MYSTAGOGY

The Weblog Of John Sanidopoulos

BannerFans.com
  • Home
  • SAINTS & FEASTS
  • RESOURCES
  • BOOKSTORE
  • ABOUT
Loading...

MYSTAGOGY

MYSTAGOGY
My Photo
J.Sanidopoulos
This weblog offers insights and analysis on various matters of life and thought from a 21st century Orthodox Christian perspective, among other things.
View my complete profile
http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/ http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (324)
    • ►  May (69)
    • ►  April (67)
    • ►  March (77)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (102)
  • ►  2012 (1047)
    • ►  December (99)
    • ►  November (59)
    • ►  October (69)
    • ►  September (58)
    • ►  August (74)
    • ►  July (116)
    • ►  June (121)
    • ►  May (125)
    • ►  April (138)
    • ►  March (96)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (89)
  • ►  2011 (1427)
    • ►  December (60)
    • ►  November (65)
    • ►  October (84)
    • ►  September (63)
    • ►  August (107)
    • ►  July (40)
    • ►  June (133)
    • ►  May (161)
    • ►  April (198)
    • ►  March (174)
    • ►  February (161)
    • ►  January (181)
  • ►  2010 (2462)
    • ►  December (221)
    • ►  November (211)
    • ►  October (149)
    • ►  September (200)
    • ►  August (187)
    • ►  July (209)
    • ►  June (170)
    • ►  May (199)
    • ►  April (236)
    • ►  March (240)
    • ►  February (227)
    • ►  January (213)
  • ▼  2009 (874)
    • ▼  December (160)
      • Greek PM Papandreou Speaks on "Global Governance"
      • That We Ought To Be Obedient to the Church
      • Ecology, Civilization and Christmas
      • Muslims Take Responsibility For Murder of Fr. Dani...
      • Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi: On the Divine Kenosis o...
      • Controversy Over Pope's Christmas Message in the "...
      • 327 Catechumens Baptized in Zimbabwe
      • More on Byzantine Lycanthropy
      • Mount Athos in the 1940's
      • Is the Virgin Mary Appearing in Egypt?
      • Turkey Wants Relics of Saint Nicholas Back
      • What New Discoveries in Nazareth Tell Us About Jes...
      • PBS = Pushing Bad Science
      • On the Incarnation of the Son of God
      • The Sunday After Christmas - Jesus Christ: The Ete...
      • What Shall We Offer Thee, O Lord
      • St. Fulgentius of Ruspe Homily On St. Stephen the ...
      • St. Proclus' Homily For December 26th
      • The Panagia's Judgment On My Great-Grandmother
      • The Twelve Days of Christmas in the Orthodox Churc...
      • 26 Russian Priests Murdered Since 1990
      • Bulgaria Joins Christian World in Celebrating Chri...
      • December 1989 Massacre in Romania Remembered
      • Father Christmas and the Christmas Spirit
      • "Prologue" Reading For Christmas
      • The Christmas Kontakia of St. Romanos
      • A Priest Fought Alcoholism…Alcoholics Killed Him!
      • A Romiosini Christmas Musical Journey
      • But Jesus Wasn't Born Dec. 25 – was He?
      • Palestinian Christians Under Muslim Intolerance
      • Christmas 2008 With Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi
      • A Christmas Epistle by St. Justin Popovich
      • "The Gleaner: A Christmas Story" by A. Papadiamant...
      • Turks Defend the Ecumenical Patriarchate
      • Patriarch Pavle on the Holy Nativity of Christ
      • The Genealogy of Christ According to St. Gregory P...
      • Why Did God Become Man? The Answer of St. Athanasi...
      • Why Jesus Had To Be Virgin Born: St. Maximus the C...
      • The Case Against the Case Against the Virgin Birth...
      • Orthodox Priest Killed in Moscow Region
      • The Christian Parthenon
      • The Homosexual Debate in the Church of Finland
      • "We Are Crucifying the Patriarch"
      • "Avatar" and Pantheism
      • My Grandfather and Saint Anastasia Pharmakolitria
      • Muhammad's Charter of Privileges to Christians
      • Greece Lashes Out at Turkey's Criticism
      • "60 Minutes" Interview With Ecumenical Patriarch B...
      • 1st Century Nazareth House Uncovered
      • Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire"...
      • Where Piety Meets Power
      • 1 CORINTHIANS 13 - A CHRISTMAS VERSION
      • Patriarch's 'Crucified' Remarks Echo in Turkey
      • St John of Kronstadt on the Nativity of Christ
      • Documentary on Saint John of Kronstadt
      • Salvation and Ethics in St. Ignatius of Antioch
      • In Defense of the Christmas Tree
      • A Miracle of St. Nicholas In My Family
      • Saint Dionysios of Zakynthos (3)
      • 5,000 Indians Baptized Orthodox in Mexico
      • Woman Says Demons Chased Her From Home
      • The Debate on Yoga
      • Man Builds Replica of Noah's Ark
      • Monument to Patriarch Pavle Unveiled in Serbia
      • Psychic Uri Geller in Greece
      • Christmas Carols of Byzantium
      • Saint Dionysios of Zakynthos (2)
      • Its Official! Autonomy and Autocephaly Through Con...
      • Different Perspectives on Communion
      • The Magi and the Star: An Orthodox Understanding
      • Moldovan Christians Tear Down Public Menorah
      • Mary and Joseph Billboard Finally Defaced
      • St. Isaac the Syrian on the Birth of Christ
      • Saint Dionysios of Zakynthos (1)
      • Europe's Religion Delusion
      • Why We're Fascinated by the Paranormal, Masonic My...
      • ClimateGate Round-Up
      • Story About Jesus Drawing Reportedly Exaggerated
      • St. Basil Dispels the Idea of an Environmental Cri...
      • Elder Paisios on Global Warming and the Environmen...
      • Metropolitan Hierotheos on the Current Dialogue Wi...
      • The Aerial Toll-Houses by Fr. Thomas Hopko
      • The Heresy of Pusillanimity
      • Drawing of Jesus Gets Second-Grader Kicked Out of ...
      • The Illness of Religion
      • Can Evolution Explain Religion?
      • Orthodox Businessmen Get a Patron Saint
      • Two Miracles of the Holy Five Martyrs of Sebaste
      • The Promise to Abraham Fulfilled In Christ
      • Derzhavin's "Ode to God" and Saint Herman of Alask...
      • Saint Spyridon: Protector of the Poor, Father of O...
      • The Economic "Crisis" : An Orthodox Perspective
      • Dinesh D'Souza Talks About Life After Death
      • Greek Diet Can Lengthen Life
      • Turkey Prepares to Join EU in a Building Confiscat...
      • Outrage in Cyprus at Tassos Papadopoulos Tomb Raid...
      • The Diplomatic Potential of Romanity in the 21st C...
      • Sacrilege at the Monastery of St. Naum at Lake Och...
      • Memorandum of the People of the Karpas Peninsula
      • Does Science Have a Magisterium?
      • More U.S. Christians Mix in New Age Beliefs and Re...
      • Ancient Church Discovered In Israeli Prison May Be...
      • Christmas Date Does NOT Have Pagan Origins
      • Bulgarian Church May Not Switch to Old Calendar
      • Why Richard Dawkins Won’t Debate William Lane Crai...
      • Second Pan-Orthodox Meeting Opens in Chambésy
      • Copenhagen Climate Summit in Disarray
      • Global Cooling Documented in Last Decade
      • Famous Weather Scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceb...
      • The Veneration of Sts. Joachim and Anna According ...
      • The Error of the Immaculate Conception of the Virg...
      • Evil and Inquiring Into God's Justice
      • Greek ID Cards and 666
      • Orthodox and Catholics To Oppose World Atheism
      • Missionaries Face Fines for Sharing Their Faith
      • Patriarch Kirill On a Woman's Role In the Church
      • First Interactive Map of Russian Religious Communi...
      • Orthodox Businessmen Found Heavenly Protector
      • Remains of Nicholas II Children Must Be Buried
      • Lycanthropy in Byzantine Times
      • Saint Patapios of Thebes and His Monastery in Lout...
      • The Juridical Mentality of the West Annuls Christ’...
      • Orthodoxy and the Juridical Position: The Signific...
      • The Truth About Global Warming
      • Did the Apostle Paul Invent Christianity?
      • Canada Covers Climategate
      • Fr. Daniil Sysoyev's Colleague Beaten in Moscow
      • Feast of St Gregory (Peradze) in Warsaw
      • Saint Ambrose On How Clergy Ought To Speak
      • Saint Ambrose On the Need to Imitate the Saints
      • Archbishop Irenaios Encourages Christians To Imita...
      • The 12 Days Of Global Warming
      • The Holy Monastery of Saint Nicholas in Spata
      • The Climategate Scandal: The Stench of Scientific ...
      • Orthodox Christmas Reflection (3)
      • The Mysterious X-Ray Image of Saint Savvas of Kaly...
      • Various Miracles of Saint Barbara
      • Fr. Daniil Sysoev's Last Sermon
      • The Holy Shrine of Saint Barbara in Athens
      • The Power of Negative Thinking
      • Construction Hold Up For Tunnel Under the Bosphoru...
      • Church of Greece Agreed to Increased Taxation
      • Atheist Humility?
      • The Miraculous Icon of Panagia Gerontissa
      • Elder Ambrose Lazaris of Dadiou Monastery
      • Orthodox Christmas Reflection (2)
      • Elder Cleopa Ilie (1912 - 1998)
      • The Farewell Letter of Elder Porphyrios
      • Murder Of Priest Highlights Missionary Role In Rus...
      • Scientism and Totalitarianism
      • What’s Natural for Humans?
      • Moscow Patriarchate Publishes Book of Pope's Words...
      • Bulgarian Orthodox Church May Change Back To Old C...
      • School Children in Kosovo Freezing
      • The Relic of Saint Symeon Stylite
      • Turkish Military Planned Attacks on Christians
      • Orthodox Christmas Reflection (1)
      • Saint Philaret the Merciful
      • A Wonderful Experience in the Life of Saint Anania...
      • On Ignorance and Hard Heartedness
    • ►  November (124)
    • ►  October (140)
    • ►  September (116)
    • ►  August (86)
    • ►  July (97)
    • ►  June (60)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (49)

Topics

  • Abortion (1)
  • Alexandros Papadiamandis (1)
  • Almsgiving (4)
  • America (156)
  • Angels (52)
  • Anglicans (3)
  • Annunciation (2)
  • Anthony the Great (3)
  • Anthropology (23)
  • Antiochian Archdiocese of America (10)
  • Apocrypha (1)
  • Apologetics (81)
  • Apostles and Early Church (164)
  • Art (40)
  • Athanasius the Great (3)
  • Atheism-Agnosticism-Skepticism (205)
  • Augustine of Hippo (4)
  • Balkans and Russia (61)
  • Basil the Great (3)
  • Bible (41)
  • Bible Difficulties (1)
  • Biblical and Christian Archaeology (11)
  • Biblical and Christian Archeology (94)
  • Biblical Criticism (30)
  • Bioethics (1)
  • Byzantine Music (1)
  • C.S. Lewis (2)
  • Calendar Issue (2)
  • Canon Law (36)
  • Catholicism and Papacy (158)
  • Celtic Saints (1)
  • Christian Living (171)
  • Christology (63)
  • Church and Society (1)
  • Church History (49)
  • Climate Change (1)
  • Conspiracies (93)
  • Constantine the Great (5)
  • Coptic Church (44)
  • Cross (91)
  • Cults (83)
  • Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • Demetrios of Thessaloniki (2)
  • Demonology (7)
  • Desert Fathers (12)
  • Divine Liturgy (8)
  • Divorce (5)
  • Documentaries (9)
  • Dormition Fast (35)
  • Ecclesiology (84)
  • Ecumenical Patriarchate (158)
  • Ecumenical Synods (7)
  • Ecumenism (105)
  • Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra (2)
  • Elder Cleopa of Romania (2)
  • Elder Ephraim Katounakiotis (2)
  • Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (2)
  • Elder Eusebius Yiannakakis (1)
  • Elder Iakovos of Evia (1)
  • Elder Paisios the Athonite (32)
  • Elder Porphyrios (7)
  • Elder Sophrony of Essex (6)
  • Entrance of the Theotokos (2)
  • Ephraim the Syrian (2)
  • Eschatology/Death (181)
  • Ethical and Moral Issues (70)
  • Europe (85)
  • Events (14)
  • Family and Parish (81)
  • Famous People (6)
  • Fasting (5)
  • Feasts of the Church (95)
  • Fr. George Florovsky (4)
  • Fr. George Metallinos (1)
  • Fr. John Romanides (7)
  • Fr. Seraphim Rose (1)
  • Freemasonry (1)
  • Funny (48)
  • George the Great Martyr (6)
  • Globalization (1)
  • God (69)
  • Gothic and Horror (38)
  • Great Lent (9)
  • Great Lent and Holy Week (333)
  • Greece and Greeks (212)
  • Greek Archdiocese of America (GOA) (66)
  • Gregory of Nyssa (1)
  • Gregory Palamas (9)
  • Gregory the Theologian (2)
  • Hagia Sophia (7)
  • Halki Seminary (2)
  • Halloween (5)
  • Happiness (1)
  • Health (1)
  • Health and Creation (138)
  • Heresy (100)
  • Holidays (17)
  • Holy Light (1)
  • Holy Matrimony (2)
  • Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) (142)
  • Holy Unction (1)
  • Holy Week (27)
  • Homosexuality (1)
  • Iconography (291)
  • Isaac the Syrian (3)
  • John Chrysostom (6)
  • John Climacus (2)
  • John the Baptist (10)
  • Judging (1)
  • Justin Popovic (1)
  • Lay Holiness (2)
  • Literature (28)
  • Literature and Book Reviews (89)
  • Liturgics (93)
  • Logic / Reason (1)
  • Luke of Crimea (1)
  • Mariology (273)
  • Marital and Relationship Issues (97)
  • Maximus the Confessor (2)
  • Maximus the Greek (2)
  • Medieval History and Theology (58)
  • Meteora (3)
  • Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (20)
  • Middle East (54)
  • Miracles (449)
  • Missions (104)
  • Modern Saints and Elders (535)
  • Modernity (30)
  • Monasticism (129)
  • Monk Moses the Athonite (6)
  • Moral Stories (2)
  • Moscow Patriarchate (1)
  • Mothers (2)
  • Mount Athos (310)
  • Movies (132)
  • Music (111)
  • My Family and Friends (25)
  • My Writings (1)
  • N.T. - Colossians (1)
  • N.T. - John (2)
  • N.T. - Luke (1)
  • N.T. - Mark (6)
  • N.T. - Matthew (4)
  • N.T. - Revelation (1)
  • N.T. 1 Corinthians (1)
  • N.T. 1 Timothy (1)
  • N.T. Hebrews (1)
  • N.T. Luke (3)
  • Nationalism (6)
  • Nativity and Theophany (234)
  • Nektarios of Aegina (6)
  • Neomartys Under Turks (11)
  • New England (19)
  • New Martyrs Under Turks (1)
  • New Testament (181)
  • New Testament Exegesis (7)
  • Newly-Revealed Saints (3)
  • Nicholas of Myra (7)
  • Nicolae Steinhardt (3)
  • Nikephoros the Leper (1)
  • Nikodemos the Hagiorite (2)
  • Nikolai Velimirovich (8)
  • O.T. - Genesis (1)
  • Old Testament (150)
  • Old Testament Exegesis (9)
  • Oriental Orthodox (2)
  • Orthodox Church In America (OCA) (13)
  • Orthodox Converts (98)
  • Orthodox Diaspora (10)
  • Orthodox Extremism (149)
  • Orthodox Theologians (66)
  • Orthodoxy (39)
  • Orthodoxy in Abkhazia (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Africa (63)
  • Orthodoxy in Albania (13)
  • Orthodoxy in America (142)
  • Orthodoxy in Armenia (18)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia (46)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia Minor (171)
  • Orthodoxy in Australia (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Bulgaria (99)
  • Orthodoxy in Crete (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Cyprus (100)
  • Orthodoxy in Czech Republic (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Estonia (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ethiopia (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Finland (1)
  • Orthodoxy in France (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Georgia (71)
  • Orthodoxy in Germany (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Greece (454)
  • Orthodoxy In Holy Land (21)
  • Orthodoxy In Israel (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Italy (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Kazakhstan (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Latin America (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Lebanon (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Macedonia (16)
  • Orthodoxy in Mainland Greece (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Moldava (4)
  • Orthodoxy in Poland (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Romania (86)
  • Orthodoxy in Russia (414)
  • Orthodoxy in Serbia (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Syria (5)
  • Orthodoxy in the Cyclades (4)
  • Orthodoxy in the Dodecanese (11)
  • Orthodoxy in the Ionian Islands (3)
  • Orthodoxy in the Saronic Islands (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ukraine (59)
  • Orthodoxy in Uzbekistan (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Western Europe (73)
  • Ottoman Occupation (7)
  • Paganism and the New Age Movement (98)
  • Paranormal and the Occult (197)
  • Pascha and the Pentecostarion (249)
  • Patriarchate of Alexandria (1)
  • Patriarchate of Antioch (5)
  • Patriarchate of Russia (1)
  • Patristic Writings (16)
  • Patristics (325)
  • Personhood (1)
  • Philanthropy (9)
  • Philosophy (82)
  • Photios Kontoglou (3)
  • Photis Kontoglou (1)
  • Pneumatology (3)
  • Podcast (2)
  • Politics (142)
  • Polls (2)
  • Pop Culture (54)
  • Postmodernism (6)
  • Prayer (3)
  • Prayer / Fasting / Alms (159)
  • Priesthood (8)
  • Prison Ministry (6)
  • Prophecies (56)
  • Protestantism (119)
  • Psychology (73)
  • Religion (85)
  • Religion: Buddhism (19)
  • Religion: Hinduism (40)
  • Religion: Islam (184)
  • Religion: Jews and Judaism (57)
  • Repentance and Confession (3)
  • Roman (Byzantine) Empire (201)
  • Romiosini (34)
  • Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) (6)
  • Saint Nicholas (4)
  • Saints (847)
  • Saints of Africa (1)
  • Saints of America (3)
  • Saints of Crete (8)
  • Saints of Georgia (4)
  • Saints of Ionian Islands (8)
  • Saints of Lesvos (1)
  • Saints of Mainland Greece (15)
  • Saints of Mount Athos (9)
  • Saints of Patmos (1)
  • Saints of Romania (3)
  • Saints of Russia (8)
  • Saints of Scotland (2)
  • Saints of Serbia (4)
  • Saints of the Cyclades (2)
  • Saints of the Dodecanese (1)
  • Saints of the Holy Lnd (1)
  • Saints of Ukraine (5)
  • Scandal (56)
  • Science (2)
  • Science-Intelligent Design-Darwinism (249)
  • Secularism (97)
  • Seraphim of Sarov (2)
  • Sexual and Gender Issues (107)
  • Shrines and Relics (564)
  • Soteriology (80)
  • Spiritual Fatherhood (4)
  • Spirituality (220)
  • Sports (20)
  • sShrines and Relics (1)
  • St. Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • St. John of Kronstadt (1)
  • st. John the Baptist (2)
  • St. John the Russian (1)
  • St. Luke of Simferopol (1)
  • St. Maximus the Confessor (1)
  • St. Nektarios (2)
  • St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1)
  • St. Nikolai Velimirovich (3)
  • Strange (36)
  • Sts. Bartholomew and John (1)
  • Substance Issues (14)
  • Symeon the New Theologian (3)
  • Television and Media (45)
  • Television and Media. (1)
  • Theodicy/Evil/Suffering (84)
  • Theology (98)
  • Theophilos of Campania (1)
  • Theotokos Icons (17)
  • Tradition (62)
  • Triodion (8)
  • UFO's and Alien Life (2)
  • Uniates (6)
  • v (1)
  • Vice and Sin (111)
  • video (1)
  • Videos (80)
  • Violence-Crime-Persecution (158)
  • Virtue (117)
  • Youth Ministry (105)

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
All Comments
Atom
All Comments

Visitor Map
Create your own visitor map!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The Genealogy of Christ According to St. Gregory Palamas


On the Saints of the Old Testament

by St. Gregory Palamas

David indicates that our Lord Jesus Christ has no genealogy with regard to His divinity (Ps. 110:4), Isaiah says the same (Isa. 53:8), and later so does the apostle (Heb. 7:3). How can the descent be traced of Him "who is in the beginning, and is with God, and is God, and is the Word and Son of God" (cf. Jn. 1:1-2, 18)? He does not have a Father who was before Him, and shares with His Father "a name which is above every name" and all speech (Phil. 2:9). For the most part, genealogies are traced back through different surnames; but there is no surname for God (cf. Gen. 32:29), and whatever may be said of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they are one and do not differ in any respect.

Impossible to recount is Christ's descent according to His divinity, but His ancestry according to His human nature can be traced, since He who deigned to become Son of Man in order to save mankind was the offspring of men. And it is this genealogy of His that two of the evangelists, Matthew and Luke, recorded. But although Matthew, in the passage from his Gospel read today, begins with those born first, he makes no mention of anyone born before Abraham He traces the line down from Abraham until he reaches Joseph to whom, by divine dispensation, the Virgin Mother of God was betrothed (Matt. 1:1-16), being of the same tribe and homeland as him, that her own stock may be shown from this to be in no way inferior. Luke, by contrast, begins not with the earliest forebears but the most recent, and working his way back from Joseph the Betrothed, does not stop at Abraham, nor, having included Abraham's predecessors, does he end with Adam, but lists God among Christ's human forebears (Lk. 3:23-38); wishing to show, in my opinion, that from the beginning man was not just a creation of God, but also a son in the Spirit, which was given to him at the same time as his soul, through God's quickening breath (Gen. 2:7). It was granted to him as a pledge that, if, waiting patiently for it, he kept the commandment, he would be able to share through the same Spirit in a more perfect union with God, by which he would live forever with Him and obtain immortality.

By heeding the evil counsel of the pernicious angel, man transgressed the divine commandments, was shown to be unworthy, forfeited the pledge, and interrupted God's plan. God's grace, however, is unalterable and His purpose cannot prove false, so some of man's offspring were chosen, that, from among many, a suitable receptacle for this divine adoption and grace might be found, who would serve God's will perfectly, and would be revealed as a vessel worthy to unite divine and human nature in one person, not just exalting our nature, but restoring the human race. The holy Maid and Virgin Mother of God was this vessel, so she was proclaimed by the Archangel Gabriel as full of grace (Lk. 1:28), being the chosen one among the chosen, blameless, undefiled and worthy to contain the person of the God-Man and to collaborate with Him. Therefore God pre-ordained her before all ages, chose her from among all that had ever lived, and deemed her worthy of more grace than anyone else, making her the holiest of saints, even before her mysterious childbearing. For that reason, He graciously willed that she should make her home in the Holy of Holies, and accepted her as His companion to share His dwelling from her childhood. He did not simply choose her from the masses, but from the elect of all time, who were admired and renowned for their piety and wisdom, and for their character, words and deeds, which pleased God and brought benefit to all.

Note where this choice began. The excellent Seth was chosen from among Adam's children, because by his well-ordered conduct, his control over his senses and his glorious virtues he showed himself to be a living heaven and so came to be one of the elect, from whom the Virgin would spring forth, that truly heavenly and divinely appropriate chariot of the supercelestial God, and through whom He would call men back to eternal sonship. Therefore all Seth's stock were called "sons of God" (Gen 6:2), because it was from the race that the Son of God was to become the Son of Man. That is why the name Seth can be interpreted to mean "resurrection", or rather "a raising up from", which really refers to the Lord, who promises and gives eternal life to those who believe in Him.

And how worthy a type of Christ is Seth? "Seth was born to Eve", as she herself says, "instead of Abel" (Gen. 4:25), whom Cain envied and murdered, whereas the Virgin's son, Christ, was born to the human race instead of Adam, whom the prince and father of evil killed out of envy. Seth, however, did not raise up Abel, as he was merely a prefiguration of the resurrection, whereas our Lord Jesus Christ resurrected Adam, for He is the true life and resurrection of mankind (cf. Jn. 11:25), through whom Seth's descendants were deemed worthy, in hope, of divine adoption, being called sons of God. That they were referred to as God's sons on account of this hope, is demonstrated by the first person to be so called and to inherit God's election. This was Seth's son Enos who, as Moses wrote, "was the first to hope to be called by the Lord's name" (Gen. 4:26 LXX).

Do you see clearly that it was through hope that he came to be called? If the Seventy [translators of the Septuagint] say, "He was the first to hope to be called by the Lord's name", they are not at all in disagreement with the others; because Enos lived in a way that pleased God more than anyone else in his day, and was the first to receive this hope from God. He called upon this hope and was called after it. Seth was chosen from God from among Adam's sons, and so Luke, in preparing his genealogy, traces back to him the whole race from which Christ was born according to the flesh. Then Enos was chosen in preference to Seth's other children, as we have said. From his descendants Enoch was chosen, who proved through what happened to him that virtue does not go unrewarded, and that this fleeting world is not worthy of those who are well-pleasing to God, for he was translated because he pleased God (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5). Lamech was chosen and preferred to Enoch's other descendants, and after him his son, Noah, attained to God's election and became the only father of everyone in the world after the flood. Only he and his entire family were found to live chastely at that time when the sons of God took wives from among the daughters of men, as Moses tells us (Gen. 6:1-2). This means that among the offspring of Seth, the forefather of the Mother of God, those who were rejected as unworthy were swept out of the Virgin Mother's family and completely deprived of the divine Spirit. Later this Spirit came upon the Virgin, according to the angel's words to her: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you" (Lk. 1:35). The Spirit also arranged beforehand for the Virgin to come into being, choosing from the beginning, and cleansing, the line of her descent, accepting those who were worthy, or were to become fathers of eminent men, but utterly casting out the unworthy.

This is why the Lord God said on that occasion of those rejected ones, "My Spirit shall not abide with these men, for they are flesh" (Gen. 6:3 LXX). Although the Virgin, of whom Christ was born according to the flesh, came from Adam's flesh and seed, yet, because this flesh had been cleansed in many different ways by the Holy Spirit from the start, she was descended from those who had been chosen from every generation for their excellence. Noah, too, "a just man and perfect in his generation", as the Scriptures say of him (Gen. 6:9), was found worthy of this election.

Observe also that the Holy Spirit makes it clear to such as have understanding that the whole of divinely inspired Scripture was written because of the Virgin Mother of God. It relates in detail the entire line of her ancestry, which begins with Adam, then passes through Seth, Noah and Abraham, as well as David and Zerubbabel, those in between them and their successors, and goes up to the time of the Virgin Mother of God. By contrast, Scripture does not touch upon some races at all, and in the case of others, it makes a start at tracing their descent, then soon abandons them, leaving them in the depths of oblivion. Above all, it commemorates those of the Mother of God's forebears who, in their own lives and the deeds wrought by them, prefigured Christ, who was to be born of the Virgin.

See how Noah clearly foreshadows Him who was later to be born of the Virgin, for whose sake the election was made. For Noah was shown to be the savior, not of all the race of men in general, but of his own household, all of whom were saved through him. In the same way Christ, too, is the Savior of the race of men, not of all men in general, but of all His own household, that is of His Church; not, however, of the disobedient. Furthermore, the name Noah can be translated to mean "rest" (Gen. 5:29). But who is true "rest" except the Virgin's Son, who says, "Come unto me through repentance, all you that labor and are heavy laden with sin, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28), bestowing freedom, ease and eternal life upon you.

Lamech, who gave Noah this name, because he saw in him Christ, who was later to come from their stock, and would be the comfort of all God-fearing people down through the ages, clearly prophesied through this name concerning Christ. "He called his name Noah", says the Scripture, "saying, 'This name shall bring us rest from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord our God has cursed'" (Gen. 5:29 LXX). These words are not about the flood which came to pass, for Lamech's death preceded the flood, yet he says that Noah will "bring us rest", including himself as a partaker in the comfort he foretold. In those days it had not yet come about that in each man "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5) throughout his life, which was why universal destruction of everyone on earth came upon the earth from God. So to whom do his words refer when he says, "He will bring us rest"? He also says, "He shall bring us rest from the earth except Him who opened heaven, raised our nature thither and taught us, through words and deeds, the way up to heaven, calling us towards it? But if the flood too prefigured this rest, it did so by cutting off sins and laying them to rest, not by bringing comfort and ease to sinners.

In this way and for these reasons, Noah attained to God's election. Of his children, Shem was accepted among those chosen to be the blessed family of the Mother of God. That is why, although Japheth also appears to have been well-pleasing to his father, only Shem heard from his father, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem" (Gen. 9:26), as his progeny was to be divine. For it was from him that Abraham was descended, who was preferred according to God's election above all Shem's offspring and was called to be part of the lineage of the Virgin Mother. He was given a new name by God, and received that great promise that all the families of the earth would be blessed in his seed (Gen. 17:5; 12:3). According to Paul, Christ our God, who was born of the Virgin, is his seed according to the flesh (Gal. 3:16). And who could describe the divine visions that Abraham experienced, or the signs and promises from God which foreshadowed and prophesied concerning the ever-virgin Mother of God and her ineffable childbearing? Let us, however, quickly pass over what happened next, as time does not permit us to speak at length. From among Abraham's children Isaac was chosen, then Jacob from among his sons, and the tribe of Judah from Jacob's offspring. From this tribe the root of Jesse was selected, and for those who sprang from this root, David the psalmist and prophet and king, of whom God says, "Thy seed shall endure forever, and His throne as the sun before Me; and as the moon that is established forever, and the witness in heaven is faithful" (Ps. 89:36-37 LXX).

Who is this witness? Obviously He who sits upon the heavenly throne, of whom it says elsewhere: "His name shall be continued as long as the sun: and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in Him" (Ps. 72:17 LXX). From this the lineage of the Mother of God and Joseph, to whom she was betrothed, seems somehow double, for both were of the same tribe and descent according to the law. Thus the family's ancestral line is twofold, made up both of natural children and children according to the law, often converging into one, but sometimes divided into two, so that the same child, strange as it may seem, might be the son of two fathers who are brothers, of the one from a legal point of view, as not having been begotten of him physically, and of the other, according to nature, as having been raised up as seed for his brother (Matt. 22:24; Deut. 25:5; Gen. 38:8); inasmuch as the child traces his ancestry back to David through both his fathers. It is possible to see the dual nature of this lineage in another respect, because the royal line was united on many occasions and in numerous ways with the priestly one. Thus in the holy ancestral line of the Mother of God, Zerubbabel traces his lineage back to David through the descendants of Nathan, who was counted among the priests, as well as through those of Solomon, who inherited the kingdom. For this reason the Lord's genealogy according to the flesh is drawn up differently by the evangelists Luke and Matthew, because one takes into account natural fathers, the other, fathers according to the law, and one mentions only those of royal descent, whereas Luke brings in those of the Levitical race and those of the royal house, who were bound together by priesthood or marriage.

As for Zerubbabel, because he was also favored among the Mother of God's forbears, he too prefigured Christ and was honored with great titles and authority. Born in captivity, he was admired by Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, for his virtue and misunderstanding. He taught both Hebrews and foreigners the power of the truth, set his race free from servitude, and restored God's Temple (1 Esd. 4:33-63; Ezra 3:1-13). Later Christ did something similar, not renewing the inanimate Temple, but that living, rational temple, our nature, and redeeming it, not from perceptible and temporary, but spiritual and primeval captivity. Nor did He move His followers from one country to another, but transferred them from earth to heaven. Zerubbabel was the forefather of both the Virgin and Joseph to whom she was betrothed, but whereas she was the Virgin's forbear by nature alone, he was Joseph's according to nature and the law. For Joseph had two fathers, Heli according to Luke (Lk. 3:23), and Jacob according to Matthew (Matt. 1:16). Heli and Jacob were brothers descended from Zerubbabel, and when Heli died without children, Jacob fathered a child, Joseph, by his brother's wife, who according to the law belongs to Heli.

Now these things are examples and types of greater mysteries, since it was necessary that the royal line be united in many ways, with the priestly race, which would bring forth the family of Christ according to the flesh; because in many ways Christ is truly the eternal King and High Priest. And the fact that adopted sons are counted as sons, that the law approves of adoptive fathers no less and sometimes more than natural fathers, and that the same, appropriately, applies to other kinds of kinship, was a clear example and type of our adoption by Christ, our kinship with Him and our calling according to the Spirit and the law of grace. For the Lord Himself says in the Gospels, "Whosoevr shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother" (Matt. 12:50).

Do you see that the family and kin of Christ are not engendered according to nature, but according to grace and the law that comes from grace? This law is so far superior to the law given through Moses that, whereas those called sons according to the law of Moses are neither born of God nor do they transcend human nature, those styled sons by the law of grace are born of God, brought to perfection above nature and made sons of Abraham through Christ, more closely associated with Him than sons according to blood. All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, according to Paul (Gal. 3:27), and although they are other people's children according to nature, they are born supernaturally of Christ, who in this way conquers nature. For as He became incarnate without seed of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary, so He grants potential and power to those that believe in His name to become children of God. For "as many as received Him", says the evangelist, "to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn. 1:12-13).

Why, when he says, "which were born of God", does he not say "and became sons of God", but "received power to become" sons? Because he was looking towards the end and universal restoration, the perfection of the age to come. The same evangelist says in his Epistles, "It does not yet appear what we shall be: but when He shall appear, we shall be like Him" (1Jn. 3:2). Then we shall be children of God, seeing and experiencing God's radiance, with the rays of Christ's glory shining around us and shining ourselves, as Moses and Elijah proved to us when they appeared with Him in glory on Mount Tabor (Matt. 17:3; Lk. 9:30). " The righteous", it says, "shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt. 13:43). We receive power for this purpose now through the grace of divine baptism. Just as a newborn infant has received potential from his parents to become a man and heir to their house and fortune, but does not yet possess that inheritance because he is a minor, nor will he receive it if he dies coming of age, so a person born again in the Spirit through Christian baptism has received power to become a son and heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ (Rom. 8:17), and in the age to come he will, with all certainty, receive the divine and immortal adoption as a son, which will not be taken from him, unless he has forfeited this by spiritual death. Sin is spiritual death, and whereas physical death is annulled when the future age arrives, spiritual death is confirmed for those who bring it with them from here.

Everyone who has been baptized, if he is to obtain the eternal blessedness and salvation for which he hopes, should live free from all sin. Peter and Paul, the leaders of the highest company of the holy apostles made this clear. Paul said of Christ, "In that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he lives, he lives unto God", (Rom. 6:10-11), whereas Peter wrote, "Forasmuch as Christ has died for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: that you no longer should live the rest of your time by the lusts of men, but by the will of God" (1 Pet. 4:1-2). If it was for our sake that the Lord lived His time on earth, to leave us an example, and He passed His life without sin, we too must live without sin, in imitation of Him. Since He said even to Abraham's descendants according to the flesh, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham" (Jn. 8:39), how much more will He say to us who have no physical kinship with Him, "If you were My children, you would do My works"? It is therefore consistent and just that anyone who, after divine baptism, after the covenants he made then to God and the grace he received from it, does not follow Christ's way of life step by step, but transgresses and offends against the benefactor, should be utterly deprived of divine adoption and the eternal inheritance.

But, O Christ our King, who can worthily extol the greatness of Your love for mankind? What was unnecessary for Him and what He did not do, namely, repentance (for He never needed to repent, being sinless, cf. Heb. 4:15), He granted to us a mediator for when we sin even after receiving grace. Repentance means returning once again to Him and to a life according to His will out of remorse. Even if someone commits a deadly sin, if he turns away from it with all his soul, abstains from it and turns back to the Lord in deed and truth, he should take courage and be of good hope, for he shall not lose eternal life and salvation. When a child according to the flesh meets his death, he is not brought back to life by his father, but someone born of Christ, even though he fall into deadly sins, if he turns again and runs to the Father who raises the dead, is made alive once more, obtains divine adoption, and is not cast out from the company of the just.

May we all attain to this, to the glory of Christ and of His Father without beginning and of the life-giving Spirit, now and forever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.


From On The Saints: Sermons By Saint Gregory Palamas, Mount Thabor Publishing, "On the Old Testament Saints".
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 3:53 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Nativity and Theophany, New Testament, Old Testament
Reactions: 

Why Did God Become Man? The Answer of St. Athanasios


by Rev. Dr. George Dion Dragas

INTRODUCTION

“God became man that we may become gods” (St. Athanasios).

The Incarnation of God is the foundation of the Christian faith. Christ is the Son and Logos (Word) of God who became man. He is not a man who became god, nor a man who stands in a unique and perfect relation with God. If the latter were the truth, Christianity would not differ from Judaism or any other religion. Orthodox Christianity believes that in Christ, God himself (God’s Son and Word) became man without ceasing to be God, so that we may be restored and clothed with God’s perfections.

The Orthodox Church keeps as crucial and essential treasures these classical convictions of the Gospel. There are, however, many contemporary thinkers who regard them as untenable on the basis of certain critical syllogistic arguments. They argue that God as a supreme and absolute power cannot become man if he is really God; that the eternal and unchangeable cannot become temporal and changeable, etc. Thoughtful philosophers have been raising similar points since the early stages of Christian history, both from within and from without the Church’s context. But the Church has always regarded such objections as alien to the Christian truth. Those who propounded them in the past were characterized as heretics, namely who failed to understand Christ’s truth.

The main problem of the ancient her­etics and the contemporary critics, as far as the Incarnation is concerned, stems from their assumption that the Church’s faith in this is the result of thoughtful reflection upon or subjective interpretation of the historic event of Christ. For Orthodox Christians and theologians, however, the Incarnation of the eternal Son and Logos of God is a given truth. Both the apostolic kerygma and the patristic dogma project the Incarnation as an objective datum and divine gift.

When the Fathers of the Church wrote about the Incarnation their aim was not to explain away the event of Christ, but rather to expound its soteriological (saving) significance for all humanity. They did not explain the Incarnation from any abstract theoretical standpoint. They rather attempted to bring out the inner logic of it and to bear witness to its saving effects.

It is this kind of exposition that this article is designed to provide. The intention is to lay open the Church’s understanding of the saving meaning for humanity of the event of the Incarnation of God in Christ, which occupies the essential place in the witness of the Gospel, the Apostles and the Fathers. This will be done on the basis of the most famous work of St. Athanasios “On the Incarnation of the Divine Logos.”

ST. ATHANASIOS' TREATISE ON THE INCARNATION

St. Athanasios’ treatise on the Incar­nation is still regarded today as the first thorough and profound exposition of the event of Christ. It is a continuation of another work, which bears the title “Against Paganism” (Contra Gentes), the subject matter of which is summarized in the beginning of the work on the Incarnation. This work "Against Paganism" deals with the problem of idolatry—man’s worshipful attachment to the world (what we call today “secularism”)—caused by man’s fall from the knowledge of his Creator. The substance of the problem is the loss on the part of man of the self‑consciousness that he is ‘logical’ in the sense that he is “made in the image of God’s Logos” and that the world does not have an independent logic of its own apart from the uncreated powers and energies of the Creator Logos.

The results of this problem per­tain to man’s existence and knowledge. Man’s existence is subjected to corruption and death and man’s knowledge is alien­ated from the truth of the world and the vision of God. St. Athanasios maintains that the Christian reply to this problem and its fatal consequences is man’s redis­covery of the Creator Logos, who is the key to the existence of man himself and of the entire world. This is because through this Logos man will be able once again to find the Image of God and the reflection of that image in himself. But man does not turn to the Logos. Hence the Logos’ inter­vention or turning to man which is achieved through His Incarnation.

The treatise "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasios is divided into two main parts, the first one dealing with the meaning of the Incarnation and the second being a reply to objections raised against it by Jews and Greek philosophers. It is to the first part that we shall turn our atten­tion here.

THE EVENT OF THE INCARNATION: GOD BECAME MAN

The Incarnation is the Event whereby the Logos of God, through whom God created all and sustains all, has revealed Himself to human beings by becoming a man among them. Yet, says St. Athanasios, the human shape of this revelation, instead of filling men with gratitude, became the occasion for the rejection of the Creator Logos. Men thought it impossible and even irrational that God could become man! They were so used to life without Him that they found it impossible to believe in Him when He was born as a man among them! For man to become God and to surpass the weaknesses and limitations of His created nature was for men a desirable thought, which could be reasonably maintained. But for God to become man and taste the futility and littleness of the human predicament was either a logical nonsense or a ridiculous scandal.

And yet the logic of the Gospel, says St. Athanasios, demands the reverse. What men thought impossible, this God put forward as possible, and thus the futility and little­ness of the human nature is shown to be honorable and powerful and saving. The true God is not an indifferent impersonal or ideal God of some kind of metaphysical transcendence. He is the God who puts on human nature, is nailed on the Cross for the sake of righteousness, and truly defies human nature through means seemingly futile and powerless, yet true, natural and human. The aim of the Incarnation was not just the revelation of God, but also the salvation and deifi­cation of fallen man, God’s creature. The Cross of the Incarnate God, then, became the trophy against idolatry and super­stition, because by such means God unmasked the futility of man‑made reli­gion and ill‑conceived theology and also justified and renewed human nature as His own creation.

For St. Athanasios, then, the Incarnation laid down the right terms of true theology: the deification of man as God wills it (as His free gift) and not as man aspires to it (as an arbitrary usurpation of the rights of God). True theology is not made by man, but is given by God when He becomes man. This is owed to the fact that the right knowledge of God is tied up with the right knowledge of man. Hence, God’s decision first to reveal the true man in His Incarnation and then to reveal the truth of Himself. To put it in another way, man becomes a theologian when he becomes true man; and he becomes true man when he becomes a man in Christ. Far from opposing humanism, Christian theology (and particularly the doctrine of the Incarnation) is the key to it, except that it is divine humanism, God’s life as man.

How does this actually take place? And what is the reason or reasons which prompted God to follow such a path? What is the deeper meaning of the Incarnation? These are the questions that St. Athanasios will try to answer in his treatise. And I say that he will try, because first of all he will examine certain “presuppositions” to the Incarnation. He will tell us that we must first understand why and how man was initially made man and why and how he fell from the position that God gave him, in order to understand why and how God became man for our salvation. In other words, man’s creation and fall constitute basic presuppositions to the understanding of the event of the Incarnation.

MAN’S CREATION AND FALL

Man was not created by the world, but by God. God created both man and the world. The Epicureans, like many modern thinkers, propounded the view that the world (and therefore man) came to be through an automatic process out of itself. The Platonists believed that there was a certain creator (demiourgos) who made man and the entire universe, but they held that the material from which all things were made actually pre‑existed the act of creation and was itself eternal. The Gnostic heretics, who followed ancient oriental religious traditions, spoke about two cosmic spheres and substances, which belonged to two rival gods (the good god of spiritual substance and the evil god of matter) and saw man as being caught up between these two opposing realms.

Against these theories St. Athanasios expounded the teaching of the Church, which is based on the Bible and on Divine revelation. God created all things out of nothing with His Divine Logos. Therefore every form of cosmological monism or dualism must be rejected as false. The cause of creation was God’s immeasurable goodness, and as a result the world and man are substantially good. God showed His goodness in a special way in creating man. Because He knew that, being a creature that came out of nothing, man could not remain in existence for ever—for every creature that has a beginning also has an end. He made man in such a way that he may exist in the Image and the Likeness of God Himself. In other words, God made man able to communicate with God and to imitate Him. In this way the iconic relation of human existence with the ever‑existing and eternal God would render the former capable of remaining in existence forever.

The commandment, which, according to the Bible, God gave to the protoplasts [first-created] in paradise concerning the knowledge of good and evil, had no other purpose than to safeguard the grace of being in the Image and Likeness of God, that is man’s free communion with and imitation of his Creator. By such means the power of immortality and eternal existence that belongs to God alone would be also secured for man. In the last analysis the most characteristic element of St. Athanasios’ teaching on man’s creation is not so much man’s created existence as it is the free co‑ordination of this existence with the self‑existing Creator, the Divine Logos, through the grace of being in the Image and Likeness.

Man is not a closed circle of existence simply regulated from a center existing in him. He is rather an open or free existence capable of communicating with the transcendent and self‑existing God. Thus St. Athanasios teaches us that the key to our humanity is the Divine Logos and our communion with Him. This is precisely the point where our fall takes place, which incurs the corruption and death of our existence and causes the drama of human history, which in turn calls out the saving intervention of the Logos: the Incarnation.

The fall of man, which is so clearly revealed in his natural corruption and death, is in the last analysis first man’s denial to appropriate the grace of his Creator Logos, and secondly man’s turning to the created and limited world as the ultimate purpose of his life. This means, says St. Athanasios, that in our life we no longer imitate or communicate with the self‑existing (the One Who Is), but with things that are not. We are mastered by a demonic envy (the devil’s deceit) that makes us transgress God’s commandment and leave death and corruption to reign supreme over our life. The result is that our humanity remains unfulfilled—we never reach the purpose of our life, which is immortality and deification.

THE DILEMMA OF THE CREATOR

This miserable condition of man, says St. Athanasios, puts God, as it were, in a certain dilemma! If he allows the transgressor to live, then he runs the risk of being proved a deceiver, because His original warning about man’s death in the case of his rejection of the Logos would appear to be false. On the other hand leaving man to be lost in corruption and death does not measure up with God’s character, especially in view of the fact that man became communicant of the grace of His Image. His truth asks that man should be left to his loss because this will not interfere with God’s consistency to His Logos and will not violate man’s freedom. But God’s goodness wants of Him to save His creature, whilst His power is capable to do so. What then should God do with man who is an arbitrary transgressor?

Perhaps one might consider, St. Athanasios says, that in this case the easiest operation would be for God to demand man’s repentance. But the fact remains that repentance does not satisfy the law of existence, which demands death, neither does it restore the fatal consequences resulting upon the human nature from the transgression. Repentance simply puts an end to sinning, but does not undo the incurred consequences of sin. Had sin not had such repercussions, repentance might have sufficed for man’s salvation. But now, such as sin is, even the grace of the Image and Likeness cannot operate. Repentance just does not lead out of the cul de sac.

After all this the only solution to the problem of man’s salvation can be the intervention of the Creator Logos, who is capable of re‑creating the lost man. Only the Divine Logos, St. Athanasios says, can keep God’s consistency with His Creation, represent all men, suffer on behalf of all, and re‑create all men and all things: because He is the key to the Creation of the world and especially of man.

THE FIRST CAUSE OF THE INCARNATION: THE DESTRUCTION OF DEATH

It is with His Logos that God acts again in order to save His creation. He sends His Word (Logos) to the earth out of infinite love for man, Him who was never far away. And the Logos, who sees our plight and the loss of our generation, enters Himself into our race and is identified with us. He does this by taking a body like our own from a pure and impeccable Virgin and makes it personally His own, Himself becoming a man. With His own human existence the Logos offers as a man a life of perfect obedience to God, which concludes with His self‑sacrifice for the sake of all men. The true self‑sacrifice of Christ is sealed with His death on the Cross and is vindicated with His resurrection whereby death is destroyed forever.

The death of Christ, says St. Athanasios, does not occur for the same reason as our own. We die justly because death has a right over us on account of our sin. But Christ is just and sinless and thus He does not die for Himself but for us. He does not, of course, die as God—for this is quite impossible—but as man, inasmuch as He has a human existence identical with our own. He allows Himself to receive death at the hands of others, because He wants to enter the ultimate darkness of our fall and illuminate it with His presence. He dies as man in order to annul the ultimate strength of death. The death of Christ, of the one who is just and lays down His life for the unjust, has a universal meaning, value and effectiveness. It was the death of all men that Christ accomplished through His death, in the sense that natural death is no longer the ultimate destiny of any man.

Our ultimate destiny is now the resurrection of our creaturely mortal existence to a new condition of immortality caused by the Resurrection of Christ. Christ is the first‑fruit and we shall follow. We no longer die as condemned, but we die in order to rise again and live eternally with God. This universal significance, value and effectiveness of Christ’s death is not based simply on the fact that He was the just and true man who was vindicated by God when He died in the hands of sinners, but above all on the fact that He is in the last analysis the Creator Logos who holds the key to the existence of all men (He is the God-Man). The Lord’s humanity (His body) is identical with our own, but it has acquired universal rights for all of us because it is the humanity of the universal Lord of all (it is the Divine-Body).

Christ is ultimately “the true God who is above all and for all”, who in becoming man has regained our lost rights especially through His Death and Resurrection. The abolition of death and corruption as the ultimate conclusion to our destiny and the establishment of the rights to immortality and incorruptibility for our creaturely human existence is regarded by St. Athanasios as the first cause of the Incarnation. The wonder of the whole gift of Christ to us is not just the return of our humanity from death to life, but the transformation of that humanity into an external incorruptible and immortal existence which is new and demands the renewal of the whole world.

THE SECOND CAUSE OF THE INCARNATION: MAN’S REGAINING THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

Apart from the death of our creaturely existence, our fall has also been the cause of our ignorance of God. As we saw above, man’s rational existence implies that he does not simply enjoy life but also knowledge, and indeed the knowledge of God. According to St. Athanasios and the other Fathers and Theologians of our Church, the knowledge of man is not restricted to the knowledge of the cosmos or of his own self, but is ultimately connected with the knowledge and consciousness of God. Without the last one all other kinds of knowledge can lose their true meaning and become paradoxically bearers of ignorance.

The knowledge and consciousness of God is ultimately connected with the grace of the Image and the Likeness of the Divine Logos given to man at his creation. In the last analysis man’s knowledge of God is based on his knowledge of the Logos, who is God’s true Image. By perceiving the Logos men perceive God and thus receive eternal life, which rests on His grace. Yet on account of their fall men have neglected this grace, and as a result they have lost the ability of perceiving the divine Word (Logos) and through Him perceiving God. This loss has also meant that they cannot any more understand the truth of the world or the truth of themselves, or even the truth which God has sent to them through the Prophets and the holy men. It was self‑evident then that the Logos and true Image of the Father had to be revealed to men once again and revive in them the grace of the Image that had been darkened.

This is exactly what the Logos did with His Incarnation. Not only did He revive the mortal body and make it incorruptible, but He also renewed the grace of the Image of God in man’s soul and existence. Neither angels nor men, says St. Athanasios, could have achieved this, but only the very Logos of God who is God’s true Image. Just as an image which has been printed on a piece of wood requires the prototype in order to be restored when destroyed, so the grace of the Image of the Logos which had been engrafted upon the soul of man was required in order to be revived after man’s fall. This is exactly what the Incarnation of the Logos of God actually brought about: the revival of man’s rationality, which involves the restoration of the knowledge and consciousness of God in man and constitutes the second and ultimate cause of the Incarnation.

For St. Athanasios then there are two basic consequences of the Incarnation which refer to our salvation and bring out its inner meaning. First of all the Incarnation has opened the way for the return of our mortal and corruptible existence from death to life. Secondly it gives us the possibility for renewal in our inner man through restoring to us the knowledge and consciousness of God, which constitutes the foundation for our true knowledge of the world and of ourselves. Christ saves us completely, because He gives us the immortality of our creaturely nature and makes us communicants of eternal life in the light and glory of His Kingdom. The Church knows these two fundamental gifts of Christ to humanity empirically, and therefore her faith in the God who became man is not the result of a blind obedience to some dogma superimposed from above. The Church does not accept the principle, “believe and do not search,” but the principle, “taste and see that the Lord is good.”

In the last analysis, and as St. Athanasios teaches in other writings, the proof of the faith of the Church in the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ the Savior of the World, is based on the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. Both the resurrection of the human nature and the restoration of the grace of the Image of God in man are the work of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. The whole salvation of man, which is achieved and revealed in the Incarnation of the Son and Logos of God is the work of the one undivided and consubstantial Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, to whom belongs all the glory, the honor and the worship now and for ever and in the ages of the ages. Amen.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 2:32 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Christology, Eschatology/Death, Nativity and Theophany, Patristics, Soteriology, Theology
Reactions: 

Why Jesus Had To Be Virgin Born: St. Maximus the Confessor Explains


by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos

Pleasure and Pain According to St. Maximus the Confessor

In his Centuries on Theology St. Maximus the Confessor refers to the nexus of the dualism of pleasure and pain, which, by any standard, is an important subject. This means that we cannot discuss Orthodox Theology if we fail to face this crucial point, because the transcendence of pleasure and pain is, precisely, a prerequisite for correct Orthodox Theology. As St. Maximus the Confessor says, the transcendence of pleasure and pain proves that man has cleansed his heart from the passions.

As we pointed out above, the whole of modern life is governed by pleasure and pain, since, in our age, enjoyment and the gratification of the senses dominate, while at the same time deep grief, an inner pain, prevails. In reality, modern man tries to escape pain through the satisfaction of sensual pleasure. All contemporary problems, such as AIDS and drugs, are to be found in this connection. This is why I believe it is extremely important to see this link between pleasure and pain, as elaborated by St. Maximus the Confessor.

a) The origin of pleasure and pain

The world was created by God in Trinity. The most perfect creature is man, for he is the apex of creation, the microcosm in the macrocosm. Analyzing the issue of the creation of man and its relation to the birth and the origin of pleasure and pain, St. Maximus says that God the Word who created man's nature, made it without pleasure and pain. "He did not make the senses susceptible to either pleasure or pain." He insists on this point by saying: "Pleasure and pain were not created simultaneously with the flesh."

While there was no pleasure and pain in man before the fall, there was a noetic faculty towards pleasure, through which man could enjoy God ineffably. But he misused this natural faculty. Man oriented the "the natural longing of the nous for God" to sensible things and thus "by the initial movement towards sensible things, the first man transferred this longing to his senses, and through them began to experience this pleasure in a way contrary to nature". The words "according to nature" and "contrary to nature" show the complete ontological change that took place in man and depict his fallen state clearly.

Of course, man did not invent this mode of operation of the faculties of the soul on his own, but with the advice of the devil. The devil was motivated by jealously against man, for whom God had shown special care and attention. It is interesting that the devil envied not only man but God Himself: "Since the devil is jealous of both us and god, he persuaded man by guile that God was jealous of him, and so made him break the commandment".

After the unnatural movement of the noetic capacity of the soul to sensible things and the birth of pleasure, God, being interested in man's salvation "implanted pain, as a kind of chastising force". Pain, which God, in His love for man, tied to sensual pleasure, is the whole complex of the mortal and passible body, that is the law of death, which has, ever since then, been very closely connected to human nature. In this way, the "manic longing of the nous" which incites the unnatural inclination of the soul to sensible things, is restrained.

This whole analysis by St. Maximus the Confessor in no way reminds us of Platonic teaching about the movement of the immortal soul from the unborn realm of the ideas, and its confinement to a mortal body which is the prison of the soul. This is simply because St. Maximus the Confessor, being an integral member of the entire Orthodox tradition, makes no distinction between a naturally immortal soul and a naturally mortal body, he does not believe in an immortal and unborn realm of ideas, and, obviously, does not adopt a dualistic view of man, according to which salvation consists in his liberation from the prison of the soul, which is the body. In St. Maximus' teaching there is a clear reference to the unnatural movement of the faculties of the soul and to the "manic longing of the nous", which draws the body into situations and acts which are against nature.

It is clear, then, that ancestral sin consists of the "initial movement of the soul" toward sensible things and in the "law of death" granted by God's love for man. Therefore, pleasure and pain constitute so-called original sin. Pleasure is the soul's initial movement toward sensible things, while pain is the whole law of death which took roots in man's existence and constitutes the law of the mortal flesh.

St. Maximus makes some marvellous observations. He states that the transgression (of the commandment) devised pleasure "in order to corrupt the will", i.e. man's freedom, and also imposed pain (death) "to cause the dissolution of man's nature". This means that pleasure causes sin, which is a voluntary death of the soul, while pain, through the separation of soul and body, causes the disintegration of the flesh. This was, actually, the work and objective of the devil, but God allowed the link between pleasure and pain. That is, He allowed death to come into man's existence on grounds of love and philanthropy, for pain is the refutation of pleasure. Thus, "God has providentially given man pain he has not chosen, together with death that follows from it, in order to chasten him for the pleasure he has chosen."

On several occasions, St. Maximus refers to "voluntary pleasure" and "irrational pleasure", as well as to "involuntary" and "sensible" pain. Pain balances the results of pleasure, that is, it subtracts pain, but does not completely revoke it.

Therefore, pleasure precedes pain, since all pain is caused by pleasure, and this is why it is called natural pain. For Adam and Eve, pleasure was without cause, that is, it was not preceded by pain, while pain, which is a natural consequence of pleasure, is an obligation, a debt, paid by all men who have the same human nature. This is what happened to Adam and Eve. For their descendants, things are a little different; the experience of pain leads them to the enjoyment of pleasure.

After the Fall and the entry of the law of sin and death into his existence, man is in a tragic state, because, even though pain reverses pleasure and annuls its active movement, man cannot reverse and eliminate the law of death which is found within his being, and this law brings a new experience of pleasure. "Philosophy towards virtue", namely man's whole ascetic struggle brings dispassion not in his will but in his nature, because asceticism cannot defeat death, which is found as a powerful law within man’s being. Herein lies the tragedy of man, who may cure pleasure and obtain inner balance through voluntary pain (asceticism) and involuntary events (external grief, death) but is unable to liberate himself from pain, which is determined by the law of death.

b) The purpose of Christ's incarnation

So far we have described how the link between pleasure and pain was established after the Fall. Pleasure was a result of the irrational movement of the faculty of the soul , with its natural consequence the coming of pain, along with the entire law of death. This combination of pleasure and pain became a law of human nature. Obviously, while living a life contrary to nature, man could not be delivered from this state which had become natural. Christ's incarnation contributed to man's liberation from this connection between pleasure and pain. St. Maximus the Confessor also makes some marvellous observations on this point too.

It was absolutely impossible for human nature which had fallen to voluntary pleasure and involuntary pain to return to the former state "had the Creator not become man". The mystery of incarnation lies in the fact that Christ was born human, but the beginning and cause of His birth was not sensual pleasure, for He was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, outside the human way of generation, and He embraced pain and death by His own free choice. For man, pain came as a result of sin, it was involuntary. While for Christ, who was born without sensual pleasure, pain was received by choice.

All humans born after the transgression, are born with sensual pleasure, which precedes their birth, because man is an offspring of his parents’ pleasure and, of course, no one is free, by nature, from impassioned generation provoked by pleasure. Thus man had the origin of his birth "in the corruption that comes from pleasure" and would finish his life "in the corruption that comes through death". Therefore, he was a complete slave to pleasure and pain "and he could not find the way to freedom". Humans are tortured by unjust pleasure and just pain and, of course, by their outcome which is death.

For man to return to his previous state and to be deified, an unjust pain and death without cause had to be invented. Death had to be without cause, not to be caused by pleasure, and unjust, not following an impassioned life. In this way, most unjust death would cure unjust pleasure which had caused just death and just pain. In this way mankind would enjoy freedom again, delivered from pleasure and pain. Christ became perfect man, having a noetic soul and a passible body, like ours, but without sin. He was born as a man by an immaculate conception and, thus, did not have any sensual pleasure whatsoever, but voluntarily accepted pain and death and suffered unjustly, out of love for man, in order to revoke the principle of human generation from unjust pleasure, which dominates human nature, and in order to eliminate nature’s just termination by death. Thus, Christ's immaculate conception as man and His voluntary assumption of the passibility of human nature, as well as His unjust death, liberated mankind from sensual pleasure, pain and death.

Christ's birth as man took place in a way contrary to that of humans. After the Fall, human nature has its principle of generation in "pleasure-provoked conception by sperm" from the father. A direct consequence of this sensual birth is the end, namely "painful death through corruption." But Christ could not possibly be ruled over by death, because He was not born in this pleasure-provoked way. With His incarnation, Christ offered a different principle of generation to man, the pleasure of the life to come, by means of pain. Adam, with his transgression, introduced a different way of generation, a generation originating in sensual pleasure and ending in pain, grief and death. Thus, everyone who descends from Adam according to the flesh, justly and painfully suffers the end from death. Christ offered a different way of generation, because, through His seedless generation (birth) and His voluntary and unjust death, He eliminated the principle of generation according to Adam (sensual pleasure) and the end which Adam came to (pain-death). In this way "he liberated from all those reborn spiritually in him".

The way by which Christ became incarnate and cured human nature reveals indisputably that He is wise, just and powerful. He is wise because He became a true man according to nature without being subjected to any change. He is just, because He voluntarily assumed passible human flesh, out of great condescension and love for man. This is also why He did not make man's salvation tortuous. He is also powerful, because He created eternal life and unchangeable dispassion in nature, through suffering and death, and in this way He did not show Himself to be at all incapable of achieving the cure of human nature.


From: "The Picture of the Modern World"
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 12:03 PM 2 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Christology, Mariology, Nativity and Theophany, Patristics, Theology
Reactions: 

The Case Against the Case Against the Virgin Birth


The American Spectator
By Jeremy Lott
12.22.09

Every year at about this time, readers can count on a few Christmas-themed articles appearing in newspapers and magazines that question the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. It really is something to see the wide variety of people who get worked up over this ancient Christian belief.

Scientific reductionists -- the Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins set -- will tell us that it's impossible. By definition, a virgin cannot be with child. Certain biblical scholars will be trotted out to poke holes in the dogma, by making points about the Bible passages in question that sound convincing to non-scholars. And moderate, embarrassed believers such as Newsweek editor Jon Meacham will try to smooth things over. The Virgin Birth, they will say, is symbolically but not historically or scientifically important. It's about new life or specialness or some other non-offensive, wooly-headed thing.

The scholars will say that the verse in Isaiah (7:14) that prophesies a "virgin shall conceive and bear a son" is a mistranslation. "Virgin" could be "young woman," you see. They will point out that only two of the four Gospels of the New Testament mention the Virgin Birth and that the Virgin Birth Gospels (Matthew and Luke) do not agree about many details. They will say that the earliest Gospel (Mark) leaves it out entirely.

Therefore: Who can say what really happened? The point of this exercise is to paint defenders of the virgin birth as narrow fundamentalists who cling to two tenuous, unscientific, conflicting scraps of the biblical text that rely on a questionable translation of Old Testament prophecy. There are perhaps a dozen problems with this approach. We'll focus on three:

One, it manages to misrepresent all four Gospels at the same time. Matthew and Luke have miraculous conception and birth narratives. Mark and John are rooted in the first chapter of Genesis. That itself says something about Christ's origin. According to the first chapter of John, "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God." In Jesus, "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

In fact, all four Gospels are rooted in Genesis. Modern audiences tend to focus on the creation narratives of the first few chapters and skip over the genealogies. To a first century Middle Eastern audience, those lists were far more important. Echoing this, both Matthew and Luke attempt to construct genealogies of Jesus, and in the process both books finger God as the father and Mary as the mother.

Two, in pointing out contradictions between Matthew and Luke, scholars and more progressive believers think that they are scoring points against literalism and fundamentalism. The supposed contradictions do present a problem for some believers, but they help make their case as well. Historians are trained to suspect collusion of sources: if two accounts line up too neatly, then one is likely based on the other and thus less valuable. It's better to have two divergent accounts -- even wildly divergent accounts -- of the same event to serve as confirmation of the details where they agree.

The stories about Jesus' conception and birth in Matthew and Luke are far enough apart -- the "wise men," the flight to Egypt, and the murder of innocents are in Matthew but not Luke; the census, the shepherds, the meeting between the mothers of the still unborn Jesus and John the Baptist are unique to Luke -- that they must come from different sources. They both agree about the Virgin Birth.

Three, the case for a mistranslation of Isaiah is simply beside the point. Yes, the word in Hebrew could be rendered "young lady" but that's irrelevant. When an angel tells Mary that she will have a child and she wonders, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34) she's not saying "since I am a young lady." The Gospel writers, the popular early Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, and the early church all understood it to mean "virgin," and their understanding is what matters here.

None of this is indisputable proof for the Virgin Birth, nor is it meant to be. We can give evidence for miracles but cannot replicate the results in a laboratory, and the chasm between history and mystery is where faith comes in. However, the hostility of scientific reductionists to the idea does not make nearly as much sense as it used to. Now, with advances in reproductive technology, a woman who was biologically a virgin could in fact conceive a child. Experiments in animal DNA are showing that you can manipulate eggs in such a way that sperm is not necessary to create a whole new creature. If scientists in the 21st century can manage it, is it really such a stretch to say that God 2,000 years ago would have been up to the task?
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:57 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Apologetics, Christology, Mariology, Nativity and Theophany
Reactions: 

Orthodox Priest Killed in Moscow Region


Orthodox Priest Killed in Moscow Region

Moscow, December 23, Interfax - Archpriest Alexander Filippov, who served at the Ascension Church in the village of Satino-Russkoye in the Podolsk District outside Moscow, has died after being shot in the heart on Tuesday evening, the priest's widow Yelena told Interfax-Religion.

"Father Alexander was killed only because he reproached those people who were urinating in an apartment building's entrance hall," she said.

Father Alexander was 39 years old. He had three teenage daughters.

According to the Moscow Patriarchate, the priest's murderer has already been detained.

It was the second murder of an Orthodox priest in the Moscow area in the past month. Priest Daniil Sysoyev from Moscow's Saint Thomas Church, who was known for his criticism of nationalist groups, was killed on November 19.

A total of 26 Orthodox priests have been murdered in Russia since 1990.


Priest Killed By Drunk Hooligans in Moscow Region Struggled Against Alcoholism

Moscow, December 23, Interfax – Icons healing from alcohol and drug addiction are kept in the Ascension Church in the Moscow Region Satino-Russkoye village, where Archpriest Alexander Phillipov killed last evening was a rector.

Fr. Alexander conducted a prayer service before the Akhtyrskaya Icon of the Mother of God and St. Bonifatius every Saturday and prayed for healing from alcoholism, smoking and other passions, the Moscow Diocese told Interfax.

As was reported, Archpriest Alexander Phillipov, Rector of the Ascension Church in Satino-Russkoye was killed in Tuesday evening.

“Fr. Alexander was killed only because he reproved monsters who relieved themselves in the doorway,” the priest’s widow Yelena told Interfax-Religion.

Fr. Alexander was 39 years old and had three teen daughters.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:34 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Orthodoxy in Russia, Violence-Crime-Persecution
Reactions: 

The Christian Parthenon


Anthony Kaldellis, The Christian Parthenon: Classicism and Pilgrimage in Byzantine Athens. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Pp. xiv, 252; ills. 26 b/w, 2 maps. ISBN 978-0-521-88228-6. $99.00.

A monographic study of the Christian Parthenon is long overdue. It is ironic that Kaldellis' bold and provocative book was published simultaneously with the pompous inauguration of the New Acropolis Museum at Athens, a cultural institution that decisively concretizes the Parthenon as the great masterpiece of Classical Antiquity. Kaldellis is a byzantinist who takes issue with this monolithic and fictional construction of the Parthenon in both popular and scholarly imagination since the eighteenth century. His argument is that the perceptual filters of Classicism, distorting, disorienting, and culturally contingent as they have always been, have diverted attention from the illustrious career of the monument as a Christian church. Consequently he sets out to rehabilitate the monument in its former, hitherto neglected glory as a pilgrimage site of universal appeal and as a focus of attention, cult, and intellectual preoccupation that have no match in Classical antiquity. He does so with expository verve and an often polemical tone that militates against the prevalent neglect and misunderstanding of the rich intellectual heritage of Medieval Hellenism. It is time we discovered the riches and complexity of post-antique Hellenism, Kaldellis argues. His book provides a paradigm for how to go about this, especially how to formulate questions and methods of approach that defy the suspicious assumption that Hellenism after antiquity was orientally decadent, derivative, and second-rate. It is no accident that this revisionist project has to start with the Parthenon. At once a blessing and a curse, this tyrant of a monument has to be deconstructed along with all the ideologies it has come to epitomize in Western civilization. The undertaking is daunting, but Kaldellis's book shows that it is well worth the effort.

Kaldellis draws mainly from textual sources such as hagiography, epistolary documents, and homiletic texts--often fragmentary and obscure remnants of a much richer archive that several layers of catastrophes and reversals have condemned to oblivion. He has also made judicious usage of archaeological evidence that sheds light on various aspects of the history of the Parthenon from Late Antiquity until the beginning of the Frankish occupation of Athens. Given that the history of the Parthenon is inextricable from that of the surrounding city, this book is also a valuable contribution to the medieval history of Athens, even as a wealth of archaeological information still awaits publication (e.g. the Byzantine layers of occupation in the Athenian Agora area). It is noteworthy for its decisive effort to shake the established conception of Athens as a sluggish cultural backwater at the margins of the Eastern Roman empire. On the contrary, Kaldellis argues, local memory, the very radiance of the Parthenon, and the landscape of the city itself were conducive to the creation of uniquely local attitudes in which the Classical past was carefully re-inscribed in the framework of a Christian universe. Fraught with conceptual antinomies, constant tensions, and contradictions, this re-inscription forms the backbone of Kaldellis' project--it is also the crux of a cultural debate that continues uninterrupted to this day.

Kaldellis unfurls his analysis of the Christian Parthenon with a provocative argument. He seems to think that in the Middle Ages the Parthenon/church was much more significant to many more people than it had ever been at any single moment in antiquity. In the last two hundred years or so, Kaldellis argues, scholars and others have carved a completely false image of the importance of the Parthenon in antiquity. Instead, he claims, "...the Parthenon, as a church, was more important than it had been as a temple. It was only in Byzantium that Athens was often identified with its cathedral; that people came from all around for the sole purpose of worshiping there; that the Parthenon eclipsed all other monumental sights in the city (of which there were still many); and that many described the building in superlative and miraculous language". He juxtaposes the Parthenon/temple to the Parthenon/church. The former he sees as an essentially hegemonic monument with restricted appeal and intellectual or even aesthetic consequence. The latter, on the other hand, emerges in Kaldellis' analysis as the focus of international pilgrimage, imbued with the transcendental grace and attractiveness of the Theotokos, its new Parthenos, and the subliminal impact of the antique and classical. It was the ideology of Classicism, Kaldellis claims, that placed the Parthenon at the pinnacle of European civilization in order to assert this civilization's cultural, political, and intellectual superiority in the history of humanity. Kaldellis finds no evidence that the Parthenon really enjoyed a commensurate centrality in ancient thought and life. It was not exceptional. Instead, Kaldellis sees it as marginal, at best debatable, a monument that never became a universal symbol or point of reference as it did in Byzantium. But precisely because Byzantium was Christian Orthodox, "oriental", and metaphysically oriented according to Kaldellis, it fell by default outside this cultural economy of classicing Eurocentrism. As a result, the Christian universality of the Parthenon and its aesthetic valorization and appreciation in the medieval period remained obscure and subject to a long chain of Orientalist prejudices.

Productive though this critical framework may be, it is not without some problems. As Kaldellis rightly argues, the post-Enlightment Parthenon is indeed both a literal and metaphoric construct. On the other hand, Kaldellis is all too quick to dismiss a wealth of non-textual evidence that points decisively to the range and intensity of the monument's impact and valorization in antiquity. This evidence is as vast as it is often elusive and still not properly studied, precisely because until very recently the analysis of the Parthenon (and the Classical phenomenon) was premised on its capacity to embody a great number of essential, ahistorical, and universal forces and values. Moreover, Kaldellis's retrojective projection of pilgrimage as a qualifying criterion for the monument's significance in antiquity is no less guilty of anachronism as it is dangerous and misleading (see. esp. p. 14). Would anyone claim that the monument is more important in modernity because it receives hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world?

On the basis of this foundational background, Kaldellis proceeds to unravel the hitherto neglected history of the Christian Parthenon. This is a veritable rehabilitation project and Kaldellis has done it very well. The story he tells ends up with the arrival of the Franks in Athens in 1204. The post-antique career of the Parthenon starts at the moment of its conversion into a Christian church. The evidence is scant but the fact, Kaldellis warns us, that a great deal of its sculptural decoration did survive should deflect attention from the usual imagery of Christian fanatics defacing the east, north, and west metopes (incidentally a cause of bad blood between the Greek Orthodox church and the museum administration in the wake of the inauguration of the New Acropolis Museum). Instead Kaldellis admonishes his readers to ask "...how did Byzantine worshipers and pilgrims to the Christian Parthenon perceive [the surviving sculptures on the Parthenon such as those of the West pediment]?". Kaldellis carefully speculates that in a city that witnessed generations of classically educated Christians a middle ground was possible: preservation, or even appreciation of the blatantly pagan apparatus of the Parthenon was not impossible in the cultural milieu of late antique Athens. In the subsequent centuries Kaldellis unearths a wealth of evidence that conclusively shows that antiquity constantly provided a lively framework for the articulation of Athenian identity.

For the following few centuries Kaldellis painstakingly analyses a number of obscure and secondary sources (e.g. vitae of saints) in order to argue that the Parthenon gradually emerged as a pilgrimage site between the seventh and tenth centuries. The sources are very problematic and Kaldellis struggles to squeeze reliable information from them regarding pilgrims and patterns of pilgrimage traffic to Athens. His results, albeit impressionistic, are convincing but one is left with even more questions. There is no evidence whatsoever about the Athenian profile of the Theotokos and the new landscape of sacredness in which she and the pagan relic of the Parthenon came to dominate. One wonders, for example, about the symbiotic relationship of the Parthenon/church with the good number of Christian establishments on top of or around the rock of the Acropolis (e.g. the Asklepieion, interestingly enough dedicated to the healing Saints Kosmas and Damianos) and surrounding areas. Despite Kaldellis' effort to stress the Parthenon/church's singularity as a focus of pilgrimage, the Leonides basilica and adjacent martyrion near the Ilissos river must have been equally important and attractive sites; one suspects that the Parthenon/church existed in a socially complicated and perhaps multilayered network of movement toward sacred sites. Kaldellis is in more secure ground, nevertheless, when he turns to the extraordinary corpus of the Christian inscriptions on the Parthenon. Numerous prayers, epitaphs of prominent ecclesiastics, and names of laymen started being inscribed on the monument ca. 600, thus attesting to (but also shaping) the building's centrality in Athenian cultic life for several centuries. It may well be, Kaldellis hypothesizes, that "the insistence of the Parthenon inscriptions on personal names has more in common with ancient habits than with those of Christians in late antiquity" . No matter how we interpret this epigraphic habit, it rendered the Parthenon an unparalleled repository of memory and entreaty. The life of the Parthenon/church emerges in much sharper relief from ca 1100 onward. Kaldellis makes good use of an ecclesiastical register of properties (πράκτικον) in order to reconstruct the topography of the city at the beginning of the twelfth century. This was a period of prosperity for Athens, one which witnessed the establishment of a good number of churches--the humbly sumptuous and elegant specimens of an Athenian school of architecture that seem to have rivaled in subtle, yet distinct, ways the grandiose creations of Constantinople. Kaldellis bypasses these important monuments, and this is rather awkward because they still set the backdrop of normalcy against which the Parthenon enjoyed its unique and formidable status as home to the Theotokos (now crystallized as "Athenaïs" or "Atheniotissa"), her cathedral, and a pilgrimage center of universal fame and appeal. Constantinople also was the spiritual home of many pious ecclesiastic leaders who arrived in Athens armed with metropolitan snobbery and a very sophisticated apparatus of classical scholarship, only to find the harsh reality of ruins and a glory long gone. Some of them found solace in experiencing the Parthenon/church as a material affirmation of Christian triumph while others, e.g. the wise but tragically misplaced Metropolitan Michael Choniates or Akominatos, escaped to the irresistible magnetism of its classical aura and finesse. It is this idiosyncratic character of the building, Kaldellis argues, that accounts for the exceptionality of the Atheniotissa, her popularity and attractiveness, her fame and universal appeal. The ancient building was "...not merely the flagship of the Theotokos cult but the very reason for its existence" (144). He sees the very materiality of the Parthenon as the indispensable, yet at the same time unattestable, precondition for the success and pervasiveness of the cult of the Atheniotissa. The argument is convincing despite the reticence of the relevant sources as to what precisely the medieval worshipers appreciated on the Parthenon. Kaldellis leaves no stone unturned to reconstruct the building's exterior and interior ambiance at a time when ecclesiastical buildings came to encapsulate the Christian universe in both their form and decoration. To what extent and how could this superb relic fit in the established theological symbolism of Eastern Roman empires' world order?

It was in this period that a new apse was constructed and along with it a mosaic of the Theotokos (Kaldellis emphasizes that the process involved the careful dismantling of the frieze block with "peplos scene"). This new feature punctuated what must have been a truly bizarre interior. More importantly, the twelfth century witnessed the association of a frequently attested, yet frustratingly elusive, miraculous and ever-burning light with a "photocentric" conception of the Theotokos Atheniotissa--a well conceived attempt to enhance the cathedral's mystical aura. Interestingly enough Kaldellis hypothesizes that this may have been inspired by the ever-burning lamp by Kallimachos at the Erechtheion. This is possible in a climate of intense preoccupation and latent dialogues of both Athenians and outsiders with the classical past of Athens. On the other hand, one can not help thinking that this preoccupation with light is curiously concurrent with the important spiritual underpinnings of Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis (falsely identified with Dionysius the Areopagite in the Mediaeval period) regarding light and its transcendental qualities. Could this be
pure coincidence only?

Kaldellis' fascinating story of the Christian Parthenon ends grimly in 1204. The subsequent history of the Parthenon and Athens paints a very black canvas and largely accounts for the irretrievable loss of evidence regarding the period covered in this book. It is only to be hoped that others will follow Kaldellis' lead to unravel the life of the monument as a Latin Cathedral and later on as an impressive mosque. Kaldellis has done a superb job illuminating the vitality and complexity of attitudes toward the Parthenon in the Middle Ages. The book should be read carefully not only by Medievalists but also by Classical scholars who can no longer claim to be the primal stake holders in the preservation and study of the Parthenon phenomenon.


Reviewed by Nassos Papalexandrou, The University of Texas at Austin

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.12.18
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 8:06 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Literature and Book Reviews, Mariology, Roman (Byzantine) Empire, Shrines and Relics
Reactions: 

The Homosexual Debate in the Church of Finland


There has been a debate in recent years escalating in the Orthodox Church of Finland regarding the issue of homosexuality. To bring awareness to this debate, a report has now been compiled by The Brotherhood of Saint Kosmas of Aetolia out of Finland titled, A REPORT ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY DEBATE IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF FINLAND.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 7:52 AM 30 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Orthodoxy in Western Europe, Sexual and Gender Issues
Reactions: 

"We Are Crucifying the Patriarch"


It Might Be True, We Are Crucifying the Patriarch

Monday, December 21, 2009
MEHMET ALİ BİRAND
Hurriyet Daily News


I don’t agree with Foreign Minister Davutoğlu. The patriarch is right. The state, with its ignorance of a Turkish institution for 38 years, has not been able to keep its word and has crucified the patriarch.

No offense, but the culture and custom of crucifying exists in our state. It did not only apply it to the Patriarchate but also to its citizens and institutions, and it continues to do so.

For those who don’t know, Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew is a leader who is followed by millions of Orthodox people from all over the world and one who holds the international status of a patriarch in the heart of a Muslim country. And we, who are supposed to be proud of this, underestimate it by calling him a patriarch based in Istanbul’s Fener neighborhood.

As if we are asked or allowed to make a decision. Even if we don’t accept his ecumenical presence, Bartholomew is one of the most important religious functionaries living in Istanbul. His international influence is enormous and he can immediately reach any person he wishes to reach. He is a leader for who millions of people get in line to kiss his hand.

This country has lived with conspiracy theories for many years. The Patriarchate has been viewed as an institution that sneaks plans about dividing Turkey so Greece can invade the country anew. (!) When his ecumenical presence is accepted, people thought the Christians would create a Vatican in Turkey. This absurd theory was supported by the state, military and some nationalists.

AKP's promises...

The AKP was the first to object. After Tayyip Erdoğan came to power, relations with the patriarch went back to normal. He often met with the patriarch and promised to work – and actually did work – on a solution for the Halki seminary, which persists since 1971.

Bartholomew’s problem with Turkey, and maybe the sole problem, is not being able to open up the Halki seminary. Because this seminary cannot be reopened, no religious functionary could be placed in Istanbul for 38 years now. The patriarch wastes away with each passing day. Turkey is forced to import external religious functionaries for the 15 to 20 churches in the country. The danger arises of leaving the Patriarchate in the hands of externally educated Orthodox religious functionaries.

Please be informed that the Sen Sinod, which is considered the parliament of the Patriarch, is in danger. It will not be able to gather after a while because the number of religious functionaries who are Turkish citizens is decreasing progressively. To bridge the gap, we import religious functionaries from Greece and engage in deception to naturalize them in Turkey.

Besides, the Halki seminary was closed in 1971 only to link other religious colleges to universities, even though it was not a private college. Other colleges that were closed at that time were linked to universities and continued on their path, but the Halki seminary never reopened. Despite the Treaty of Lausanne and despite it being a minority right, we ignored our own signature. It could have been reopened as a religious occupation school connected to the Ministry of National Education. We did not reopen it.

For years, we waited for a response from Greece. We kept the Halki seminary hostage, trying to force the acceptance of western Thrace muftis being elected by the people.

This is our shame in respect to the patriarch. A great injustice. A great despotism. This is the logic of interchange. And Erdoğan was the one to oppose this. I have witnessed it.

The AKP’s Education Minister Hüseyin Çelik in his innumerous statements said, “Leave it up to me and I’ll reopen it in 24 hours.” He repeated persistently that this is a great injustice done to the patriarch.

This logic won’t lead us anywhere

So why can’t it be reopened? All pious forces resist. And now we hear the same reasons: “There is no mosque in Athens... western Thrace muftis are appointed by the state... why should we in this case please the patriarch?”

The Patriarchate is our own institution. And the patriarch is a Turkish citizen. The Halki seminary will educate Turkish citizens and be wholly under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.

Those in western Thrace are all Greek citizens. And as citizens of Europe, they are in a position to pursue their rights. The patriarch asks, “Is it my fault that there are no mosques in Athens or that muftis are appointed by the Greek state?”

Now that’s where the interchange logic surfaces. The logic is, they pressure me and I’ll pressure them. Whereas the one pressured is one of us, our own citizen, and the Patriarchate belongs to us. Instead of taking good care, we push it around. Bartholomew is a well-respected and cautious person.

He always took great care to get along with the administration, always praising Turkey abroad and acting like a Turkish citizen. He never ever used the immense religious power on hand.

Can we expect them to understand us?

If today he says in daily Habertürk and on the American CBS television, “Enough now. I feel crucified… I have no choice but to take this matter to the European Court of Human Rights,” then we need to pay attention.

The patriarch calls out to Ankara and to the prime minister, who he perceives as his friend. “Please save me,” he says. He wants us to keep our word, which was given years ago. Turkey won’t gain from crucifying the patriarch. On the contrary, we’d be humiliated. But if it did the opposite and reopened the Halki seminary, it would provide Ankara with unbelievable prestige, which doesn’t cost much. And those who criticize Turkey before Europe would shut up. Turkey would claim its minorities, and understand its Christian citizens.

If we don’t understand other religions, how can we expect Europe to understand Islam? I am confused. How come the prime minister cannot keep his word? Cannot overcome pious circles? Cannot show the same amount of courage he showed in the Kurdish and Armenian initiatives? Let’s finally listen to Bartholomew. Otherwise, let’s not get angry if he goes before the European Court of Human Rights.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 6:24 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Ecumenical Patriarchate, Orthodoxy in Asia Minor
Reactions: 

"Avatar" and Pantheism


Heaven and Nature

By ROSS DOUTHAT
The New York Times
December 21, 2009

It’s fitting that James Cameron’s “Avatar” arrived in theaters at Christmastime. Like the holiday season itself, the science fiction epic is a crass embodiment of capitalistic excess wrapped around a deeply felt religious message. It’s at once the blockbuster to end all blockbusters, and the Gospel According to James.

But not the Christian Gospel. Instead, “Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message. A recent Pew Forum report on how Americans mix and match theology found that many self-professed Christians hold beliefs about the “spiritual energy” of trees and mountains that would fit right in among the indigo-tinted Na’Vi.

As usual, Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming. The American belief in the essential unity of all mankind, Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s, leads us to collapse distinctions at every level of creation. “Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator,” he suggested, democratic man “seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.”

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.

Indeed, it represents a form of religion that even atheists can support. Richard Dawkins has called pantheism “a sexed-up atheism.” (He means that as a compliment.) Sam Harris concluded his polemic “The End of Faith” by rhapsodizing about the mystical experiences available from immersion in “the roiling mystery of the world.” Citing Albert Einstein’s expression of religious awe at the “beauty and sublimity” of the universe, Dawkins allows, “In this sense I too am religious.”

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 6:15 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Movies, Paganism and the New Age Movement, Religion: Hinduism
Reactions: 
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails