what benefit - spiritual, intellectual or otherwise - is this for a Christian?"


From the website Orthodox Christian Information Center:

"If we participate in the ritual activity of imitating the dead and wandering in the dark asking for treats or offering them to children, we then have willfully sought fellowship with the dead, whose Lord is not Samhain, but rather Satan. It is to Satan then that these treats are offered, not to children."

"Halloween undermines the very basis of the Church which was founded on the blood of martyrs who had refused, by giving up their lives, to partake in any form of idolatry."

"Holy Mother Church must take a firm stand in counteracting any such (pagan) events. Christ taught us that God is the judge in all our actions and beliefs and that we are either FOR GOD or AGAINST GOD. There is no neutral or middle of the road approach."


From the website AllSaintsOfAmerica.org:

"I believe that the issue of Halloween is an example of a more fundamental struggle between Orthodoxy and the secular spirit of our age."

"This must be our Orthodoxy, and to believe it and to witness it is to truly become a 'fool for Christ.' Never has it been more foolish than it is today to be an Orthodox witness in the secular world of today. It is for this witness then that we don't participate in Halloween."

"Halloween, as it is practiced, rejoices in the irrelevance of spiritual evil."


From the website FatherAlexander.org:

"It is that time of the year when the secular society in which we live is preparing for the festival of Halloween. Many do not know its spiritual roots and history, and why it contradicts the teachings of the Church."

"The Holy Fathers of the first millennium (a time when the Church was one and strictly Orthodox) counteracted this Celtic pagan feast by introducing the Feast of All Saints. It is from this that the term Halloween developed...The people who remained pagan and therefore anti-Christian reacted to the Church's attempt to supplant their festival by celebrating this evening with increased fervor."

"We also need to avoid any sort of Halloween party or celebration as well as decorations in our homes. If our children attend schools that hold such parties, no matter what the day, they must not participate."


Ok, I think you get the picture how many Orthodox Christians unfortunately view Halloween. What is unfortunate is that they base their beliefs on a bunch of distorted information that have no basis in fact. If it does, I challenge anyone to present the historical evidence that Halloween is indeed an ancient pagan festival that was celebrated by sacrifices of humans to Satan (Samhain) and honored demons with treats. And these are only a few of the many distortions popularized in the "christian" tracts of fundamentalists and of multimillionaire publisher Jack Chick.

This smear campaign against Halloween, in which it has been scapegoated among Christians as the ultimate manifestation of secularism and satanism in contemporary culture, only goes back to farely recent modern times when certain Christian groups resorted to any fanciful tale to counter the emerging counter-culture of the 60's and 70's that was corrupting the youth. Christian leaders since then have clutched us in a guilt trip ever since about a holiday which prior to this extreme reaction was indeed harmless for the most part like any other holiday and had no connection with satanic rituals. It was a cultural festival which, though mischievous at times, really posed no threat to society until we were forced to believe that it did.

Personal Testimony

The fact is that I also once opposed Halloween for religious reasons, being convinced by fundamentalist literature that it was the "devil's holiday", a conspiracy of Neopagans and Satanists to corrupt our youth. Later when I researched the background of the holiday I came to different conclusions. I realized in the impurity and evil of my egotistical heart I was choosing a much easier enemy to fight rather than the much more difficult enemy within, the enemy of my ego which easily saw scandal elsewhere rather than in the impurity and scandal within my own heart and mind.

As a child born and raised in Boston, Halloween was one of my favorite holidays like the majority of American youth. It was a fun and innocent time to watch Halloween specials on TV like It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown and maybe play with my fright-meter with some mild horror films, to carve pumpkins and eat the toasted seeds, to order an extra batch of Scholastic books in school dealing with stories of the holiday, to dress up like a favorite cartoon or pop culture character, to have a Halloween party at school with candy, to color pictures of witches and vampires and ghosts which are a part of the folk-lore surrounding the holiday taming children's deep-seated fears of them, to go trick or treating around the neighborhood giving us the one chance in the year to actually meet our neighbors and receive a friendly gesture of candy, and when we got home we would eat our candy after they were carefully checked by parents. I was a child of the 1980's, so the initial signs of fear about the holiday which started in the 1960's were beginning to spread at the time also. Rumors were circulating that razor blades were being placed in apples and poison in candy by evil neighbors trying to harm us. Of course, none of these reports were actually traced and this was the first myth I was exposed to about Halloween that had no basis in reality. When people realized that such crimes were never reported, they still checked "just in case", since now the media gave crazy people an idea of how to get media coverage by harming a child on Halloween. In fact, this is exactly what the rumors did in a few not too serious cases. The innocence and fun was slowly but surely being lost.

As I entered my teenage years I continued to enjoy Halloween in mostly the same ways, but slowly stopped trick or treating. I can remember a few years being a little mischievous on Halloween with my friends, but it was mainly within our own circle in which we would have egg and whip cream fights all in fun. I still very much loved the holiday and the atmosphere it brought to the autumn season, especially in the midst of a New England autumn with the reality of death surrounding us in nature. Being a child of many fears about the supernatural, this was a time in which those fears were dealt with in an entertaining and humorous way and it helped me think more deeply on supernatural issues as well.

Like most Greek youth in America of my time, my involvement in the Church was limited to Sundays and ecclesiastical holidays where I had served as an altar boy since the age of seven and of course attended Greek school twice a week for six years. Because I loved holidays such as Halloween (as well as Christmas and Easter), from a young age I wanted to learn the story behind them to celebrate them on a deeper level. This thirst for knowledge lead me at a young age to contemplate deeper matters than most of my peers. In fact, the first time I opened my Bible was after watching the horror movie The Seventh Sign in 1988 which starred Demi Moore. I was twelve years old and this was one of my first Rated-R movies, but when I got home I looked anxiously in the Bible for the Book of Revelation and have hardly put my Bible down since.

My first in-depth research about the origins of Halloween stemmed from a bad grade in my seventh grade Social Studies class. I think I got a "B" on a test and since I wanted to maintain my "A" I had asked my teacher for some extra credit. Since it was a few weeks before Halloween my teacher recommended that I write a two-page paper on the origins of Halloween. I was actually excited about this assignment and began to study the origins. After reading through all the books dealing with the subject in my school library as well as articles in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, I wrote my paper and received my "A". But this was also the first school assignment I ever had that I not only got excited for, but learned a great deal.

When I was about eighteen years old I was involved in the youth ministry of my diocese (now metropolis) and was asked to write a session teaching the youth about Halloween. By this time I was already exposed to the Protestant literature exposing the "dangers" of Halloween and was a bit conflicted on how to present all this contradictory information that in essence began to confuse me about the holiday. Even though I felt somewhat positive about the holiday, I felt obligated to react negatively lest the youth be infested by the "demonic allurements" of Halloween. Though I tried to be somewhat moderate in my approach, it was more on the negative side of moderate, and this caused the majority of youth to be skeptical of what I was teaching since they had not been exposed to my literature and saw no harm in the holiday. To them, all I was doing was depriving them of some innocent fun and candy and calling it "demonic". If I were in their position, I would be skeptical too, so I fully understood why they could not accept it.

The confusion I felt that day prompted me to do further research into the subject, because it seemed to me that all the negative reactions against Halloween were based on myths and propaganda. I felt like Halloween, like pop culture, was being used as a scapegoat among Christians to attribute the failure of our churches to the "demonic allurements" of society with a particular event or person, when in reality it was the shallowness and unreasonableness of the churches that in many ways were the cause of the real evils that Christians needed to fear and avoid. And when I did my research, I realized how much I had been lied to and regretted the lies I spread by focusing on problems that were not problems at all, and covering up instead the real problems.


Hyper-Religiosity and Halloween

When I hear Christians today condemning Halloween as a demonic holiday filled with pagan rituals and accusing all participators in the holiday of being in league with Satan, of whom no doubt they were also in their younger years, I'm immediately reminded of the hyper-religiosity and immaturity of the Jews of our Lord Jesus' time. Hyper-religiosity and immaturity are based on an improper fear that tends to rely on superstition and human tradition for dealing with issues affecting our everyday lives, and in return something good or even divine could be misinterpreted as being evil or demonic in origin. This is what Jesus spoke of when he accused the teachers of the Law of being blind guides leading the blind who close the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven on themselves and in turn not allowing anyone else to enter.

It seems as if it was in the nature of the Jews to follow the path of superstition and human tradition against the clear path of God's wisdom and commandments. Could this be why the children of Israel had a golden calf molded at the foot of Mount Sinai? Could this also be the reason why the people of Israel would continuously abandon God's ways and seek their own ways in resolving their issues throughout the Old Testament? Could these incidents also be the source for the extreme reactions of the Jews and teachers of the Law in Jesus' day who tended to add laws onto the Law and create superstitions to keep people in line lest God punish their wickedness?

A common extreme reaction of the hyper-religious teachers of the Law was to see the devil where he was not and to not see the devil where he was. This is why they accused Jesus Himself of being an agent of Beelzebub, the prince of demons. Such extreme hyper-religious reactions trickled down to the common uneducated folk as well, as we see among the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 14 when they saw Jesus walking towards them in their boat over the water, causing them to wonder if this was a ghost they were seeing, making them to, as the Gospel says, cry out in fear. Fear, immaturity, hyper-religiosity, extremism, and distortion of facts all go hand in hand, as we are often taught not only throughout Holy Scripture, but within the writings of the Church Fathers as well.

The medieval West, especially after the Great Schism, also became a victim of this hyper-religiosity that springs from willful arrogant ignorance. We see this especially during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The foundations of the United States are also based on such hyper-religiosity carried over from Europe, hence such events as the Salem Witch Trials and the need to separate the Church from the State. In fact, it is hyper-religiosity which is at the root of the secularism of our days and not pop-culture or Halloween. Pop-culture and such things as Halloween indeed can be reflective of secularism, but they are not the root of the evils of society as Christian leaders often claim.


The Origins of Halloween

I will not get into all the details about the origins of Halloween, lest I be accused of spreading satanic lies and propaganda myself. I encourage everyone to undertake their own honest research into the subject and judge for themselves what the true origins of the holiday are and separate fact from fiction. Consider this merely as a guide to help you think a bit deeper on the subject.

For example, when one reads all the ignorant propaganda regarding Halloween, the thought that comes into my mind are the various accusations the Roman government made against the early Christians. This is what Pliny had in mind in circa 110 AD when he calls Christianity a "superstition taken to extravagant lengths." Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it "a deadly superstition," and the historian Suetonius called Christians "a class of persons given to a new and mischievous superstition." In this context, the word "superstition" has a slightly different connotation than it has today: for the Romans, it designated something foreign and different - in a negative sense. A religious belief was valid only insofar as it could be shown to be old and in line with ancient customs; new teachings were regarded with distrust. It is for this reason that the charge of "atheism" was brought against Christians, and almost every time disaster struck the Empire the accused were the Christians for displeasing the gods with their atheism. On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like "love feast" and talk of "eating Christ's flesh" sounded understandably suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality.

Yes, these same pagan Romans who contrived these lies against Christians also contrived lies against their opponents to the north - among whom were the ancient Celts. The Roman historians note how a propaganda campaign went out against the Celts to basically demonize their enemies so as to conquer them in a war that became a campaign against "evil". Such demonization is even common today, so it should not surprise us that the Romans would do this against the Celts. Unfortunately, the propaganda which describes the "horrific rituals" of the Druids detailed in Halloween propaganda is only described by the Romans during their campaigns, and are so outrageous that they can hardly be seen as factual. Hence, there’s a distinct lack of historical or archaeological evidence that the ancient Druids ever sacrificed anyone, for example. The pumpkin also is a New World plant that never grew in Europe until modern times, so it couldn’t have been used to make jack-o-lanterns by the Druids. There’s zero evidence that the ancient Druids or their congregants ever dressed in identity-hiding costumes or engaged in ritualized begging at harvest time. The connections between these Druid practices and modern Halloween are based on early Roman sources and modern fundamentalist propaganda.

What we do know is that the dead were honored by the Celts, not as the fearsome dead, but as the living spirits of loved ones and of guardians who hold the root-wisdom of the tribe. The Druid rites, whatever they were, therefore, were concerned with making contact with the spirits of the departed, who were seen as sources of guidance and inspiration rather than as sources of dread. And of course, there was probably divinination and other pagan practices, but these were common in the world before the spread of Christianity and in no way can account for the condemnation outright of Halloween in our times. Before and after the arrival of Christianity, early November was when people in Western and Northern Europe finished the last of their harvesting, butchered their excess stock (so the surviving animals would have enough food to make it through the winter), and held great feasts. They invited their ancestors to join them, they decorated family graves, and told ghost stories.


Regarding the horrific Samhain, according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, in an essay called The Myth of Samhain: Celtic God of the Dead, both Neopagans and Christians have been wrong on this topic: “There is some evidence that there really was an obscure, little known character named Samain or Sawan who played a very minor role in Celtic mythology. He was a mortal whose main claim to fame was that Balor of the Evil Eye stole his magical cow. He is rarely mentioned in Celtic mythology; his existence is little known, even among Celtic historians.” However, “…there is/was no Celtic God of the Dead. The Great God Samhain appears to have been invented in the 18th century, as a God of the Dead before the ancient Celtic people and their religion were studied by historians and archaeologists.” Major dictionaries of Celtic languages don’t mention any “Samhain” deity either: McBain’s Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language says that “samhuinn” (the Scots Gaelic spelling) means “Hallow-tide” (or ‘sacred time’), and that it probably came from roots meaning “summer’s end;” with a possible derivation from the annual assembly at Tara every November 1st. MacFarlane’s School Gaelic Dictionary defines it simply as “Hallowtide.” In other words, what we find out is that Samhain was merely the Celtic New Year, just like September 1 was the Orthodox/Roman New Year.

The truth about trick or treating is a far cry from the horrific images “conjured” by fundamentalists. Rather than an ancient satanic plot to kill or corrupt children, the American tradition of trick or treating is mainly a modern custom invented by town councils, schoolboards and parents in the 1930's to keep their kids out of trouble. The great poisoned treats scare trotted out every year and exploited by Mr. Chick is, however, just another urban legend as noted above. Almost every actual example of booby-trapped Halloween treats has turned out to be a murder plot by a relative, not a malicious act by strangers.

According to Tad Tuleja’s essay, “Trick or Treat: Pre-Texts and Contexts,” in Jack Santino’s anthology, Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life, modern trick or treating (primarily children going door-to-door, begging for candy) began fairly recently, as a blend of several ancient and modern influences. At various times and places in the Middle Ages, customs developed of beggers, then children, asking for “soul cakes” on the Christian feast of All Souls Day on November 2nd. This was also known as "souling". Also in medieval times such begging took place door to door during the Christmas period, as is still done in contemporary Orthodox countries like Greece. Shakespeare mentions the practice in his comedy The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1593), when Speed accuses his master of "puling [whimpering or whining] like a beggar at Hallowmas." In 1605, Guy Fawkes’ abortive effort to blow up the British Parliament on November 5th, led to the creation of “Guy Fawkes Day,” celebrated by the burning of effigies of Fawkes in bonfires and children dressing in rags to beg for money for fireworks. As the decades rolled by, this became thoroughly entwined with Halloween celebrations and customs. Also in mid-nineteenth century New York, children called “ragamuffins” would dress in costumes and beg for pennies from adults on Thanksgiving Day. Vandalism began to spread also in nineteenth century America during the Thanksgiving season among young boys pulling pranks. With increased urbanization and poverty in the 1930’s, adults began casting about for ways to control the previously harmless but now increasingly expensive and dangerous vandalism of the “boys.” Towns and cities began organizing “safe” Halloween events and householders began giving out bribes to the neighborhood kids as a way to distract them away from their previous anarchy. The ragamuffins disappeared or switched their date to Halloween. However, there is no evidence that souling was ever practiced in North America, where trick or treating may have developed independent of any Irish or British antecedent. Ruth Edna Kelley, in her 1919 history of the holiday, The Book of Hallowe'en, makes no mention of ritual begging in the chapter "Hallowe'en in America." Kelley lived in Lynn, Massachusetts, a town with about 4,500 Irish immigrants, 1,900 English immigrants, and 700 Scottish immigrants in 1920. The thousands of Halloween postcards produced between the turn of the twentieth century and the 1920's commonly show children, but do not depict trick or treating. Trick or treating does not seem to have become a widespread practice until the 1930's, with the first U.S. appearances of the term in 1934. The term “trick or treat,” finally appeared in print around 1939!

When explaining these things to people, I'm often asked: “How can these evil things never happen if so many people preach that it does? Where would Christians get these ideas if they weren’t fact?” The short answer, of course, is that preachers are people and (1) all people make mistakes, (2) some people are ignorant, and (3) others just tell lies out of fear or something else. Of course, I'm not advocating on behalf of paganism when I say this, but just good ol' plain honesty. For all I know the Druids may have sacrificed children or did other horrific things, but this is not supported by any evidence and even if it did there is still no actual relationship between that and anything we do on Halloween, and for this reason the propaganda against Halloween and human reason is unsound and improper. If someone decides Halloween is inappropriate for them, there is no need to “bear false witness” (that is to say, tell lies) about Halloween, Neopagans, Satanists or indeed any other religious topic, in order to make a spiritual decision for him or herself, or their children — the only people for whom they may have the right to make that decision.


The Christianization of a Pagan Holiday Myth

There is also the myth that Christians condemned the pagan festivities of October 31 by replacing it with All Hallows Eve, the day before the Feast of All Saints in the West. It is often recorded that in 601 AD Pope Gregory I issued a now famous edict to his missionaries concerning the native beliefs and customs of the peoples he hoped to convert. Rather than try to obliterate native peoples' customs and beliefs, the pope instructed his missionaries to use them: if a group of people worshipped a tree, rather than cut it down, he advised them to consecrate it to Christ and allow its continued veneration. Though this is true, this edict is likely not the reason why November 1 became the Feast of All Saints in the West.

Both the Feast of All Saints and the Feast of All Souls evolved in the life of the Church independently of paganism and Halloween. Let us first address the Feast of All Saints. The exact origins of this celebration are uncertain, although, after the legalization of Christianity in A.D. 313, a common commemoration of the Saints, especially the martyrs, appeared in various areas throughout the Church. For instance in the East, the city of Edessa celebrated this feast on May 13; the Syrians, on the Friday after Easter; and the city of Antioch, on the first Sunday after Pentecost. Both St. Ephraim (d. 373) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) attest to this feast day in their preaching. In the West, a commemoration for all the Saints also was celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost. The primary reason for establishing a common feast day was because of the desire to honor the great number of martyrs, especially during the persecution of Emperor Diocletion (284-305), the worst and most extensive of the persecutions. Quite simply, there were not enough days of the year for a feast day for each martyr and many of them died in groups. A common feast day for all Saints, therefore, seemed most appropriate.

In 609, the Emperor Phocas gave the Pantheon in Rome to Pope Boniface IV, who rededicated it on May 13 under the title St. Maria ad Martyres (or St. Mary and All Martyrs). Whether the Pope purposefully chose May 13 because of the date of the popular celebration already established in the East or whether this was just a happy coincidence is open to debate.


The designation of November 1 as the Feast of All Saints occurred over time. Pope Gregory III (731-741) dedicated an oratory in the original St. Peter's Basilica in honor of all the Saints on November 1, and this date then became the official date for the celebration of the Feast of All Saints in Rome. St. Bede (d. 735) recorded the celebration of All Saints Day on November 1 in England, and such a celebration also existed in Salzburg, Austria. Ado of Vienne (d. 875) recounted how Pope Gregory IV asked King Louis the Pious (778-840) to proclaim November 1 as All Saints Day throughout the Frankish Empire. Sacramentaries of the ninth and tenth centuries also placed the feast of All Saints on the liturgical calendar on November 1.

According to an early Church historian, John Beleth (d. 1165), Pope Gregory IV (827-844) officially declared November 1 the Feast of All Saints, transferring it from May 13. However, Sicard of Cremona (d. 1215) recorded that Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) finally suppressed May 13 and mandated November 1 as the date to celebrate the Feast of All Saints. In all, we find the Papal Church establishing a liturgical feast day in honor of the Saints independent of any pagan influence. Particular ethnic groups developed their own lore, which was merged with the celebration. For this reason, little ones (and some big ones) still dress in a variety of costumes and pretend for the evening to be ghosts, witches, vampires, monsters, ninjas, pirates and so on, without any thought of paganism. Nevertheless, All Saints Day clearly arose from a genuine Christian devotion independent of paganism.


Conclusion

I wonder today if my interest in Halloween and the macabre stems from my New England roots. After all, New England gave us the master's of American gothic and horror literature like Edgar Allen Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorn, H.P. Lovecraft and Stephen King. Our history in New England is deeply rooted in the folk-lore of Europe, as is evidenced in the Salem and Boston witch trials and the tales of "true" vampire legends in Rhode Island and Maine. Our tales of the paranormal are unlike anywhere else in the United States, and everywhere you go you are surrounded by these legends. Though these are all things that interest me and have made me proud to be a New Englander, I think my love for Halloween stems a bit deeper. Demons, evil, death, fear, vice, pain and suffering do exist and are a part of human existence. As Christians we have the weapons and the answers to overcome these and they go hand in hand with the hope which our faith brings us. Apart from this reality, I don't think I would enjoy Halloween as much. It is the connection between faith and fear that is even behind all the great classic monster stories we hear about on Halloween, like Dracula, Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Headless Horseman, and so on, and in these romanticized gothic tales vice is always spoken against and demoted while virtue and selflessness is promoted.

As an Orthodox Christian, I do not want to come out as a proponent of Halloween since it is not an Orthodox feast I feel the need to defend. The reason I am trying to bring some awareness of the truth about Halloween is because as an Orthodox Christian I believe it is my duty to speak the truth and expose error in a spirit of love and concern, especially when other Orthodox are spreading these lies out of ignorance. Halloween is a part of our society and especially of our children's lives, and an answer from an Orthodox Christian perspective is needed. It does not help our Christian witness in the world to distort information to make our message sound better. In fact, it does just the opposite and I believe those capable of discovering the truth will be judged for disseminating lies which are unfounded. We have not been given a spirit of fear, but of power and truth to be above propagating errors. It is the proclamation of the truth which brings freedom and respect, and a pure heart which makes all things pure.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Pope

By the Metropolitan of Kyrenia, Paul

On the 8th to the 14th of October in 2007, the 10th plenary session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics had convened in Ravenna of Italy. At the end of the session, a document was issued which included everything that was agreed upon and is known as the "Ravenna Document".

The Ravenna Document had, as its theme:

ECCLESIOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH. ECCLESIAL COMMUNION, CONCILIARITY AND AUTHORITY

The basic error of the Ravenna Document is that the Orthodox members of the Joint International Commission of Orthodox and Roman Catholics had regarded their heterodox interlocutors as belonging to the same Church, thus giving the impression that between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism there actually exists an ecclesiological unity, albeit without the necessary theological prerequisites.

The attempt by members of the Orthodox Representation to suppress or bypass the dogmatic diversification between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy as something secondary is undermining the self-awareness of the Orthodox Church as the only true Church - which is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - and is giving the impression that the Roman Catholics comprise a partial or local Orthodox Church.

Even though the interruption of sacramental intercommunion is attributed to the Roman Catholics' diversifications from the common Faith of the first centuries, nevertheless, in the Ravenna Document it is mutually confessed by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic members of the Joint Commission that their faith is common. In this way, the discussion and settlement of organizational and administrative issues have been set forth, as, for example, the matter of the Pope's primacy, while the theological issues have been bypassed and left pending. As a consequence of this, the Ravenna document concluded with the statement that "It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth." (Ravenna Document, para.45)

It is therefore imperative that the serious dogmatic issues be discussed first, and furthermore, a framework be determined with the necessary prerequisites that should be based on Patristic criteria, which will ensure that the Dialogue will be conducted on a sound and immovable dogmatic basis and not on unstable secular grounds. It is only with persistence in the precision (akriveia) of the Orthodox dogma and the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church that we can be certain we are working towards the re-induction of the strayed into Christ's Flock.

Upon examining the Document of the Coordinating Committee for the theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics, which was prepared in Crete in October 2008, with the title "The role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church during the first millennium" and which only recently reached us, the projection of the positions of the Roman Catholics is quite evident. The projection of the position that "...unity in variety was positively accepted at the Synod of Constantinople, which took place in 879-880" (Crete, para.32), reveals the ulterior motives of the Roman Catholics. They are preparing the backdrop for a Uniate-style union.

The Pope - whose See is regarded in the Crete Document as the "source of episcopal unity" (Crete, para.10) - appears as Christ's substitute, from whom everything flows forth, since - according to the words of Pope Gelasius: "The first See is judged by no-one" (EP.4, PL 58, 28B, Ep.13, PL 59, 64A) - (see Crete, para.11). Despite the attempt to present the absolute dominance of the Pope as a primacy of deaconship by projecting him as the "servant of servants" (Crete, para.14), nevertheless, the serious dogmatic slippages and the erroneous approach by the Orthodox Representatives on the issue of primacy cannot be concealed. "Being a Successor, the Pope becomes apostolic and also inherits the common element of inseparable unity between Christ and Peter" (Crete, para.17). How is it possible to accept that a Pope expresses the unity between Christ and the Apostle Peter?

By persisting in the primacy of Peter (based on the words of the Lord that "you are Peter, and on this rock shall I build Me the Church" (Matthew 16:18)), they have misinterpreted the words of Christ, Who was referring to the "faith of that admission" (Chrysostom, On Matthew, 54, 2, PG 58,534) and not implying that specific Apostle as the rock. After all, both the rock and the cornerstone are the Lord Himself, according to His own words (Matthew 21:42).

While the papal institution scorns the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition and establishes absolutism (since the Pope, not Christ, appears to be the "source of episcopal unity" - Crete, para.10), it is evident that the composers of the Document are attempting to present the Pope as a defender of conciliarity in order to obviously calm the fears of the Orthodox and preclude any objections and reactions.

It is furthermore mentioned in the Crete Document that "the unity of the Episcopate and the Church are symbolized in the person of Peter" (Crete, para.10) and that "Peter speaks through the Bishop of Rome" (Crete, para.19). Why would the canonicity of the Church depend on Her relationship to the Pope? Why is it necessary for every local Church to agree with the church of Rome, instead of all the Churches agreeing together as one Body? The triple question posed by the Lord to the Apostle Peter was not intended as a conferral of a nonexistent primacy - for which he would have rejoiced - but was intended to heal Peter's triple denial - for which we should note "he was sorrowed" (John 21:17). "The triple denial was ostracized, by the benevolent Father's triple condescension", notes Saint Isidore Pelousiotes (†435). (Epistle 1, 103, PG 48, 632).

The anti-conciliar spirit of the Roman Catholics has no historical backing. The ancient Church has the Ecumenical Synod, not the Pope, as its supreme principal. The Ecumenical Councils were not convened by Popes, who, let it be noted, neither headed all of the Ecumenical Councils nor issued any dogmatic rulings for the entire Church (which were actually validated by all the local Churches). However, when the papal system was first proposed in theory, Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) had repulsed it. (Karmiris, Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism, B' Athens 1967, p.69). And yet, in the Crete Document is states that "no Synod was recognized as Ecumenical, without having received the consent of the Pope". (Crete, para.12).

The conclusion of the Crete Document, that "the first millennium, which was being studied during this stage of our dialogue, is about the common tradition of both our Churches", and that "in the basic theological and ecclesiological principles that have coincided here, this common tradition should serve as a model for the restoration of full communion" (Crete, para.32), should both raise concerns in us, inasmuch as the Orthodox members of the Commission are rushing ahead of things.

It is worth noting here that the administration of Ecclesiastic affairs - and more so when they pertain to the Orthodox Faith - cannot be left in the hands of appointed Professors or even Bishops, who may of course formally represent the local Orthodox Churches, but might nonetheless act on their own initiative by expressing their personal views because of a lack of synodical strategy on the part of their local Church.

The avoidance of convening Synods, or, in cases where they are convened but the conveners are deprived of the ability to freely express their views and positions, or, the delayed briefing of the responsible parties of the special Committees for the preparation of various proposals to the Holy Synod needed for decision-making, all constitute deviations from the synodical system of administration of the Church and do not secure the ability to shape Orthodox positions.

Furthermore, the attempted imposition of an externally designed guideline also undermines ecclesiastic order.

The attempts by the theologians representing the Orthodox Church to characterize Roman Catholicism as a Church is a provocation to the Orthodox sentiment.

Article published in the newspaper "ORTHODOX PRESS" - Issue No.1802 / 16-10-2009

Source 1 and 2

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Ukrainian President Calls For Orthodox Unification

Yuschenko to Call on Ukrainians to Form Single Orthodox Church in Ukraine

Interfax
10/28/2009

Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko will address Ukrainians soon asking them to support the formation of a single Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

He said this at a meeting of the all-Ukrainian council of churches and religious organizations in Kyiv on Wednesday.

"I intend to call on the Ukrainian people to support this process," the president said, adding that he will soon make such an address to the nation.

According to Yuschenko, the public should be aware of the dialog that has started among the church organizations about the creation of a single Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and the country's citizens should participate in this process.

The president asked the heads of other churches and religious organizations to support this process.

There are currently three branches of the Orthodox church in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate is the only one recognized by the world orthodox community. In addition, Ukraine has the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Materialists: What Do You Know?

10/28/2009
Creation - Evolution Headlines

For people who brag about their work, scientists are an odd lot. At one moment they are touting science as the surest path to knowledge and understanding. The next moment it seems like they are at square one. This is particularly true of materialist cosmologies and Darwinian theories for the origin and development of life. A couple of recent examples might invite the mildly sarcastic greeting, “Good day, Mr. Darwin. What do you know?”

1. Nothing about physics: New Scientist posted an article entitled, “Seven questions that keep physicists up at night.” Included are: What is everything made of? and What is reality reality? For those thinking physicists were the most likely among scientists to be in touch with reality, this sounds like a bad dream. Another question pertains directly to “the rise of life from inert matter” – How does complexity happen?

2. Nothing about humanity: Live Science posted a Letterman-style list called “Top 10 Mysteries of the First Humans.” For those thinking evolutionists were just filling in the details, some these questions seem pretty fundamental. Where do modern humans come from? Who was the first hominid? Why did modern humanity expand past Africa about 50,000 years ago? Is human evolution accelerating? Why did our closest relatives go extinct? What happened to our hair? Why do humans walk on two legs? Why did we grow large brains?

Contrasting with this are triumphant sounding headlines that border on the mystical. “A Solution To Darwin’s ‘Mystery Of The Mysteries’ Emerges From The Dark Matter Of The Genome,” Science Daily announced – yet the details of the article fail to show a real solution other than suggestive changes in gene regulation and speculative hypotheses. The team admitted, “Speciation is one of the most fascinating, unsolved problems in biology.” Isn’t the solution what we are supposedly celebrating next month with the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species?

Another article highlighted “‘On the origin of nematodes’ -- A phylogenetic tree of the world’s most numerous group of animals.” A look inside the article only shows scientists sorting roundworms into groups based on similarities of certain genes. It doesn’t say anything about how roundworms evolved in the first place.

Getting back to “the rise of life from inert matter,” PhysOrg assured its readers that Charles Darwin “really did have advanced ideas about the origin of life.” His main idea, though, was that “science was not advanced enough to deal with the question (hence his reluctance to speak of it in public) and that he would not live to see it resolved,” according to Juli Peretó of the Cavanilles Institute in Valencia, who co-authored a paper with Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano to debunk a myth that Darwin didn’really think deeply about the question. It appears their main finding after re-reading Darwin’s letters was that he stuck to his materialistic guns. Peretó said, “Darwin was convinced of the incredible importance of this issue for his theory and he had an amazingly modern materialist and evolutional vision about the transition of inanimate chemical matter into living matter, despite being very aware of Pasteur’s experiments in opposition to spontaneous generation.” But then, one might ask, didn’t Darwin himself offer the possibility of a Creator at the end of his famous book? “It is utterly wrong to think that he was invoking a divine intervention,” Peretó continued, as if proud to exonerate the Great Man from any charges of letting a Divine Foot in the door; “it is also well documented that the mention of the ‘Creator’ in The Origin of the Species was an addition for appearance’s sake that he later regretted.”

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Who Explains Whom?

Creation-Evolution Headlines
10/26/2009

Picture an evolutionary anthropologist and a Biblical theologian sitting on a park bench having a lively discussion. The theologian claims the scientist believes in evolution because of pride that came through sin at the Fall. “Your conscience and innate knowledge of God has been corrupted,” he asserts, “therefore you choose belief systems that rationalize your desire to live autonomously from your Creator.” The scientist counters that the theologian only believes in God because religion was naturally selected in a primitive ape-like ancestor. “Deep in prehistory, early hominin populations reinforced beliefs in supernatural beings that provided comfort against natural mysteries,” he claims. “But now science is shedding light on those mysteries and undermining those primitive beliefs.” Whose position should have privileged status in a society? Should the scientist’s explanation automatically be granted epistemic privilege by a culture simply because he is a scientist? Perhaps some recent examples of evolutionists at work trying to explain human behavior can inform the discussion.

1. Altruism: PhysOrg printed a press release from UC Davis debating which kind of evolution – cultural or genetic – explains the human propensity for altruism (sacrificial charity). “Why do people willingly to [sic] go to war, give blood, contribute to food banks and make other sacrifices often at considerable risk to themselves and their descendents? Evolutionary explanations based on both genes and culture have been proposed for this human behavior, which is unique among vertebrates.” The article went on to argue for social vs. genetic causes, but the statement makes it clear that non-evolutionary explanations were completely off the table for consideration. The report in Science Daily spoke of an “equation... that describes the conditions for altruism to evolve.” Sometimes the explanation mixes causes and results in a “gene-culture coevolution of human prosocial propensities.” Similarly, National Geographic News tried to show chimpanzees expressing a form of altruism, saying “this adds to evidence that chimps are more similar to humans than previously thought.” Altruism even applies to amebas, wrote Science Daily: “In Amoeba World, Cheating Doesn’t Pay.” It becomes clear looking at their explanation that altruism has no external essense, but is a mere manifestation of selection pressures – a “characteristic” that can be observed from ameba to man. They did not consider the converse hypothesis. Is it possible that the scientists are imputing human moral characteristics on non-sentient beings and interpreting animal actions in terms of internally-assumed abilities? If altruism is a physical trait, why is not the act of explanation? Why aren’t chimpanzees and amebas writing papers on human behavior?

2. Leadership: Science Daily reported on a paper from Current Biology called “The Origins and Evolution of Leadership” that puts Darwin in the lead. The authors “argue that due to ‘a hangover from our evolutionary past’ factors like age, sex, height and weight play a major part in the determining [sic] our choice of leaders.” Here’s what Dr. Andrew King (Zoological Society of London) had to say:

"Evolution has fashioned principles governing leadership and followership over many millions of years. We need to ground the complex, even mystical, social phenomenon of leadership in science. Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of leadership and followership. This analysis of data, combined with an evolutionary perspective on leadership, might highlight potential mismatches so we can see how evolved mechanisms of leadership are possibly out of kilter with our relatively novel social environment."

Dr. King failed to explain how science escapes being an evolved mechanism or gains any power over evolutionary “principles.” His co-author Dr. Dominic Johnson (University of Edinburgh) thinks it’s about time evolutionary biology tackles this overlooked question, “arguably one of the most important themes in the social sciences.” He sees overlap between human and animal leadership behaviors that point to evolutionary origins. He said, “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us [sic] better ways of understanding, predicting and improving leadership today.” His evolutionary approach goes beyond explanation, therefore, and advocates social action.[1]

3. Sex and War: In Science this month,[2] Hillard Kaplan, an anthropologist at University of New Mexico, reviewed Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World by Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden (BenBella, Dallas, 2008). The book explores the “phylogenetic origins of human warfare” and describes armed conflict, no matter the players or their causes, in strictly evolutionary terms. The scope of their explanatory project must be considered when evaluating every conflict from withstanding playground bullies to decisions to liberate Nazi Germany. Kaplan opened, “They argue that group aggression by males is a fundamental feature of human evolutionary history, whose roots are well developed in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.” This would seem to eliminate any rationality for the concept of a “just war,” e.g., an altruistic rescue of an oppressed people (since altruism also falls within the domain of evolutionary explanation). One can sense the tension between morality and determinism in their explanation:

"The book begins with Potts’s own experiences in 1972, attending to (and providing abortions for) women who had been raped and abused during the war in Bangladesh. He recounts the cruelty enacted by groups of men, united in an armed struggle for power, on thousands of women. He then presents the book’s main thesis: such acts of violence are far from isolated incidents and modern aberrations due to extreme conditions—rather they are the norm for our species. What Potts calls “behavioral propensities to engage in male coalitional violence” are products of a long evolutionary history, in which males who engaged in such behavior produced more genetic descendants than males without such propensities. He further argues that coalitional violence by groups of males evolved at least as far back as the common ancestor before the chimpanzee-human divergence and is a direct manifestation of sexual selection on male-male competition. Such behavioral propensities did not evolve in females of either species.

"The term “behavioral propensity” is used throughout the book to highlight the idea that a propensity can be controlled by cultural and social means. Propensities to form coalitions among males against other males are in some sense genetically programmed into chimpanzee and human psychology, but there are also norms for culturally appropriate behavior as well as social institutions that can serve to counteract those propensities. In fact, the solution to decreasing violence and warfare in modern times comes from the recognition that our biological heritage has produced very different behavioral propensities in human males and females."

The book makes the point that the males’ evolutionary propensities to be violent can be restrained by “empowering women to be leaders in cultural, social, and political spheres.” This seems to beg the question of the origin of morality. Why would the products of an evolutionary process restrain what the process produced? The reviewer and the authors differed only on the methods likely to be most effective. Kaplan said, “We still lack a definitive understanding of group-level violence and its variation in different societies and during different historical periods. But I agree with Potts that such an understanding will likely require a joint theory of our biology and social history.” In evolution, though, is there a difference?

PhysOrg also reported on “When Being a Cuckold Makes Evolutionary Sense.” We’ll leave it as an exercise whether or not “evolutionary sense” is an oxymoron.

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

1. Science can say, “The earth appears to be warming.” Explanation says, “The earth is warming because of human industry.” Activism says, “Because humans are warming the earth, we need to redistribute the wealth and start a depression.”

2. Hillard Kaplan, “Anthropology: Sex and War (and Ecology),” Science, 9 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5950, pp. 232-233, DOI: 10.1126/science.1176071.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr